Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 978

Archive 975

Archive 976

Archive 977

Archive 978

Archive 979

Archive 980

→

Archive 985

The contradiction of Poetics chapters 13 and 14

There are Wikipedia articles not only on the Poetics of Aristotle, but also on the Greek words catharsis and hamartia. The debates concerning each of those terms originate from discussion of the Poetics, just as the philosophy of tragedy is considerably influenced by the same text. But there is another, lesser known but nevertheless central and very old debate concerning Aristotle's Poetics, namely the contradiction of chapters 13 and 14. In short, the debate consists of the fact that Aristotle says in one chapter that the best kind of tragedy involves extreme misfortune, but then in the following chapter he seems to claim the very opposite. Here is how this occurred. In chapter 13, Aristotle claims that the best form of tragedy, or form of tragic plot, is a change of fortune from good to bad. He also appears to claim in chapter 13 that tragedy should end in misfortune. But in chapter 14, Aristotle judges that the best kind of treatment of the "terrible deed," to kill a member of one's own family, to be of this form, that the killer at first does not know who they are about to kill. Then they recognize and refrain from killing. But since the mere threat of death is a smaller misfortune than actual death, why would Aristotle now say that this is "best" (kratiston)? In the late 17th century, the eminent French classicist André Dacier noted that "this is a great difficulty."

There is not enough room in the article on the Poetics to contain this issue, because that might clutter up the Poetics article. The question is, is this issue not notable, and too arcane, despite how much work has been done on it over the last 500 years? During the renaissance, Lodovico Castelvetro and Piero Vettori made the earliest known attempts to respond. Castelvetro suggested that Aristotle simply made a mistake in chapter 14. In 1769, the 18th century German playwright and critic Gotthold Ephraim Lessing created one of the main solutions, in response to André Dacier, whose solution had been successful for a time. Since Lessing, other treatments have been published by distinguished classical scholars still working today.

This is the case I propose for the notability of this debate. First, the notability of the writers involved throughout modern history. Lessing is very notable. In the mid-20th century, Gerald Else published a similar contribution in his 1956 book on the Poetics. Stephen Halliwell published another highly influential response to the problem in 1986, as did Sheila Murnaghan in 1995. The topic is still being written about occasionally in classical studies today. Elsa Bouchard's 2012 chapter on the subject has been regarded highly by classics scholars, as is the analysis of Malcolm Heath from 2008 and 2017. Consider also, that problems on which there is no perfect consensus for a solution seem notable. There are Wikipedia articles on that kind of subject, even in the humanities as well as (albeit of a very different kind) in math, philosophy, and science.

It seems that not only this problem itself, but also the writers who have published prominently on it, are all notable.Cdg1072 (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cdg1072. The Teahouse is a place for asking and answering questions about the process of editing Wikipedia, and about its policies and guidelines. We do not resolve content issues here, but you can certainly begin a discussion at Talk:Poetics (Aristotle). It is possible that a separate article is justified, based on the list of sources you have mentioned. Please read Wikipedia:Splitting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. I went to the Poetics article and started a discussion in the talk page as you proposed. I do have one more question. I've never successfully created a section, much less an article. What if another individual interested in the topic does not agree that I should be the one to start the article--what if they don't like my initial draft? Perhaps these are unnecessary worries, and it would not be so difficult.Cdg1072 (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Cdg1072, I suggest that you read Your first article, and follow its advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

How to contact an editer to get a reference

Hi, I would like to ask the editor of a page where they got their information from. Specifically I would like to know where they got the value for the density of desflurane from! Can someone help me?

