Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 583

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 580 Archive 581 Archive 582 Archive 583 Archive 584 Archive 585 → Archive 590

Updating Business history and info on Wikipedia

I've recently been tasked with updating my company's presence on wikipedia and I'm trying to keep it more informative than "salsey." Is there a any info you can share on what type of info to include for corporate identities?

Any advice welcome!

-Roni Vjnoone (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vjnoone, and welcome to the Teahouse. Include both neutral, favorable,, and disfavorable information as it is reported by reliable third parties (ie. newspapers etc.). Report all of it neutrally. Normally, do not include any information produced by the company itself. Have a look at some of the Featured company articles we have. Those have been determined to be factual, balanced, and well written. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey Roni. Probably the first thing you should do, if you haven't already, is carefully review our policy on conflicts of interest, since failure to abide by it can result in some...unwanted attention. As far as content, a good rule-of-thumb on Wikipedia is "just the facts" and above and beyond that, "just the important facts". Our policy on neutrality requires that content be neutral not only in the sense that they be verifiable and generally free of particular biases, but also that they be neutral with regard to the relative weight they are given in articles. So if your company is not especially large with a markedly high-profile public presence, the article covering it will likely be rightfully short and to-the-point.
Finally, if there is verifiable and important information that is missing from the article, the appropriate course of action as an editor with a conflict of interest, is to request on the article's talk page that the content be changed by a volunteer, being as specific as possible and including high-quality sources to back up the changes. If you include {{requested edit}} along with your comment, it will be added to a list of requested edits and will be evaluated by a volunteer, in accordance with the request's appropriateness given the relative policies and guidelines.
Again, the way to do this successfully is to be as specific as possible, and to include reliable sources to back up the changes. By this I mean that requests such as the article content is out of date and needs to be updated will likely be declined, whereas requests such as According to Forbes the number of employees and gross revenue in the article is wrong, and should be updated to 000 and 0,000 respectively are likely to be accepted, given that they are accompanied by sources to back up the changes. TimothyJosephWood 14:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Appreciate this info! Will edit to comply!

Vjnoone (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

How to submit an article for creation

I'm trying to submit Draft:Miki Rofū for creation. First I tried (reverse-engineering another submission) {{AFC submission|Mortee}}, but saw "Warning: This submission is not timestamped and so will be permanently at the back of the queue. Please replace this template with {{subst:submit}}." I used that instead, but now the article isn't showing up on Category:Pending AfC submissions. Am I doing something wrong? (Perhaps a better question - are there instructions somewhere that I've not found and should be following?) Mortee (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's showing in the category now. Perhaps you had a caching problem when you first looked. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I must still have it. It's still not showing for me, after a few refreshes. Good to know it's working for others though, thank you. Mortee (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It never did show up in the category for me, but it's been accepted as a C-class article so it must have worked out OK. Thanks again for your answer. Mortee (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To add negative news to a firm's page

