Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 555

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 550 ← Archive 553 Archive 554 Archive 555 Archive 556 Archive 557 → Archive 560

How to submit a page

I have an account and have a page which I think is ready to submit. How do I do this? Jillabus (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Go to the page in question (I assume you mean your user page) and use the "Move" option from the menu. You might have to select "More" first to see this option. It will ask you for a new article name. For future reference, your user page is not the normal place to develop a new page. Try your sandbox User:Jillabus/sandbox, or a subpage (say User:Jillabus/Gault archaeological site in this case. or draft space. Meters (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. Because all of your edits have been to your userspace your account is not yet autoconfirmed so you cannot move the page yourself. You may request the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Meters (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a very impressive first page. We don't use embedded external links but that's a minor issue. I'd suggest fixing that before havign the page moved. Meters (talk)
Or any one of us who is autoconfirmed could move it. I've done so, the page is now at Gault archaeological site. Rojomoke (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
But that leaves a redirect at User:Jillabus that will have to be taken care of. Jillabus could just blank the page if they know how to get there.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  Done - I removed the redirect. The page User:Jillabus is now available for Jillabus to use, or not, as desired. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Centralized Announcement System

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Software requests the installation of the Centralized Announcement System on a users talk page. Anyone able to kindly advise where one finds said beast, and how one actually installs it? I've checked various areas of Wikipedia, but have been unable, thus far, to find any appropriate reference to it. A short post on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Software talk page, as advised by another user, has yet to bring a suitable response. RedDwarfPlanet (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@RedDwarfPlanet: welcome to the Teahouse, what you want is buried deep at Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/templates#Centralized Announcement System. That said the project looks a bit moribund so I don't think there would be a lot of traffic as the template has hardly been amended since 2010. Nthep (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Nthep: Thanks very much for the info. Cheers!(RedDwarfPlanet (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC))
@RedDwarfPlanet: When you join that Wikiproject, you should receive a welcome message with that information (see the link provided above by Nthep).--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: Then maybe I missed a step, somehow? Again, thanks very much for the info. Cheers!(RedDwarfPlanet (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC))

Attaching a picture to the draft

I have posted my draft article on my Sandbox and uploaded 2 illustrative diagrams. One of the diagrams is attached to the draft and the other one is not. It is visible in the list of uploads with me as the author but I am not able to link it to my draft. Please advice how to link it and after that how to publish my draft. Thank you,Mat phys (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You had merely included the filename but forgotten to format it as a link; see this correction. As for publishing, before you think of that you need to sort out the referencing. Read Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:Citing sources. If your references demonstrate that the subject of the draft is notable in Wikipedia's terms, you can think of putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft to submit it for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Another point is that you have no wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles, so you ought to read WP:Manual of Style/Linking. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
David Biddulph, Thank you for your helpful advice. After I get the pictures, I intend to get my article reviewed before publishing. That would have been my next question - how to submit it for review. I am trying to read the help pages. I have also marked some places in my article where I would give links to other articles in Wikipedia. Thank you again. Mat phys (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend that you forget about pictures for now and concentrate on references to show notability of the subject. Without demonstrating notability in Wikipedia's terms, you will be wasting your time. At first glance, your draft looks like something which would be much more suited to a scientific journal than to Wikipedia; see WP:NOTJOURNAL. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks David. I will add the references and then seek your advice. It is probably written in the style of a journal paper, that may need changing. However, it is not a journal paper because all the material in the article is based upon published knowledge. Thanks. Mat phys (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
David,thank you very much for your what you called "little bit of advice". I really value your advice and I appreciate it that you are taking so much of interest in helping me to refine my article. Thank you.

I hope you get this message. Actually, I am never sure if I can reach you. The only way, I can seek help is through Tea House but the Tea House link of older questions get relegated to the extent that they may be lost into the oblivion as the time passes. Anyway, thanks for the advice. After I incorporate all the references (which is taking a lot of time and effort), I will reformulate Ref 5. Thank you again for your help. Mat phys (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Mat phys: old Teahouse posts are archived, but not deleted, so you can always find them using the search box under the table of contents. However, it is not good practice to reply to a section in an archive: to do that, you should either start a new section in the current Teahouse page, and wikilink the old section; or if more appropriate, you might reply on the user talk page of somebody. In this case, you found the question still on the page, so replying here is fine; and if you had pinged David Biddulph (as I have just done), he would get a notification. (I used {{U|David Biddulph}} to ping him, but there are other ways as well.) --ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

How to find complete list of categories

A week or so ago I found complete list of categories with an extended alphabet at the top giving links. Try as I can I am unable to find it again. Could you direct me to it please?Pogga D (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Pogga D. See Special:Categories. TimothyJosephWood 11:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi all,

I'm trying to create an article on the house music DJ and producer Dixon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dixon). The draft has been declined because the references "do not adequately show the subject's notability". I've been reading the guidelines under notability (music) and today I've added several more sources, so I would really appreciate some help from any editors here to let me know if this entry now meets the notability standard, and if not, what kinds of references might help.