Title of page: Desflurane

Thanks

Jamestself (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

To contact an editor look at the Tool section on the left side menu on Wikipedia's interface and if they've enabled it, it should say "Email this user" click on that and then ask them via the email if its private. ImpWarfare (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Jamestself, next to the editor's name, you should see a 'talk' link - click on that to take you to their talk page, and ask them there. If you get stuck, mention the article you're looking at and the source in question and I'll take a look. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jamestself. It is quite likely that the editor may no longer be active. The best place to start to find the information is at Talk:Desflurane and you may get some useful feedback at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies - read too quickly, I see that you already did mention the article and the assertion you were asking about! The assertion about the density is unsourced, but it wasn't added recently. Finding out who added it would take a bit of time - you'd have to go through the edit history of the article to find out when it was added and who added it, in order to contact them. Cullen328 is right, you could ask on the talk page - but if you have a different value for the density, and a reliable source to support it, you could just change it and reference your source. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Wth! Lemme join the party too! The value was added in this edit. Its reasonable to assume that it was taken from the book that they added at the end of that edit. You can see who made that edit as well. Leave a message on their talk page or via email. The editor was last active one year ago, on july 2018 but were breifly back on April 1 too. If you merely wish to challenge it though, provide your source and start a discussion on the page's talk page.Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 20:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jamestself: With chem articles, it's easy – there's usually an "infobox" at the top right of the article, containing links to many databases, including NIH PubChem and RSC ChemSpider. They document the various properties along with cites to their sources (often manufacturer datasheets, as in this case, where we see various values depending on the number of decimals – 1.465, 1.47, or 1.5 g/ml). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello TeaHouse editors I would like some help/advice on my daft.

Hello I would like some help/advice with (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sincere_Engineer) specifically on what i need to add or what is missing. Also I still have some more information that will be added to the draft. ((Sidenote)But I just wanted to see the procedure of making article, and to see if I am doing things okay, but I was declined which is fine. Now I need to figure out what I need to improve on. any help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humblemogwai (talk • contribs) 09:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Humblemogwai, it's exactly as the notice says. The article looks fine but there are no reliable sources referenced, enough to prove that the subject is notable for wikipedia. See WP:RS and WP:GNG, then look for some sources, 2-3 at least. Content adding is based on what those sources say. You don't first add content from what you know and then look for references, because you might not always find sources to support what you want to say and WP:OR is not allowed. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 09:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Publishing an article

Hi, I have created a draft and wish to convert it to an article and publish it. How do I go about doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianstudent246 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Indianstudent246. The draft in question is Draft:Intern Theory. I am sorry but this draft is not ready for the encylopedia. It is only three sentences long, contains only one reference, and fails to show that this topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. There are a lot of things that can be mentioned, I require help from someone who is experienced in writing an article on Wikipedia. Would you be able to help me? User:Cullen328

Hello again, Indianstudent246. I am sorry but I have no interest in this particular topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Indianstudent246: Hello. If you are involved with InternTheory (apparently spelt without a space) or the people behind it, you are generally not the person to write about it on Wikipedia, per WP:COI. Please also take note of WP:PROMO and the rest of that article regarding Wikipedia's purpose, and what it is not. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Contents

How exactly can you create contents in a page? something like this:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Borg (talk • contribs) 07:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It comes in automatically when there are enough sections. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Benjamin Borg. A table of contents is automatically made if there are at least four section headings. See more at WP:TOC. Qbajjar is small page with a single heading so there is no reason for a table of contents. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

                Alright, thanks. Benjamin Borg (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection to several articles.

Hi there, I'm Kaito Nakamura, a fellow Wikipedia editor! I just wanted to discuss the possibility of the addition of semi-protection or protection from IP address users for the following articles:

• The Conjuring Universe
• Annabelle (film)
• Annabelle: Creation

The reason for this request is due to repeated vandalism occurrences from IP address users. Even if any form of protection is unavailable, I request an administrator to overlook the history for these articles. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaito Nakamura (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I recommend looking at this page and following the guidance presented: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. If protection is not required, you'll get a response saying why, which you can use to aid your further decisions on similar issues. Give it a try.Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Blues and Jazz

I want to expand articles about blues and jazz players. How do I do this? All the suggested articles so far have been about Indian films and African militias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue windy muso (talk • contribs) 12:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

If by players, you mean musicians, you can start at Category:Jazz musicians. It even has a sub-category Category:Jazz-blues musicians. Suggestbot suggests articles based on your history. So, once you've edited a few articles in your interest area, it will be reflected on the bot's suggestions. Hope this helps! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Administration assistant needed. Urgent request

Hello everyone, I need a help it's urgent an IP user (2409:4055:597:3D8D:0:0:12F6:38A1). I'm a sock of User:AR.Dmg. I don't Any fellow Wikipedia with that name. I'm a geniune editor. I'm a undergraduate student. I like film, series, game, I want to contribute. But uf everyone would judge and harassed me. I will complain to Wikipedia and want strict action against them. and want the complete information to prove myself innocent. MDPMHG (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