Hello,
Is this fact something that can go on Jaypee Group's page (with appropriate and reliable sources)?
(Details: Jaiprakash Associates is one of the companies under the Jaypee group. I am redirected from page for Jaipraksh Associates to page for Jaypee group. This company has defaulted on payments to its fixed deposit holders. The concernced govt. authority has granted them time till 31 March 2017 to sell off its assets and settle the debts. They have sold some assets, paid back some investors capital and interest, some only captial, while a lot are still waiting since 2 or 3 years for repayment of even capital)
If yes, then is there a specific format or a fixed section or heading? If no, then why not? Please guide. Thank you.
Roshni Kanchan (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Roshni Kanchan. In order to justify inclusion of content in an article, it needs to have substantial coverage in reliable sources, relative to the other content in the article. If this is the case, it may be suitable for inclusion. If it is however, something you merely happen to know is true, then it likely does not. TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Roshni Kanchan. You say "with appropriate and reliable sources", so I think that meets most of what Timothyjosephwood says. Certainly negative news may be added, if appropriate. WP:UNDUE says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." So if, for example, just one reliable source mentions something, but several sources say something different, it might not be appropriate to include it. But if that source is reporting something recent, and there are no other sources since the alleged event, then it might be appropriate to mention it - but not to give it much prominence, until there are several sources to corroborate it. It's all a question of balance, and of consensus: if you are unsure, it may be worth asking on the talk page first, and seeing if other editors agree.
One important point though, is that an article must not use evaluative language - even as bland as "negative" in Wikipedia's voice. If you are directly quoting an independent reliable source that said that an event was negative for the company, that is fine; but in Wikipedia's voice it may say only that XXX happened, or that YYY said ZZZ. --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Timothyjosephwood and ColinFine for your replies. It is a good idea to write on that article's talk page so all relevant discussion is at the right place. I will summarize this discussion and ask my question on that talk page as well. But ... er.. whom do I address it to? I mean who will read one question posted on a random page?
If I use as a source a letter the company has written to its investors, which includes the court order and details of deadlines, amount paid, amount pending etc and which is present on the company's own website, do you think it will satisfy all conditions that you both wrote about? Will that be better choice than news articles?
--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey Roshni Kanchan. Using primary sources like you are referring to is often helpful for knowing if something is true, especially for fairly mundane details that are unlikely to receive press coverage. But things like press coverage, secondary sources, are useful for telling whether facts themselves are important, since they mean someone who writes for a living decided to cover it too. Ideally, you would have secondary coverage to establish importance, and primary coverage to fill in the gaps when they don't quite cover all the details.
Since the article's talk page looks pretty dead, probably the better thing to do would be to be bold and add the content to the article. If someone takes issue and reverts your edit, then discuss the changes with them on the article's talk page. Take care to be as neutral as possible in how you add the content. Wikipedia isn't in the business of picking winners and losers, just in presenting the bare facts with as little opinion as possible, and when needed, presenting the opinions of important individuals as their opinions, not as facts, and never presenting the opinions of Wikipedia editors at all. Also take care to be neutral in how much the article presents, since the sheer weight of even bare facts, can have a way of being biased in presentation, even if otherwise neutral in content.
But other than that, every edit has a risk of being reverted, and that's what the talk page is for. TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for all the help, TimothyJosephWood. I added my two lines which hopefully takes care of all conditions. I also added a section in the talk page linking to this discussion here. Thank you for the encouragement too. --Roshni Kanchan (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


Where am i going wrong?

Where am i going wrong with Draft:Geoff Marshall? I am apparently not following policies and am told to read WP:Policies, But its too confusing.

SageWater (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SageWater. The comments at the top of the draft have several links (in blue) to pages that should be helpful. But in the meantime:
  Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject (whether a company, a person, a band, a charity, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. That includes the subject's own publications, and also anything published by an independent source but based on an interview or press release from the subject. An article should be largely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. In any case, every single fact or claim in an article should be derived from a published reliable source. Please see WP:V for more information.. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new blank article.

I am relatively inexperienced. I am editing an old article. I want to take a portion of that article, and remove it to a new article, where I guess it might be a 'stub'. How do I do this? Bfant (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Bfant, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'd recommend reading the page over at WP:SPLIT for moving portions of articles to new pages. If you have other questions, feel free to ask me here or at my talk page. Thank you! MereTechnicality ⚙ 22:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome Bfant! I see our user names resemble each other, perhaps you are a distant relative-editor. I just wanted to let you know that I split articles all the time without much fanfare. How much experience do you have in article creation at this time? A split can be tricky but worth the effort. Why do you want to split the article? Best Regards,
  Bfpage  let's talk...  01:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mere Technicality and BFpage. I'm thinking about splitting the article because someone about a section is not sufficiently in the focus of the main article. Bfant (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for losing some words. Bfant (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
"...because someone complained that the a section is insufficiently focused and too long. Bfant (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you mark dead cite links?

How would you go about marking a dead link in a citation.