I'll just quicky note here some of the references I believe are particularly reliable and independent: The BBC (UK) Billboard Magazine (US) Die Welt (national daily German newspaper) Die Tageszeitung (national daily German newspaper) Trax (French music magazine, also published in print) Mixmag (UK magazine, also published in print) "Lost and Sound" (book published by Suhrkamp) Ale8or (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Billboard and BBC are really good oned I know of by reputation; the others sound reliable to me except the book (I didn't know WP published books?). Basically, more news and magazine sources are good if you can find them, and unless they're tabloids or those fake news sites, they should count as reliable. Features on Dixon in newspapers or magazines should adequately demonstrate his notability. Looking at the draft it seems pretty close, but it would help if his discography includes whether the single/album got on the Top 100 or something else significant. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply White Arabian Filly. The book is published by Suhrkamp - a major European publisher. I was trying to link to its Wikipedia page here (fixed that now). Regarding the lack of a Top 100 single/album: Dixon is primarily known as a DJ. His music productions are secondary in comparison. I think getting the No.1 spot in the RA poll is good evidence of notability for a DJ - most of the articles referenced mention this fact. --Ale8or (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Another notability criterion that the article meets is "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city". This is evidenced by the quotes from Die Welt, Die Tageszeitung and Mixmag.--Ale8or (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The only comment that I have to add is that the list of Remixes and Edits is too long, and I would suggest trimming it. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon I have implemented your suggestion. You also previously noted that the draft will require disambiguation. I'll need to look up how to do that. Then there's one more issue that was noted by Scorpion293: "the article needs to be cleaned up". I'm not sure what exactly needs to be done in this case. Can anyone help me out with this? --Ale8or (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor going IP

Hello, is it wrong for a editor to intercalate edits between an account and a IP? Bertdrunk (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be better not to do so, and would be better to edit entirely from the account. In some cases, alternating between editing from an account and editing from an IP could be treated as sockpuppetry, in particular if the intent was to appear to be multiple people. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
While Robert McClenon's advice is in general good, WP:LOGOUT does say "There is no policy against editing while logged out per se", Bertdrunk. So, discouraged, yes; wrong, no. --ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks people. Bertdrunk (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Citation Message

Hello,

As a beginner with the help of Wiki Tutorial I tried to add citation source to few Wikipedia pages as requested but I wasn't able to remove that message of citation so do anyone know how to remove it from the page after linking is done.

Signing HarrisJayaraj (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, HarrisJayaraj. The template that generates the tag at the beginning of an article is generated by the first line of wikicode in the article. Simply remove that wikicode, save, and the tag will go away. If a section is tagged, the wikicode at the beginning of that section will generate the tag. Remove it when the issue is resolved. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi HarrisJayaraj. In addition, most maintenance tags have this linked message in them (Learn how and when to remove this template message). The linked page has a lot of information on this topic.

The fact you have taken on this activity of adding references is wonderful. The last thing I want to do is discourage you from that really core, important activity. I do have some suggestions however about things to keep in mind when doing it.

What we are looking for mostly is the addition of highly reliable, secondary sources, entirely independent of the topic of the article. For example, mainstream books (which can sometimes be sourced at Google Books), newspaper article (see Google News Archive and Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources) and the like.

Some of the citations you added to Big Sky, Montana were not of this type, but rather were non-independent, web based, tourist cites, a real estate company's website trying to get people to buy there and so touting its virtues, and in one case, another Wikipedia article (which cannot be used as a source at all). So, the {{refimprove}} tag still belongs in that article in my opinion, because even after your additions, there are still large swaths of the content that remain unsourced, and because some of the citations in it now are not of the reliable types we want. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Moved an Article out of Sandbox

Hi, I moved an article out of Sandbox but it was never published! HELPMMay25 (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi MMay25, it looks like another editor has put it under the title Draft:Speaking in Tongues (documentary). They must have thought it's not quite ready to be published in msinspace, but it's still in Wikipedia. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

moving a draft to published

Hi, I created an article in my sandbox. How do I publish it? Editoremacb (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Editoremacb. Your draft has been moved to main space as Office of the Quartet. However, we already have a well-developed article called Quartet on the Middle East. It seems to me that these two articles should be merged. What do you think? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Organisation THEOplayer

Hello, I want to launch my company THEOplayer. We have some very good references and are the best video player of Europe.

What should I do to launch our page? (Bartalbrechttheo)

We were refused because there was advertisment in but we offer advertisement in our player.