For urgent cases requiring Admin assistance, start at WP:ANI. If the editor was only threatening you in that edit summary to intimidate you, you can report them instead. If they do report you, you'll get a message on the talk page. Follow that message and defend yourself. If you get blocked without being asked first, as unlikely as it is (mistakes do happen), you can also appeal the block. So, no need to worry. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

MDPMHG is currently blocked as sockpuppet and per Talk page, has submitted an unblock request. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been following closely. Very informative, the whole process. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

External links in article

Hello! My question is this: in the section called "Critical studies and reviews of Levitt's work" in the article Helen Levitt, are the external links properly formatted, or correct according to WP:MOS? I don't think I have seen this kind of external linking before in an article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia allows external links within the articles at all. First I've seen this kind of thing. It's probably best moved to "External links" section. Seems completely inappropriate to me. Bibliography is a section for listing the subject's works, not works on the subject, not least the subject's obituaries.It appears it was moved from appropriate sections in this edit. I suggest moving it back, perhaps as a subsection of external links, and pinging the editor who made that edit to ask if they know something we don't. The formatting itself though, follows standard citation format in Wikipedia. So, I'm not sure what you mean.Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 23:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

thanks for that. I know some veteran editors lurk here, so I look forward to hearing what they think as the answer will probably be immediately obvious to them.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I fear others might have been skipping this one assuming it's already been addressed, or agreeing with my answer. I suggest, you lurk here yourself, and ping whoever comes around answering other questions for a while. Alternatively, I reiterate, WP:BE BOLD. You don't need to worry a lot about doing what you think is best to improve the encyclopedia. If someone else comes and reverts you with explanation, you can start a dialog with them then.Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328, David notMD, and 331dot:, etc. please direct your attention here. A second opinion is being expected on this thread.Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Usedtobecool, these links are routinely used in the body of articles for bibliographies of authors, because these are essentially lists of citations. However, because these are about the subject rather than by the subject, they should be moved to a further reading section. GMG^talk 15:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with GreenMeansGo. Another approach is to use some of these sources as inline references. For example, in the New York Times article in that section, Levitt describes the making of her 1948 documentary film In the Street. The film is described just below, and that interview could be used as a reference instead. And so on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging ThatMontrealIP. Speaking more broadly, external links should not be used in the prose body of an article, but they are acceptable in a dedicated further reading section, as long as they are not promotional or indiscriminate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that is exactly the kind of experienced answer I was looking for. I renamed the section in question to "Further reading".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

HappyINC

I’ve run into problems with this user and I want to block their user page because they are rude and accusing me for all the wrong doings but I don’t know how to block someone Please help!92.11.248.220 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Editors do not have the ability to block other editors. From HappyINC's user page User talk:HappyINC has been perhaps too enthusiastic and has received guidance - example, no copyright content - but no other editor is of opinion that behavior is so egregious as to warrant a block. You two had a disagreement (content on H's Talk page deleted by H), but if you both walk away from it, everything should calm down. David notMD (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Great idea! But I only tried to ask them why they did something wrong on the numberblocks page92.11.248.220 (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that nearly every editor believes they are correct in their edits (except vandalism), i.e., editing in good faith. Some editors do not have an excess of tact. And/or have an inflated sense of self. Regardless, be polite, and most heated interactions will cool off. David notMD (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

How to make change the colour/color of your user name

I’ve seen other users do this but I don’t know how to do it and i think it might be a problem because Of the style but you can give a list or put it on my talk page so I don’t forget 92.11.248.220 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Before you make changes to your signature, do you want to make an account first? William2001^(talk) 20:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Once you create an account (if you wish, of course), please take a look at WP:SIG#CustomSig. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 20:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

If you mean to change from red to blue then it happens automatically if you create a user page for the account. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Wanna make own profile on wikipedia