SageWater (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

SageWater - you can use the dead link template (Template:Dead link) DarjeelingTea (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi SageWater you can also try to find an archive version of the website as explained in WP:DEADREF. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
SageWater welcome to the Teahouse. I had the same question a few years ago. Thanks for asking, a lot of other new editors will probably find the information useful. There are actually two methods of labelling dead links. One way is to insert an inline citation in the body of the text right after the reference. The other way is to enter the 'dead link' template into the reference itself. I usually don't like sending new editors off to a Wikipedia information page, but you might find this helpful. The tag you will want to use looks like this:{{dead link|date=February 2017}}. Another more complicated description is here. If you have more questions please come back to the Teahouse for a visit. Best Regards,
  Bfpage  let's talk...  12:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I hope it is ok to add a related question here instead of creating a new one. The link that Marchjuly gave and both the links that Bfpage gave (thanks for the link!) display the same section of the same article. After reading it all, I'd like someone to please confirm my understanding: in this Jaypee Group page in the Reference section, #2, #3 and #4 display a 404 error and so these should be deleted with an appropriate remark in the edit history, right? Also am I responsible to put a replacement sources when I delete a dead one? --Roshni Kanchan (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Roshni Kanchan - please read WP:DEADLINK and do NOT delete references just because they are dead. If you can find a new source please do so, or you can try to find an archived copy on the Wayback Machine or other internet archives. Failing that, please mark it as a deadlink by adding {{deadlink}} to the reference which will produce [dead link]. This will allow bots, or other editors, to try and find a link - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Arjayay, thanks for the prompt reply and the link. Link says ‘WP:DEADLINK" redirects here. For the related guideline, see WP:DEADREF’ where DEADREF is same as the link shared by Marchjuly and Bfpage. And point #5 of that section says to Remove hopelessly lost web-only sources. Since the reference in the article with dead links is to financial and other information from a 2010 company report on the company's website itself, doesn't it qualify for deletion? --Roshni Kanchan (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC) (P.S. I also wrote to the creator of the article, as suggested in the DEADREF section, point#4)

Why does some Wikipedia content appear in red?

When reading various articles, some content appears in red, rather than black or blue. What does copy appearing in red signify?167.206.63.162 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi 167.206.63.162. Red text usually means a link to a Wikipedia page which doesn't currently exist but might be created in the future. See more at Wikipedia:Red link. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Page Error

I am creating a new page .on saving it I am getting below message . Also I am not finding it on google search ..can u tell me how to remove this issue ? and get this ,when searching in Google search engine.

This article is about a living person and appears to have no references. All biographies of living people created after March 2010 must have at least one reference to a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. If no reliable references are found and added within a seven-day grace period, this article may be deleted. This is an important policy to help prevent the retention of incorrect material. Please note that adding reliable sources is all that is required to prevent the scheduled deletion of this article. For help on inserting references, see Help:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once the article has at least one reliable source, you may remove this tag.

Find sources: Gnews · Gnewspapers · Gbooks · Gscholar · NYT · Wikipedia Reference Search 18:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.31.141 (talk)

Hello, IP user. Creating an article on Wikipedia is not like creating a page on social media or other sites: this is an encyclopaedia, and we have many policies and standards which must be met. Please read your first article for information about how to go about this intricte business - including the advice to spend some time editing existing article first, to get used to how Wikipedia works. The original of the message you have quoted above contains many links (blue text) to pages which explain the details; but I think you'll find your first article more help at this stage.
New articles in Wikipedia are not indexed by google until they have been patrolled and accepted as articles: your draft has not been accepted, according to the message you quoted above. --ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm trying to edit a biographical article on Henry Alan Green (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Alan_Green) to include a picture of the person in question --- I'd like to add a photo of him, and I've received permission from him, but I'm unsure as to the process for submitting the photo in such a way that it won't be auto-deleted by the bots. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Gc717 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Gc717, and welcome. Because the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want to get sued for copyright infringement, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons both need explicit permission of the copyright owner before we can use an image. Sorry.
Please let me know if you have further questions, either here or on my talk page. Thank you! MereTechnicality ⚙ 20:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Gc717. You can find out about the process for granting permission to use a photo at Commons:Email templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Although, that said, unless the photo is a selfie, then Green probably isn't the copyright holder - that would be the photographer. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Warning: Page using Template:CongLinks with unknown parameter "cspan""