Bartalbrechttheo (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Bartalbrechttheo. It looks like your article has been nominated for deletion because it read like an advertisement. Content on Wikipedia needs to be written in a neutral encyclopedic tone, in the same way you would expect to read an article in Worldbook or Encyclopædia Britannica.
Also, to show that your company is notable enough to have its own article, you need to demonstrate that is has had sustained non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company. This is done by including references in the article. For guidance on how to do this see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Finally, since you are connected with the company you are trying to write about, you should take a moment and review Wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest, as failure to follow these may lead to a restriction or loss of editing privileges. TimothyJosephWood 16:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Bartalbrechttheo. Wording such as "THEOplayer is the industry-leading HTML5 based video player delivering a world-class viewer experience across devices" is highly promotional and is not that way that an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia describes topics. You say that you want to launch your product, but Wikipedia is not the place to do that. We are an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Best, we sell as Bitmovin, JW Player also advertisement in our player. This is one of the features that we sell. So I don't understand why they can mention that and we are not allowed to do that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmovin We are also award winning, probably it is better to make a link to our references of Streaming Media? I have only mentioned links at the bottom or do I need to implement this via References? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartalbrechttheo (talk • contribs) 08:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not that there is advertising in the player, Bartalbrechttheo, but rather that the Wikipedia article you wrote was overly promotional and that it is not clear that the player has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources, which is what we require to have an article about a topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Bartalbrechttheo: New companies like yours generally do not meet the requirements that Timothyjosephwood mentions above to be noteable (in Wikipedia's meaning of the word). You will need to wait until there is a substantial body of reliable, independent discussion about the company before its article would be suitable for inclusion. --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Contains Runic text

The articles Runes and Bind rune, and doubtless others, display only black boxes in the text where runes should be. I would expect a warning message or instructions in or near the infobox, as is done for IPA characters, but I have found none.

Opening the page in the editor shows a call to Template:Contains Runic text. What's it for? Presumably it's supposed to produce some kind of display, but it doesn't. See (or rather don't see) test here:

nowiki: {{Contains special characters|Runic}}

TEMPLATE CALL HERE--->

 
This page contains runic characters. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of runes.

<---TEMPLATE CALL HERE

The template's code consists of a parameterized call to another template, which also doesn't display anything, though that's probably because it needs the arguments to be filled:

nowiki: {{Contains special characters| compact = {{{compact|}}}| section = {{{1|}}}| image = {{{image|Tyr-runes.svg}}}| special = [[runes|runic]] characters| characters = runes| width = {{{width|}}}}}<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

(Omitting the "Documentation" part):

TEMPLATE CALL HERE--->

 
This page contains runic characters. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of runes.

<---TEMPLATE CALL HERE

The runic characters have been input directly into the wikicode. I looked up the Unicode chart and put one in by code point. No help:

Escaped: &amp:#x16A0; FEHU

CHARACTER DISPLAY--->ᚠ FEHU<---CHARACTER DISPLAY

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Thnidu. The template displays fine here (twice) (as substituted) as well as at the articles Runes and Bind rune (as transcluded). You don't see the boxes here or at these articles (or at the top of the template page) saying:
This page contains runic
characters. Without proper rendering
support, you may see question marks,
boxes, or other symbols instead of
runes.?
The template is to tell users that runes included on the page , not in the template, may not display properly without special browser support and provides links to help pages that might help you glean the support you need for proper display. The template itself contains a few runes just to show what runes are, and those might not display for you, if the very problem the template is warning about is a problem for you, but the balance of the text should be shown.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Weirder and weirder, Fuhghettaboutit.
  1. I was originally seeing and describing the problem on my smartphone (Samsung Android S-6, model # SM-G920V, Android v6.0.1, kernel v3.10.61). I should have mentioned that right out.
  2. Now, on my laptop, I see it in Runes but not in Bind rune. The latter has no infobox; could that have something to do with it?
  3. But I also see it both times here on this talk page, where there is no infobox.
(BTW, I adjusted your indent. Your rendering of the template text wasn't indented at all.)
--Thnidu (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Thnidu: I erroneously said it was displaying in Bind rune (I just saw it displaying everywhere you weren't so I was not careful in my look there). It's not even posted on that page, though {{runic}} is, which unlike the template at issue, is for display of runes and redirects to {{Script/Runic}}, which "allows users to specify their own style for Runic script. Proper display of the characters is achieved by explicit font declarations". I have no idea why the template wouldn't display on your android, except that it seems to me lots of parts of the interface are not displayed in the mobile view, by design.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

estiahwiki.com

estiahwiki is down. Neither myself nor my friends/associates can access estiahwiki.com..... Why??216.227.53.28 (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but this page is for help in the use of Wikipedia, not estiahwiki. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I have access to a large number of Japanese press translations from just after World War II and would like to provide links to some of these in relevant articles. How can I ensure that a source is sufficiently relevant to a topic to warrant a link? For example, I have one source that lists the proposed rules and policies of the Japanese Communist Party as of February 1946. Would this be worth linking in the Japanese Communist Party article?