Wanna make a profile on wikipedia Which will be shown on Google when search by the people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogpalsinghahada5 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Yogpalsinghahada5: In order to do that, you have to make an article about yourself, which is not an accepted practice here because it is seen as being conflict of interest editing. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 16:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Yogpalsinghahada5. I'm afraid that (like many other people) you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia does not contain profiles - not one. What it contains is encyclopaedia articles about notable subjects. These articles are almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about the subject (which is why I say they are not profiles). If we do have an article about you, it will not be your article, you will not have any control over its content, and your involvement in it should be limited to making suggestions for edits. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yogpalsinghahada5 I would add that Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing your internet presence or aiding search results for you. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, your user page looks like the beginning of a WP:Fakearticle. Please change it if you don't want it to be deleted. See WP:Userpage for details of what the page should be used for. Sorry to disappoint you, but Wikipedia is not available as personal webspace. Please use social media for that purpose. Dbfirs 05:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to read about what the users above are saying, here it is: WP:NOTSOCIAL. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 04:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Mediawiki

Dear all, How can I contribute to the mediawiki page. I am new here. best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njeng eric s (talk • contribs) 08:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Njeng eric s and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not convinced you have asked the right question - but I'll deal with it first. Mediawiki is a software engine which drives innumerable wiki sites, including Wikipedia. If you want to edit and improve the encyclopaedia page on Wikipedia about MediaWiki, you would go here: MediaWiki. Or you could visit its actual homepage at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki.

But I think you really meant "How can I contribute to Wikipedia?" Is that correct? If so, I've already left you a welcome message on your talk page with a load of helpful links. As I see you've already done The Wikipedia Adventure and collected all the badges, I would advise you next to read: Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. As you are an academic, I'm sure you appreciate the importance of providing citations to support factual claims. So you might like to look at topics related to your own personal or professional interests, and look first for minor errors. Typos and grammatical errors are easy to fix. Factual statements that are not supported by citations would benefit from you researching sources to include. I always say to students that the value of Wikipedia is as a starting point, but that the real gem in any page is the list of references which allow them to go to Reliable Sources and to learn more for themselves. I'm sure you would agree? If so, we have a page entitled Help:Referencing for beginners, though it doesn't make clear that our two alternative editing tools each have a "Cite" button which allows you to enter reference details into the relevant fields for title, author, url, publication, date etc., which makes life relatively easy.

Although we never advise new editors to try to create new articles right from the start, you'd be surprised how many do want to. So we would point them to Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Articles for creation. This allows an editor to start work on a draft article, and then to submit it for review once its ready. You also have a 'Sandbox' link at the top of the page in desktop view, and this is your own personal worklspace for praring articles, or collating informtion relevant to editing this encyclopaedia. I am afraid we are very good at pointing people to other help pages, and we sometimes seem to have far too many of them! The Teahouse is a friendly place to help new editors, so do pop back anytime you need assistance. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Maynard Hubbard Salmon II

I submitted the named draft for review. I saw there was one edit. What's next? How does it get moved so that it's public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CherieSalmon (talk • contribs) 00:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Maynard Hubbard Salmon, II. I shortened it by more than half. Has not been submitted yet. David notMD (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You can submit it for review at Articles for Creation by adding the phrase subst:submit inside double curly brackets {{ }} to the top of the draft or user page. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Your User name - CherieSalmon - suggests you have a personal relationship to M.H. Salmon. This does not preclude your creating this article, but on your User page you should declare the nature of your conflict of interest (see WP:COI).— Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs)

Razor Ruddock (Footballer)

Hi.I dont really have a question but rather would like to point out an error to help with your accuracy. On The Razor Ruddock page it says that he was the first to be eliminated from the Celebrity Big Brother house.In fact he made the final of that season and was the first out on that day.He was actually in the house for the duration. I just watched it so I thought I should let you know since you guys have resolved so many of my arguments and taught me so many things.

Thank you, Christopher Soderlund — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabsdad1 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tabsdad1, I'm glad we were able to help out. Thanks for letting us know about the problem. Come back if you have any more questions. Interstellarity T 🌟 14:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for article creation?

Hello!

I want to be respectful in the utmost to the policies of Wikipedia and was wondering the most effective method to get a page created for my employer. They are a gallery of note and I believe there are documents to prove this but I also realize my attempt to (and failed attempts) to author an article are suspect, obviously. There are artists the gallery represents with pages that have little to no mention of the gallery though there is documentation to suggest the gallery is significant in the artists’ continued notoriety. Would a possible avenue to creation be to propose edits to those pages that adhere to the guidelines? Looking at galleries of similar acclaim, their pages are paired down to just a few sentences explaining the gallery and its aims. Would I be able to propose or author something like that if I provide acceptable sourcing? Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. And if creation of this page is far from likely at this time, an explanation of why would be helpful, just so I can explain it to my employer and they can revisit in the future. Also if this is not the correct place to get this kind of advice, where is the best place to seek that out?