Hi, I was editing the Tim Burns (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Burns_(businessman)) page a few days ago, and a noticed an error that said Warning: Page using Template:CongLinks with unknown parameter "cspan". I am not very good at editing stuff like that, so I'd like to request some help on how to fix it. Fawxplus (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fawxplus, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've had a look at the {{CongLinks}} template, and as the error doesn't show when viewing the Article itself, my advice would be to ignore the error.--talk2Chun(talk) (contributions) 21:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Additional info
At some point in 2014, there was a discussion on the talk page about whether or not to delete the template, with many editor (seemingly) prefering to keep the template, but with far fewer links/parameters. However, it doesn't seem that consensus was established when the parameters were removed, and the discussion seems to have died down since then.
Hi Fawxplus. That means that the named parameter that the error message provides – an information entry like |title=, |publisher= |url= – is being used in the template but does not exist as a parameter for that template. Often when this happens, the person was attempting to call a named parameter that actually does exist but made a typo, or maybe more commonly, used uppercase for the parameter when lowercase only is recognized, so look for that to fix these types of errors. In this case, though, you can see from the documentation at {{CongLinks}} that there is no "cspan" parameter to place any information in the template for Tim Burns' profile at C-SPAN under the ID "9267897"—so I simply removed the parameter, here, and that got rid of the error message. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
To reduce the likelihood of future confusion I have removed (in this edit) 8 further non-existent parameters (currently blank) from the template call in that article. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

philosophy

is there any difference between knowledge And wisdom?Bright phil (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Knowledge is knowing that we have a section called Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Wisdom is figuring out whether that question belongs here or there. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A link shows in my comment - I didn't add it!

Hello, I added a section here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coursera#Section_on_Partners and only one link in my text. However I can see a second link ( https://www.coursera.org/specializations/digital-marketing) that I did not add at the end of my section. How did it appear and how can I delete it? Roshni Kanchan (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wish they were all this easy. There was a link added as a reference in the section above. Since the talk page had no "reflist" template, Wikimedia software automatically placed the link at the bottom of the page. I added a "talk reflist" template yo the section above which fixed the problem. Thanks for coming to the Teahouse, Roshni Kanchan. John from Idegon (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, John from Idegon. (I'm relieved - I wasn't trying to sell Coursera courses on wikipedia! :) )
I've one more question about the same page - there seem to be no replies to any of the comments on the talk page since mid-2012 so should I ask in the Teahouse for someone to reply to my comment or is there another place to do that or just go ahead and edit?
--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources for the changes you wish to make, you can be BOLD and just make them. If someone objects, they will revert you and then you can discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Roshni Kanchan, if you wish further input on the article's content, a good place to ask is at the talk page of the WikiProject (or projects) that follow the page. They are listed at the top of the talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again, John from Idegon for your help. I placed my suggestion and question on Coursera's talk page as well as talk page of Wikiproject Education. If there is no reply in a week, then I'll go ahead and make the change myself.--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Authority Control - how to do it?

I've read the authority control directions about two-dozen times and I still don't understand how to apply authority control to an article. Specifically, I'm trying to do it to America's 60 Families (a book). Can anyone provide some direction? DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DarjeelingTea See the WP:Authority control guide. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll try reading it again. DarjeelingTea (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
DarjeelingTea, I would suggest reviewing Q11 on this page, as I think it relates to want you are trying to do. I use {{authority control}} quite often and have discussed it a few times with other editors on my own talk page. If you need more assistance, I'd be happy to help. Vycl1994 (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Vycl1994 - thanks so much! That helped me figure out precisely what I was doing wrong, much appreciated! DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

how do you delete an article?