Thank you.

Kwarstadt3 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Kwarstadt3. One option is certainly to follow Wikipedia's guideline on being bold, and add them yourself. If someone disagrees and reverts you, then you can discuss whether it's appropriate on the article's talk page. Another could be to post a link to the material on a related WikiProject, like WikiProject Military history, and see if they have any good ideas where it might fit in. Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood

I created a page that is now published (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Emsley_(crystallographer)) and have linked to this page from the appropriate site (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coot_(software)). Having created a link to the former from the latter, I deleted the "This article is an orphan" notice on the page I had created. This orphan notice continues to return, being added, as far as I can tell, by a bot; what do I do to remove this notice? Have I not created the link properly somehow? 131.249.80.207 (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like all you did was remove the date from the orphan tag, rather than removed the whole thing. All AnomieBOT did was date the tag, because that's pretty much what it does around doing. I have removed the orphan tag in its entirety and you shouldn't see it back. TimothyJosephWood 18:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Grammar and quick edits of grammar to repair

When I am just casually reading an article and notice something simple (not integral to meaning or teaching) in grammar usage, (will find out "how to" repair quickly) would like to know how to correct the mistake.?? Without what I would call a major edit. Kind of like a school teacher putting a red tick mark on a paper's error. in regards to article on Poland... there is some kind of restriction.Lon Watkins (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lon Watkins, and welcome to the Teahouse!
A fairly large portion of the edits on Wikipedia are just these sorts of corrections. Just edit the page and correct them, especially if the error is obvious. When you're not sure, you can just leave it for someone else or raise the question on the talk page for the article.
Some articles are protected from editing by anonymous or very new editors. In that case, the proper thing to do is place an edit request on the talk page for the article. Another editor will check out the request and either perform it or give a reason why it won't be done.
Other change to content are a bigger deal. They should come with more of an explanation in the edit summary or with supporting citations.
After a few more days and a few more edits, you'll be able to make these sorts of edits (on semi-protected pages) yourself.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lon Watkins
As you are concerned about the Poland article - it is worth noting that, although the date format is specified as dmy, no English variation is specifically listed for that article. However the article appears to be in British English (Neighbour, colour, etc.) which should not be changed. It is a common mistake for new editors to correct what they think are "mistakes" in spelling and grammar, that are not mistakes in the variety of English that the article is written in. - Arjayay (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Grammar, not spelling. Something that is commonly over looked. At the end of a paragraph, "lived 'in'," should be left just,"lived." Nothing special. That's what my inquiry is about. Am quite familiar with British type English. I read a lot and will just continue a slow evolution into this edit opportunity. Guess I learned how to sign my posts. Thanks for the trouble. Lon Watkins (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't find that error. Which article is it in? Dbfirs 21:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, how can i get an article published so it can appear in the google search?

Vero y Michelle (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

HI, im editing a page about a famous tennis player named Francisco Segura. How can you change the name of the page?

I want to change it from Vero y Michelle/ Sandbox to Francisco Segura. Vero y Michelle (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vero y Michelle and welcome to the Teahouse. User:Vero y Michelle/sandbox appears to be written in Spanish. This is the English Wikipedia, so an article on him would need to be written in English. Spanish language articles need to be on Spanish Wikipedia. Also, is he the same person as Pancho Segura, who has an article already? If so, please expand that article (in English) rather than creating a new article. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

How to get a draft published to the main page for all to see??

Hi! Thank you everyone for the welcome. Iam very new and very excited to begin contributing and donating. This is surly going to be so much fun for me.

I created a draft last night. I've edited it 13-15 times and now I'm ready to have it published or sent in for the main site for all to see. How do I go above having it live on the main wikipedia page? I apologize if this isnt the right place to ask or post this. I was invited here. I'm just learning.

Thank you so much for your help

))

Leenaray Leenaray (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you were to move that draft to mainspace in its current state it would immediately be deleted. You need to read WP:Your first article, then Wikipedia's definition of notability, and provide references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

How can i change my wikipedia article to the english wikipedia?

Vero y Michelle (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vero y Michelle. You can expand the existing article on Pancho Segura, with an English translation of the content you wrote in your sandbox, so long as you carefully source all the content you add with citations to high quality, reliable, secondary, independent sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

What is a sandbox and how to use it?