Thanks for all the help and patience! Hehrenfried (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hehrenfried, It is not impossible, but very difficult to write an acceptable article about an art gallery. There have been extensive discussions about the notability of art galleries and the consensus is that such articles must fulfill the requirements of our notability guideline for companies and organizations, WP:NCORP and our general notability guidelines, WP:GNG. In my experience that is a standard that very few galleries can meet. By a quick count, it seems that the gallery represents 12 artists (out of 32) on who we have a article. That's fairly low. If you can provide me with a list of sources that discuss the gallery itself and meet the requirements of the notability guidelines I mentioned above, I'll give you my assessment of the viability of an article. Please post on my talk page. Vexations (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I concur. A quick internet search on Boers-Li Gallery found very little written about the gallery. For artists that are subjects of Wikipedia articles, listing a gallery or galleries that their work is carried by would not be appropriate, especially if those galleries are not subjects of existing articles. Notability is not contagious. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Vexations & David notMD, thank you for the responses. This was really helpful and clears up a lot of my confusion and also just saves everyone work in the future should I have continued to stumble around. I'm not back at work till Wednesday and can discuss with everyone there and also see what I can dig up by way of notability after that date that would potentially make a case for the gallery's representation here but, like you both said, seems slim to none at this time. And whether or not they like it, I think this explanation is one they can appreciate. I'll take a look at articles on the notability standards to better explain to the gallery what exactly needs to be shown. Thanks again!Hehrenfried (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

My virus-protection gives me phishing-warnings when I try to access your webpage (boersligallery), that's not good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This has to do with where the site is hosted. Something the gallery is aware of but good to add it to my list of what is preventing a page from being made.Hehrenfried (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status of scans from archive.org

Hello. I'm interested in knowing if images from public domain (<1900) books on the Internet Archive can be freely uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? And if so, do I simply upload the entire page scan, or should the image be cropped to remove captions or lines of text? The image use policy page (on Wikipedia) states that "Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights—they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing," and archive.org does appear on the list of public domain image resources, which makes it sound like it is acceptable, but I thought I'd check first, especially as archive.org is only listed under "Literature". --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bradypus Tamias and welcome to the Teahouse. Based on Commons:Licensing (this page tells you what images are allowed on Commons), you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons since it is public domain. I would upload the original and then upload another with the cropped version. Interstellarity T 🌟 17:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your very quick response. I will do what you suggested.--Bradypus Tamias (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Lost picture

I was wondering how to get a picture back because i was lokking at something and it said edit and i went to backspace and type something in and then went back to the regular screen and it wasnt there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nohnny4607 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Assuming this is about Mickey Callaway – I have reverted the article to the state it was in before you accidentally removed his picture. Maproom (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Nohnny4607, when you post anything on talk pages and forums on Wikipedia, please add a section header to separate one conversation from another. Maproom just did that for you. Interstellarity T 🌟 19:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

--DukeOfGrammar (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@DukeOfGrammar: And your point is...? --CiaPan (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

Hello all, I have been working on creating articles for broadway/off broadway musicals that do not have articles yet. I emailed the producer of a show and they emailed me back and provided me with relevant articles and pdfs about the production. Am I allowed to use these as sources? To be clear, I have no connection to the musical and I am not working for them in any way- I just reached out to them via email to get more sources. I know the article must be unbiased, but before I go any further I want to make sure I'm allowed to use these pdfs. Apathyash (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Apathyash Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Any sources would need to be publicly accessible so it would be possible for readers to verify the information. If you were given documents that are not publicly accessible, it would be difficult for you to use them. Also, article content must be based on what unaffiliated, independent reliable sources state, not just on primary sources state. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be possible to be more specific if you describe what exactly you were given. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

wikipedia page creation

can anyone please help me? I want to create a page for myself. Wayne Ray Chavis. I have a website wayneraychavis.com I have 3 albums several singles and a monthly youtube show on my official wayne ray chavis music channel. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayraycha (talk • contribs) 23:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wayraycha: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves, or in helping spread the word about someone. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has article about subjects with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in this case, the special definition of a notable musician written at WP:BAND. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources, sources not affiliated with you in any way, have chosen to say about you, Most people cannot do this.