i just finished making an article and ive been trying to delete it all day soo pls can you help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christy345 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

i just created an article(Omolara christy Ogundimu) and they are saying"this article nedds speedy deletion" so what am i to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christy345 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Christy345 and welcome to the Teahouse.
An article marked for speedy deletion will be deleted by an administrator, usually within an hour or two, if it clearly meets the criteria for speedy deletion. There would be nothing you need to to if you agree with the deletion.
Only administrators can delete pages. You can request deletion for a page in your user space or for which you are essentially the only contributor by placing the template {{db-user}} or {{db-author}}, respectively. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about inventory control

Having bought some stock at a discount to its usual price, should the margin be bigger than usual, or smaller than usual?Dhamarayg (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dhamarayg. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. For general knowledge questions, please try the Reference desk. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Why my Article not appear on Google search result ? how much time it's take to appear or is there any official way to do this ? Ainul.Axom (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If you just created the article, it will take some time before google crawls the page. I don't think there is a way to crawl a specific page, unless you are the owner of the website itself. Just spend time on making the article higher quality, and eventually the page will appear in google search =) Popcrate (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I checked the articles you have been working on lately, and they all appear in my google search, when I search for the article's name. Try adding "wikipedia" into your search, if you still can't find it. Popcrate (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Popcrate: I guess that Ainul.Axom is referring to Tirap Gaon, Ledo. That doesn't appear in a Google search, and I wouldn't expect it to appear as it is NOINDEXed. The article was created on 28 January, and is one of about 14500 pages queued up at Special:NewPagesFeed awaiting the new page patrol which is now required to remove the NOINDEX. The queue is roughly 4 months long. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

How to add a fictional character?

Guys can you add a fictional character without it being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mileyfrostfrost (talk • contribs) 11:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can provide suficient proof on Notability, than yes. 78.94.53.130 (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this... but I feel like I need to... Where should this be asked?

(EDIT: reformatted and Rephrased question in a more tasteful manner.)

So I have been discovering that Wikipedia broken links, and references in general, are being used for SEO.

" Find Broken Link Building Opportunities on Wikipedia Broken link building has it all ... There’s only one problem: finding broken links is a HUGE pain. That is, unless you know about a little-known wrinkle in Wikipedia’s editing system. You see, when a Wikipedia editor stumbles on a dead link, they don’t delete the link right away. Instead, they add a footnote next to the link that says “dead link” ... re-create that dead resource on your site and replace the dead link in Wikipedia with yours. "