Recently while creating a page, I took a lot of time to provide information and was suggested to use sandbox. I didn't knew about the article space. So, can you explain me exactly about the article space and what is a sandbox and how to use it so next time while creating a page in the future I didn't do more mistakes. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBson1357 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello SBson1357 and welcome to the Teahouse! Your question got posted down at the bottom of the page rather than the top. The usual convention of posting at the bottom of discussion pages is not followed here at the Teahouse, where it is suggested that new questions be posted at the top. And most people looking to help out here, don't look at the bottom very often.
About WP:Sandbox: Article space is the main part of the encyclopedia. Pages in article space are expected to be in reasonably good shape as far as following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is an articles for creation process that helps new editors make sure their productions meet these standards before being placed in article space.
When first writing an article, you can start in a user sandbox, which is just a subpage of your user page. By convention, it is named "Sandbox", but you can create subpages with other names or you can create subpages of the Sandbox page. This is necessary in cases where you have more than one new article-in-progress. It's also possible to start writing an article in Draft: space. There's an essay called Your first article that covers how you go about creating an article.
Let us know here at the Teahouse if you have further questions.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Promotional page?

Hey. I searched trough a wikipedia and found an article where people where writing about the same thing i started my article but mine got deleted quickly. I made a article about business kind of topic and just wondering what I can put on an article about an company and what exactly I cant put in there. For example maybe I cant put links of the company anywhere else but only on info box? Thanks. Rejniz (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rejniz, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article should focus almost exclusively in summarizing what reliable sources that are not affiliated with the company write about it (that means newspapers, magazines, books, reliable economics websites). Summarize what they say, in neutral language (ie. no "innovative", "cutting-edge") and you'll be fine. As for a link to the company website, you can typically have one in the infobox, repeated in the External links section. No separate links to social media profiles and suchlike. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

when should my article be published?

hello everyone i've created a page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mohamed_Ismail_Ahmed" and still not approved or eve deleted..please notify me if it missed any requirements and when should be accepted thank you Happy Girl (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Happy Girl. Since the sources in the draft appear to be almost entirely to a blog, I'd say it's not quite time yet. Unfortunately, blogs don't qualify under Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources because pretty much anyone can start a blog and pretty much write whatever they want, even if it's totally made up. So I'm afraid you are going to have to find different sources for your draft if you would like to have it published. TimothyJosephWood 21:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The article hasn't been submitted to AFC review yet. So that is the requirement that has been missed. However, as noted, if it is submitted, it will almost certainly declined as not supported by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion? How can I fix/prevent it?

On Isis Rodriguez's page, I tried adding a head shot. She had taken the picture herself, but it was 'Nominated to be deleted' and I'm not sure why, or how to fix it. Has anyone had experience with this? Babsjo51 (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Babsjo51. In what manner are you situated in relation to Isis Rodriguez that you have the legal authority over the photograph from her Facebook page to release it under a free copyright license? To do so requires either that the photograph have been already released under that free copyright license (to be demonstrated by verifiable evidence), or that you own the copyright to the photograph (to be shown by an Open Ticket Request System Release). In either case, you might make comment at the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Isis Rodriguez.jpg. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I need to create a disambiguation page about a school name, since many schools are having the same name.

E.g. There already exists a page of different school with same name : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JK_Public_School But i want this URL to point towards a Disambiguation page, from where all the list of schools are linked. E.g JK Public School, Abc City JK Public School, My Page and so on.

and from this disambiguation page, the link connects with page of each school. How to go about this. Thanks Rahilchoudhary (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rahilchoudhary and welcome to the Teahouse. I see you've had an account on Wikipedia for many years but perhaps only recently tried to add content; we'll consider you a new editor.
I'm afraid you first need to establish that these schools meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The article you mention does not do this and may be deleted unless it is improved.
I see you have already attempted to create a disambiguation page, but the way you've done it is largely incorrect.
  • It's likely that the page you want to create is actually a set index page and not a disambiguation page at all. This is the sort of page that you would create for a list of schools with the same name but different locations.
  • Capitalization style of page names is significant except for the first character - the name of the page in this case must follow the capitalization style of a proper noun, the name of the school. The first step in creating your new set index page is to move the old page that currently has the name to a new location.
  • The various school names could include the location as part of the name, perhaps separated with a comma, or as a parenthesized disambiguation.
  • Each entry on a set index or disambiguation page must contain a link to an existing WP page, sometimes with added information. You should look at a number of existing disambiguation pages as well as at the style guide for disambiguation pages (most of the same rules will apply to a set index page).
So, before you do anything else, I suggest you undo the changes you made at Jk public school.
Next, write up a good page for JK Public School, Kunjwani, Jammu and get that through the articles for creation process.
Only then will it make sense to move the other school and create the set index page.
Feel free to come back to the Teahouse to ask further questions.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the title should be JK Public School (Kunjwani, Jammu). Thanks John from Idegon (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Poor research design