If you have reviewed the notability criteria and truly feel that you merit a Wikipedia article, you should request that others write it at Requested Articles, though it will not be done quickly. Also please keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable, there are good reasons to not want one. See this link. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent sources. You can't control the content of an article about you, nor prevent others from editing it. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to make my first page submission....

I have completed my article in the sandbox and I am ready to publish it for the world to see. I hit the publish button at the bottom of the sandbox page but I do not find my article when searching the Wikipedia webiste. How do I publish my article for public view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishtanksamurai (talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fishtanksamurai: It's a little confusing, but the "publish changes" button does not turn your draft into an article. It's simply the button that you use to make the edit. If you would like to submit your draft for review, click the button labeled "Submit your draft for review". I just added it to your sandbox now. You can use it when you think the draft is ready. I would also suggest reading Your first article. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 22:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

As a side point, the article will likely be rejected as it reads more like Spam than an encyclopedic article. Please read WP:NOTADVERTISING for more information. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 22:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft can either be about the YouTube channel GodzillaMendoza or the creator Xavier Mendoza (you), bot not both. As written, this is extremely likely to be declined. David notMD (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Draft_talk:GodzillaMendoza, I removed some stuff in the draft, check out the edit history for the reasons, e.g., 100K subs is excessively lousy for YouTube channels with an English audience.
Meanwhile the draft was rejected, that doesn't necessarily mean that you must give up, but you certainly need very good reasons if you submit the draft again in, say, three months. –84.46.52.119 (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with suggestion to resubmit. In my opinion, neither GodzillaMendoza nor the creator merit an article, as not Wikipedia-notable. David notMD (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

My comment wasn't intended as a "suggestion to resubmit", let's agree to not disagree. –84.46.52.138 (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe this would be most useful tool to identify individual personalities Azmath Ulla Shariff Shariff-e-Zaman(AUS) (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't understand error message.

At the end of Claude G. Bowers, there is a red error message saying the reference "Spencer" was never defined. However, it is defined in note 11. I can't understand why the error message appears. Please help. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I am guessing it's because the section is below the References section, where the previous invokes are already resolved, and possibly wiped. Try defining again for sections below the references; alternatively, move that section above ref section to check if my guess is correct. Waiting to hear! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 09:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You use name=Spencer after the {{reflist}}, i.e., after the <references />, that doesn't work. I've moved the #References section to the end immediately before the #External links, now something with name=Peterson is broken. Update: Actually PrimeHunter did that, and I got no error message for trying exactly the same fix seconds later. –09:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.46.52.138 (talk)

(edit conflict) Hi deisenbe. One of the invokations was after the reference was displayed. This produced the error. I have moved the references further down per MOS:ORDER.[1] 84.46.52.138 made the exact same change but saved later and got a null edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Technical background, that's how multiple {{talk reflist}} on a talk page work, each <references /> displays and undefines all pending references above it. It's a feature, not a bug. –84.46.52.138 (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

New Article Creation - editor assistance please

Hello, I've written and referenced an article on The American University of Yangon, in Myanmar (full disclosure - I work for a sister University) and I wonder if an experienced editor would be able to go through my text and ensure it is accurate? It has been declined as an article, probably because I'm a new editor - apologies for any silly mistakes! Thanks, Imogen — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImogenHopes (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! (Is your username, by any chance, a nod to the BBC journalist, Imogen Foulkes? Couldn't resist asking.) I can't find the draft/article you mention. Did you mean Draft:Yangon American International School? Do you use any other accounts to edit wikipedia apart from this one? After we have these answers, only then can we help you. On the other hand, if it's about the sandbox page that's mentioned on your talkpage, it doesn't exist (anymore). I suggest you leave a message on User:Dan arndt's talkpage since they're the one who declined the submission. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems the sandbox was deleted by User RHaworth for copyright infringement. It means you copied and pasted content from the other page that they mentioned in their deletion. You can not copy-paste content from somewhere else. You have to write content in your own words. In addition, read WP:YFA about what else you should be careful about when writing your first article. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting improvements for a few articles

Hello, Could someone retype Aristobulus_I#Death_and_successor and Alexander_Jannaeus#Family. Both of these sections were copied and pasted from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com. And put Abimelech_(Judges)#First_Battle_of_Shechem into paragraph form. I would greatly appreciate it. Thnx! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi JudeccaXIII. You can be WP:BOLD and rewrite the sections yourself if you like; you can also follow the instructions given in Dealing with copyright violations, at WP:COPYPROB or at WP:CV101. I will ask an administrator named Diannaa to take a look at it; Diannaa is experienced in copyright matters and she might be able to help sort things out as well.