This appears to me as vandalism, taking advantage of Wikipedia and Google search, generating bad references, and reinforcing bad sources. Is anybody familiar with this? How destructive is this? How can we combat it? Popcrate (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Popcrate: Ugh, that's a pretty underhanded and disruptive practice. Could you provide a link to where you found this? Replacing deadlinks with clearly inappropriate material is problematic, if that is what this snippet is suggesting. I haven't seen it happen myself, though. I think on high visibility articles, this is likely to be detected quickly and reverted, but it may go undetected on lower visibility articles. I don't have any solutions off of my head to detect when this happens generally. You might consider posting this to User talk:Jimbo Wales to get some attention on the issue from the wider community. Also pinging Doc James who has considerable familiarity with editing behavior associated with undisclosed paid editing, which this seems pretty consistent with. I JethroBT drop me a line 06:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes this is deadlink spamming. There are sits that promote this technique. I will block editors after they do it once but of course there are armies of socks involved :-( Hopefully once with get the internet archive bot to fix all dead links the problem will become less. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Popcrate: Sorry to see this has you concerned. This sort of behavior – gaming Wikipedia for the purpose of marketing/advertising – has been around for a very long time. Finding proper replacements for dead links is something good editors often do. The anti-spam and anti-vandalism robots are able to watch for bad replacements, but it generally falls to human editors to spot subtle but bad behavior.
It's really a shame that protecting WP from this and other sorts of vandalism takes so much time from volunteers. You have to see it as part of the price paid for having an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, I think what mostly annoyed me about it was that they called it "white hat" and that they were highly recommending it as "really great to get an advantage over competitors". google search "Wikipedia Building Broken Links" (I'm sure you will find it because they spend all day scrounging to the top of the search page lol), and you will find what I'm talking about, and a handful of sites that are essentially just using wikipedia for SEO.
There could be a way to systematically destroy the effectiveness of this, but it might have more to do with improving search algorithms (google), than with wikipedia or mediawiki software. I've just found out about it (so I don't know if it really is that big of a deal or not), and you're correct jmcgnh: It's definitely the sort of thing that isn't worth the manual human resources, but there might be an automated solution. Popcrate (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok so basically, the phenomenon is Wikipedia:Link rot, and honestly now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think it's even worthwhile to waste effort against 1 tactic, which isn't necessarily that invasive of vandalism. I don't even want to post a link and give credit (or an extra backlink) to the site I discovered. In the grand scheme of things, there are most likely WAY more important issues to deal with. I'm going to ignore this BS for now, and continue working on light, photon, and various mathematics articles... Popcrate out! Popcrate (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Popcrate When it's discovered that an abusive editor is pursuing a strategy like this, ALL of their edits are subject to rollback, so it's the discovery that's hard, not the correction. Their coloring it as "white hat" is just an attempt to give false assurance to their prospects that what they are promising to do is actually likely to work.
There's some basic advice about SEO that is not underhanded or scammy – but it doesn't get miraculous results, just normal results, the web working the way it's supposed to. Then there's the underbelly of web marketing, schemes like this, or spamming, or link farms, that find chinks in the rest of the web that they can exploit. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, of course... Thanks for the discussion ^_^ ... and honestly, I'd rather have an underbelly that occasionally gets in the way... than have censorship of the web. Popcrate (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Popcrate: Yeah, I've seen this happen, more often than I would like. I think it's an excellent thing that more editors are made aware of this, not that it's something to go prowling around for, but if you should spot it you now know what it is :-) . And if you should discover a nest of such viperous links, WikiProject Spam is a good place to report them, after reverting. --bonadea contributions talk 11:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia adds nofollow to all external links so there is limited value for spammers in doing this. See meta:nofollow. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing

hello Sum one deleting the proper information why wiki cant blocked them to do so (Naveed Musthafa (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Naveed Musthafa. Wikipedia will generally only block people for repeated violations of our policies. If someone's blanking articles repeatedly, the best thing to do is to let them know on their talk page. If you have other questions, please let me know! MereTechnicality ⚙ 13:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia and becoming disillusioned with it

I'm new to Wikikpedia and already frustrated. At only 5 paragraphs, by first article included five references and citations from very notable sources, yet my article was not published. Instead, I received the message below telling my article "doesn't adequately show the subject's notability".

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of films and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

Can anybody tell me why this is? I've seen countless poorly written articles are far less notable topics on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your insights!

Bill Nemecek (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bill Nemecek, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry to hear that you've had a rough start. Wikipedia is full of rules that can overwhelm new users. Creating a new article from scratch, in particular, is one of the most difficult undertakings on Wikipedia. It's recommended that new users spend some time editing existing articles first.
I can tell you why there are countless poorly written articles. It's because we did not have all of those rules in place since Wikipedia's inception. Some of them are fairly new. We have more than five million articles now. Pretty much all topics a general encyclopedia is supposed to cover have been covered. The remaining topics require us to judge inclusion, because many of them come close to what Wikipedia is not. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Bill Nemecek. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia requires that the content of articles be verifiable in reliable sources. Such sources should be predominantly secondary sources, written by third-parties to the topic – though primary sources, such as those written by the company itself, can be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of fact that contain no analysis or evaluative content.

We also require that the notability of the topic be demonstrated, which unlike verification, can only be demonstrated by such reliable sources that are secondary and independent in nature (since writing about yourself does not show recognition out in the world). Such sources need to have treated the topic in substantive detail.