I am new to editing wiki pages. In the earthing therapy page, it seems to me that it is pretty weak to use the quote from a journalist to claim that studies "rely on poorly designed studies that lack sample sizes large enough to be significant[7]" Do you think this can be successfully challenged?Gaetanchevalier (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Gaetanchevalier. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that we actually have an official rule which says that in cases like these you should be bold and go ahead and change the article. The worst thing that could happen is someone reverts you, and if they do, then the two of you should discuss it on the article's talk page and try to reach an agreement. If you hang out Wikipedia for a while, the chances are basically 100% that someone will disagree with you eventually and revert something you do. But it's not the end of the world; its the start of a conversation. TimothyJosephWood 19:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you TimothyJosephWood. This is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaetanchevalier (talk • contribs) 19:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gaetanchevalier: You need to read the advice which User:Timothyjosephwood gave you. He said: that if someone reverts your edit you should discuss it on the article's talk page and try to reach an agreement. What you should NOT do is to get into an edit war by repeating your disputed edit. You can see from the article history that a number of other editors have disagreed with your edits, but you have made no attempt to discuss it on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I went to the talk page but I am not sure what to do. If I click on the name I get to their page. Is that were I should bring this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaetanchevalier (talk • contribs) 22:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Earthing therapy, and click the "New section" tab to start a new topic. At the end of your message there (and here, and on any other discussion pages, but not in articles), please remember to add a signature with 4 tildes ~~~~ or with the signature icon either above or below the edit window. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why User:Alexbrn reverted the new information I added to the Earthing Therapy page about Clint Ober and the Sokals. I thought it added some information and did not violate any rule. Since I am new, I would like to know how to discuss that with him.Gaetanchevalier (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Can someone read over Draft?

On my Draft:Bern Expo, I have been left with the template of it reading like an ad, I believed I have fixed the problem and I don't want a long list of the same template. I hope someone can read over the draft and bring it into the Main Article Space. Please and Thank YouJosVan (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

need help

Hello, I really need help with my page. I don´t want it to be deleted. I am one of Swedish guitarplayer Yngwie Malmsteen´s former drummers, and I wonder how to connect with the guys who edits his page. Maybe they want to help me. I am Swedish, and want to have my English wikipedia page, not only my Swedish article. Because I have English speaking fans. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_von_Knorring&oldid=755951357 Knorr59 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi {u|Knorr59}, and welcome to the Teahouse. This article have major problems, from the eng-WP perspective. It´s far from Wikipedia:Notability (music), and because you are you, WP:COI. I looked at your swe-WP page and 4 pages of google-hits, and I could find nothing usable for Wikipedia:Notability = good reasons this article should exist on eng-WP. As to the guys editing the article, well, that´s you mostly, but if you like, you can see the others at the "View history" tab on Michael von Knorring and contact them at their talkpages. Like someone wrote at your swedish page, sources don´t have to be online (it just makes everything so much easier for everybody and thus are largely favored), an article in Göteborgsposten would probably be fine (but not enough), depending on what´s in it of course. Try asking for help/input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians, maybe someone there has any good ideas. Sorry to be so negative, men God Jul iallafall! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Didn´t ping correctly. Knorr59 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
And deleted by Jimfbleak. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please help me create an article

I am trying to create an article which I have a COI for Draft:NUGEN Audio.

I have made changes to try to satisfy the submission declined comments, but I would really value it if someone without a COI could take a look at it before I try to resubmit it.

Thanks. PaulTapper (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Paul. Well, there certainly are quite a few sources. I didn't check all of them, but just poking around and doing spot checks, this is certainly not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. It is evidently just some guy's blog, and the "(for only 9 dollars !)" in the title is a fairly good give away about the nature of the source.
Other sources like this and this (which really should indicate the page number and title of the article, not just the title of the magazine)... it's ... a little hard to tell on the face of it whether these are a bit promotional or whether they're just extremely niche publications. Either way, they're not exactly coverage in Forbes, but that may not be absolutely necessary.
As a note on tone though, you may want to check out guidance at Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. In a nutshell, I'm sure for someone in the industry, a surround up-mixer or a PLR metering tool may be something you deal with every day. However, Wikipedia is intended for the widest possible audience, and to the greatest extent possible, should be free of technical jargon.
Now, the balancing act there is that you don't want to add so much explanatory content that it comes off sounding like a products catalog or an outright advertisement. As a rule though, it's usually a good idea to aim to write an article so that it could be understood by a bright and inquisitive 14-year-old. Hope this is somewhat helpful. TimothyJosephWood 14:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks TimothyJosephWood - that was really helpful. I've tried to "de-technify" some of the language a bit, which will hopefully make it a little less opaque. I removed the questionable reference. Do you have any other suggested edits, or do you think I should try re-submitting the draft as it is? PaulTapper (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey Paul. Still just poking around sources, but a lot of them seem to be more focused on the products rather than the company. Are there any of them (besides the official site) that are in-depth backgrounds on the company itself, that could be drawn on for more company information, without depending on the self-published "word" (so to speak) of the company? TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Messed Up Page

Hi this isnt really a question but i was on the R.A. the Rugged Man page and i exited out and it looked messed up i had no idea what happened it just looked messed up can anyone please fix it for me sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by RekdRhymes (talk • contribs) 13:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Corrected in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion log

I added an article for deletion by following the three steps describes. Step 3 was adding it to the top of the list of the Deletion log, however, after saving it the page I added (Anneke Lucas) never appeared.