As for putting stuff in paragraph form, you might want to look at WP:PROSE. If you think a paragraph is preferred to bullet points, you can be bold and do so yourself; however, I suggest checking the article's talk page (including any archived pages if they exist) first because this might have been something discussed before and a consensus may have been established to use bullet points. If you don't find any discussion about this and do decided to bold, please follow WP:BRD if someone comes a long later on and restores the bullet point format. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly I know. I just suck at it. I spent a few days expanding Alexander Jannaeus, and all I see is commas. Courtesy from my shit-typing, grammar skills. I'm also the one who expanded Aristobulus I and Abimelech (Judges). This was all my doing. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is imperfect so mistakes aren't really a big deal, unless they involve serious policy or guideline violations. If you're the main contributor to the article and want others familiar with the subject matter to look over what you did, try asking for help at some of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the article talk page. You can also try asking at Wikipedia:Cleanup. Nothing wrong with asking here, but you might get a quicker response from asking at those other pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly, I felt motivated and corrected Abimelech. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia (1905) is in the public domain so it's okay to copy from it if proper attribution is given. There's a template you can use for this purpose: Template:Jewish Encyclopedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Help with article

Hi there! I created a page for a company (that I work for) which was deleted, I have had the page re-instated by the editor who deleted it after editing the page and having another editor look at it and alter things. I have also added further secondary sources referring to the company and altered the language as much as I could to remove any promotional language (I want to avoid as much COI as I can!). Before I re-submit for review, I wanted to double check that it all looks fine and conforms to Wiki's standards of notability and is not promotional. Thanks for any help! Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sano_Genetics - Clarealev (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the article but I do have one advice. Get rid of sources that don't aid in aiding notability, as much as you can. The article doesn't need to be any more than a few sentences long to get accepted if it cites credible, reliable sources that have more than just passing mentions of the subject. However, if you use a lot of primary or unreliable sources in an attempt to make the article long or to show that the subject has wide coverage, the actual reliable sources that would have helped in getting your article passed might get lost in that haystack. Focus on showing that the subject is notable and reliable sources have covered it, everything else comes later (after the article actually gets accepted). Read WP:RS and WP:GNG to begin. See WP:ORG for specific guidelines about companies. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Listing sources of funding does not contribute to notability. My overall opinion is too soon. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

BLP PROD

Can a BLP PROD be used if the article has sources, but they are unreliable? --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 18:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Puzzledvegetable, It depends on what you mean by "unreliable". Interstellarity T 🌟 18:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

​ I'm referring in particular to Michael Sokolove. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 18:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Puzzledvegetable, I would say yes. I tagged it for PROD. Interstellarity T 🌟 18:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

BLP PRODs are for entirely unsourced articles - that certainly wouldn't be appropriate for this article (in its current state anyway - not sure when you looked at it Puzzledvegetable). It has several refs, one of which is a lengthy NYT review of one of the subject's pieces of work. Interstellarity has done a regular PROD, but if that's contested you need to send this to AfD if you don't think the subject is notable.GirthSummit _(blether) 18:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No. BLPPROD cannot be used if the article has any sources (however unreliable and in whatever form, whether that be inline citations, external links, general references, or whatever) that support any material in the article. Normal PROD can be used, but not BLPPROD. Adam9007 (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually minded to contest the PROD that you put on there Interstellarity - the article is a stub, and some of the refs are problematic, but the NYT review is a step along the road to establishing notability. This lengthy Washington Post review is another step. I think this subject is probably notable. Could you explain your rationale for the PROD, or would you be willing to self-revert? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: BLPPROD cannot be applied if there are any sources whatsoever. However, BLPPROD cannot be removed until there is at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject in the article. GMG^talk 19:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, That's assuming the BLPPROD tag was correctly applied. Adam9007 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Correct. GMG^talk 19:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, I've encountered plenty of editors who seem to only look at the removal requirement and completely ignore the placement requirement. Adam9007 (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