Did I do something wrong?

Amin (Talk) 22:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Amin: welcome to the Teahouse. Your text does appear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 20 (read the section on Ranji (film)) but the problem is that you didn't correctly carry out step 2 of the AFD process and the deletion page you created lacks the necessary template. You need to include your reasoning within the text parameter of this markup {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ This needs to be inserted at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anneke Lucas. Nthep (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
A little tip, Amin: it's much easier to use Twinkle for this kind of thing. It does all these steps for you at the click of a button. – Joe (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you @Nthep:, I just redid step two using your instructions, and I think it's fixed now.
@Joe Roe: Thanks for the tip. I read about Twinkle and enabled it. But when I tried to use it, by hovering the TW-tab, I could not understand which two-letters I had to click to fulfil the deletion request. I gave up and decided to do it the traditional way.
This is part of a bigger problem. Wikipedia desperately needs to involve human interface designers to redo some of the poor design choices from the past. It can save the community a lot of time, clicks and energy to do simple tasks.
Amin (Talk) 13:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey Amin. Twinkle takes a bit of getting used to, and probably a bit of screwing things up. Luckily, twinkle does not in fact allow you to delete the main page, and pretty much anything wrong can be fixed by a self-revert. As a note, if you hover over the options in the Twinkle menu, there are alternate texts for all the options that explain in a bit more depth what each one is for. TimothyJosephWood 14:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: Thanks! The alt-text helps a lot. Amin (Talk) 14:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

How To Post A New Article

Hello i am new here. And i want to write about a http://www.paidversionfree.com/ that is not exist on wikipedia. So how to get started. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paidversionfree (talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Paidversionfree (there's no point in pinging because you your username has been blocked as promotional, but you might see this). I suggest you read WP:Promotion to find out how promotion of any kind is forbidden in Wikipedia, and Your first article to discover how creating a new article is a difficult process and how Wikipedia has no interest at all in what anybody or any organisation wishes to say about themselves, but is only interested in what people who have no connection with a subject have published about it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

unreferenced information

Hi! I came across an article called School of Science and Technology, Singapore. A user added a lot of unreferenced info about the school. Should it be deleted? Thank you.

Peterye2005 (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Peterye2005. Usually the better option is to take a few minutes and try to find a source for the information. It may well be verifiable, but added by someone who doesn't understand how to format references on Wikipedia. For example, it looks like someone from the school posted quite a few links on the article talk, and this is probably a good place to start.
Occasionally, if you cannot find a source for a claim, but it seems fairly run-of-the-mill and likely true, you can tag it with {{cn}}, which will look like this[citation needed] in the article. I usually end up in this kind of situation when content is closely related to a non-English language and I am unable personally to verify it.
However, according to our policy on biographies of living people, content related to living persons which is likely to be contentious and is unsourced, should be removed immediately, only to be readded if it is accompanied by a reliable source. This is such a strong requirement that it is in fact a exemption to our policy on edit warring. TimothyJosephWood 14:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Grey area for no original research?

Hello Teahosts! I realize this isn't policy exactly, but part of the fun of Wikipedia for me is the surprising connections any one article makes to unexpected topics--and I'm not the only one![1] I noticed a few months ago that several articles contain a "In popular culture" section, with references to popular fictional books, TV shows, or movies that reference the subject. And so when I come across a noteworthy reference to a real-but-obscure person / place / concept in my reading / binge-netflixing, I will occasionally add a sentence to the end of wikipedia article noting the fact. I just noticed that one such note (an episode of Supernatural that occurs in the small town of Fitchburg, Wisconsin) was deleted. The reason given on the edit page was it represented original research. Again, I know this is hardly a critical issue; I just want to be sure I understand the NOR policy, since I am also writing a few short biographies a month for mathematicians listed as notable but missing on the Community Portal page. Because I listed the season and episode and the TV show is widely available, it seems like the factoid easily fits the "verifiability" criterion. It hardly counts as research, as the episode itself is the source (although I suppose I could include third-party episode summaries if that is required). If the real problem is such fictional references are too trivial to be included in wikipedia, then I would like to know that too and I will stop adding pop-culture references to articles. Thanks for your help! Oceanchaos (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Oceanchaos. Yes, if no third party source has asserted the significance of a popular culture appearance, it is not encyclopedic material, per this RfC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://xkcd.com/214/

Understanding talk pages

I have seen a notice on talk pages, saying that they are not forum for general discussions about the topic. So, what does this entail?LakeKayak (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Helo, LakeKayak, and welcome to the Teahouse. It means that talk pages are there for discussing how to improve articles. The talk page for the article Ice cream is there for you to discuss what aspects of ice cream the article should cover. But is not there for you to discuss what is your favorite ice cream flavor. That's the distinction. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, LakeKayak. Adding to the answer above, the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss how to improve an article. It is not to express personal opinions about the topic of an article. Accordingly, the talk page discussion should center around what specific reliable sources say about the topic, and how the article can better summarize the full range of reliable sources. Discussion should be guided as well by our policies and guidelines, and how best to apply them to that specific article. Individual editors should not simply vent their personal opinions or pet theories about the subject of the article, since this does not help to improve the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, two fellows.LakeKayak (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
By the way, User:LakeKayak, the notice that a talk page is not for general discussion of a topic is usually a standard caution template that is used when an editor was ranting about the topic. Talk pages are for discussion of improving an article, and we are usually tolerant of slightly off-that-mark discussion, but not of completely off-that-mark discussion. It is true that a discussion of preferences of flavors of ice cream is off-topic, but that warning would typically be used if an editor was saying either that ice cream is evil or that better ice cream is the key to world peace. Thank you for asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, sir/ma'am.LakeKayak (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

How to cover a notable individual accuratly

I've been struggling to submit and article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Hook for an American Journalist named John Hook who has just uncovered some new evidence for the Bob Crane murder. I feel he is a pretty notable figure, He's covered a number of major news stories and has had unprecedented access to crime scene evidence for the Bob Crane murder, but my article keeps getting rejected on the basis of notability and my sources. I thought my sources were pretty spot on for third-party sources and even included coverage of John Hook revealing his findings of the investigation.

Is there something I'm missing? I feel the comments about the article haven't really helped me understand what exactly is missing from the article, or how exactly the sources aren't credible enough.

Thanks for the help in advance!

NerdKristin (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello NerdKristin and welcome to the Teahouse.
Your feeling that John Hook is notable is in accord with the generally accepted meaning of notability, but an article in Wikipedia requires that the subject has been covered by independent reliable sources. What the reviewers are telling you is that this individual may not be sufficiently notable to be included at this time. You can read the general notability requirements at WP:GNG and you might check for whether there are special notability guidelines for journalists or media personalities.
The other thing you need to do is improve the references for the article, both in terms of finding third-party sources and in terms of formatting your existing references with one of the more preferred citation styles such as {{cite web}}. References that are just presented as external links are generally seen as more opaque and a bit less reliable. Links to YouTube videos by the subject are not considered as secondary sources.
I realize that this may be frustrating for you. You've chosen, for your very first task on Wikipedia, to create a new article from scratch. This is pretty difficult and most of the hosts here would suggest that you first spend some time improving existing articles until you get enough experience to more easily create a new page that will pass review.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, NerdKristin. Our notability guideline for creative professionals includes people like authors, artists, filmmakers, architects, and also journalists. The shortcut to the guideline is WP:JOURNALIST. It can be difficult to establish notability for average working journalists since Google Searches will yield mostly articles that they have written, sprinkled with staff profiles in publications they write for. Neither type of item is of any value in establishing notability since neither is independent. The problem with your sources is not so much reliability but rather independence. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are unaffiliated with the person. Because that type of coverage is rare for journalists, that means most journalists are not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia biography. I see that he is also an author and that his book is self published. It is very rare (though not unknown) that a self published author is notable. It all depends on the quality of the coverage in the cited sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback it has been very helpful. Yes, I do think I picked a pretty difficult thing to do right off the bat! I didn't think about the implication of covering a journalist in an unaffiliated manner. I'll see what I can do about investigating some sources, but maybe this is something to put on hold for a time. Thanks for the warm welcome!

NerdKristin (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Changing an infobox parameter's name

I've just updated Donald Trump with him being the 1st Chairman and President of the Trump Organization. I have listed the Executive Vice Presidents of the Trump Organization under the office title. However, the parameter says "Vice president", not "Executive Vice President". Is there any way to make it say "Executive Vice President"? CatcherStorm talk 16:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

From the looks of it, the parameter Vice President in Template:Infobox officeholder, does not refer to an individual as a VP of a company, but rather VP as an elected office, since the scope of the infobox is politicians. TimothyJosephWood 17:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_555&oldid=1065748052"