 Removed PROD tag. Interstellarity T 🌟 19:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity, Thanks for doing that. The article certainly needs a bit of work, but I suspect it would survive an AfD nomination. I'll try to find time to add some more refs (and remove the dubious ones) later tonight if no one else gets onto it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Interstellarity and Puzzledvegetable: I was largely instrumental in the roll out of the WP:BLPPROD nine years ago. The rules for BLPPROD and WP:PROD are perfectly clear and should not be requiring an explanation here at The Teahouse. The rules just need to be read, and deletion tags should generally only be applied by authorised New Page Reviewers. The reason why PRODs (and other deletion templates) can still be applied manually or with Twinkle is because we never got round to finding a sure way of preventing their misuse by inexperienced users after rolling out WP:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

​ I apologize for not knowing about Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people at the time that I asked the question. That's why I asked a question. And the other editors here were kind enough to answer it. The purpose of the Teahouse is to get answers to questions, which is what I did, and I shouldn't be criticized for it. Just about every question on the Teahouse has an answer written somewhere. The point of the Teahouse is to have other editors tell you what those answers are.

Secondly, there is no policy preventing non New Page Reviewers from using prod templates. If you think there should be, you can vent about it somewhere else, instead of getting annoyed that an editor asked a legitimate question. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 16:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't take me out of context, Puzzledvegetable, I said nothing about there being a policy that non NNPPers can't tag articles - I wrote WP:NPR too. And if you want me to be angry, you'll have to try a lot harder, really a lot ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make anyone angry. I just pointed out that I am permitted to use a BLP Prod despite your misgivings about non NPRs using it. This was never intended to be a lecture about policies (as you called it on my talk page). --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 17:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: The rules for BLPPROD are perfectly clear The official policy may be clear, but if my experience is any indication, then I actually have doubts as to whether it reflects current consensus. Perhaps I should start a RfC? @Puzzledvegetable: My original answer to your original question was merely a reflexion/summary of the official policy. Given my experience, many editors would actually say yes, despite the official policy saying otherwise. Sorry to confuse you, but I fell I should point out that not everyone cares about the rules. Adam9007 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I, and most admins care about them, Adam, quite a lot actually. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

How to get an official Popularity

I want to be a public figure, and wants to be available on google, I'm real and I'm known as Edward — Preceding unsigned comment added by MADONGAOLOU EDWARD (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, and this part is a place to ask about using Wikipedia. We can't help you with getting fame or becoming a public figure. I might suggest that instead of worrying about fame or internet search results, concentrate on finding something you like to do with your life and being happy. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If you are thinking about writing an article about yourself, please take a look at WP:AUTOBIO (in a nutshell: you should not do it). You are welcome to create a userpage, but please take a look at WP:NOTBLOG. And finally, take 331dot's advice seriously. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 17:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I cant write an article

Why?! I can’t write an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by FurryGodzilla (talk • contribs) 10:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! You need to be a member for four days and register at least ten edits before you can create an article. In the meantime, you can read the article about creating your first article as suggested above, and continue editing on pages that already exist. Welcome to Wikipedia! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You can submit Draft:NavaShield to Articles for Creation for review as a new article, but I can tell you right now - no references, no approval. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If you can't find where Articles for Creation is, here: Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. Happy editing. William2001^(talk) 18:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the warm welcome 06:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMRWalker (talk • contribs)

Happy editing! William2001^(talk) 18:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Johnathan Brownlee

Greetings! I'm here to request additional guidance on my first article about filmmaker/producer Johnathan Brownlee. I received helpful input from the editor who reviewed my first two versions, and I've gotten more familiar with the writing/editing process since then and believe I've made the suggested improvements; but I want it to be excellent, as it's my intention to be an active contributor, particularly in the area of the film community. Having read about WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, I would be interested in having my first article on Brownlee be in compliance so that I can use that for future contributions. Any comments and suggestions will be appreciated. MBAWilbins (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Johnathan Brownlee David notMD (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time and edits, David notMD.MBAWilbins (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)