Articles should also be written in a neutral manner; they must not sound like commercials, and of course, copyright must be respected. Other than short quotes, marked as such with quotation marks and cited using an inline citation, you can't copy and paste previously written content unless it is in the public domain or has been released under a suitably-free copyright license. This is true even if you own the copyright to the content.

As to the draft, I was required to delete it for violating copyright. But if that overriding issue was not present, then please understand that the article read like nothing but a commercial for the company, which is not surprising since all the content was taken from press releases by the company, i.e., the types of sources we would not want an article to be based upon.

This does not necessarily mean that an article on DriverUp is not possible—if the types of sources we require articles to be based upon are in existence—but that article would look very different than the deleted one did. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bill Nemecek: I can't see the article you created, so I assume it's been deleted already. I can see one contribution by you to Wikipedia, at Bodffordd; it appears constructive and helpful.
I am not surprised at your disillusionment. Creating a new article, particularly on a subject of questionable notability, is really difficult. Unfortunately, it is common for new users to embark on this difficult task while they have little experience of everyday routine editing, become disillusioned, and give up. I would like to encourage you to make more edits of the kind you made at Bodffordd, and move on to improving the formatting and referencing of existing articles, and maybe improving the countless poorly written articles that certainly exist. Wikipedia is having difficulty recruiting and retaining new editors; and in my view it is because the idea "Wikipedia consists of articles, therefore the way to improve it is to create more articles" is increasingly prevalent. Maproom (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Finnusertop, Fuhghettaboutit, Maproom, and Bill Nemecek: As a (still) relative newbie, this topic was of great interest to me, because I nearly threw in the towel when my first attempt at a new article was rejected because of notability. The key is what Finnusertop wrote above - "I can tell you why there are countless poorly written articles. It's because we did not have all of those rules in place since Wikipedia's inception." IF that sort of statement had been included in the rejection of my first attempt, I would have been tremendously less frustrated by the rejection. I strongly recommend to the powers that be that the notability rejection include that sort of statement to help editors understand why their work is being rejected. In summary, Bill, keep editing! Having gotten over that initial disillusionment, I now enjoy the exerience. DennisPietras (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Bill Nemecek, I can totally understand your frustration having been through a similar experience with a new article myself. To add to it, couple of days ago I had nothing to show for my time and effort when another article (created by someone else) that I thought I was improving was deleted and I was also questioned about intent!! Still I'd urge you to think over what Finnusertop wrote. Wikipedia probably began with fewer rules but poor content caused the rules to increase but maybe poor content increased faster than the rules. How about working on the poorly written articles to start with? As DennisPietras says and I agree, the experience is enjoyable. Now I can see more articles than I have time to work on. --Roshni Kanchan (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
WP actually has WP:Policies and guidelines, not Rules. Unfortunately, most of the most active Wikipedians do not know this. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of belaboring the issue, there are at least 2 experienced editors I have wandered into that believe that wp policies and guidelines are in fact rules that are to be enforced without discretion. Fortunately, I've managed to avoid further interactions with them. DennisPietras (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The reason we have so much poor content has four predominant bases. 1) Failure to catch massive amounts of poor content as it is added, which is a problem with the gatekeeping function, i.e., new pages patrol (for example, probably one-tenth or so of articles start as copyright violations that no one catches, a scary high percentage) 2) – which is in turn partly a problem with sheer numbers of pages coming at us; the limits of our gatekeepers and our deletion processes to handle that raging firehose of a never ending stream, together with the de-centralized manner in which Wikipedia operates; 3) failure to put in place any pragmatic mechanisms to enforce verifiability in a manner that has any teeth, as well as allowing the the COI guidelines to remain fangless suggestions, both of which are sadly still true today; and 4) the unexamined, feckless manner that many people come here without knowing what an encyclopedia is or to examine our basic policies and guidelines and attempt to comply before adding content, as if Wikipedia was some LinkedIn analogue, and before that Facebook, and before that Myspace, and so on. The core content inclusion policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR; WP:NOT) have been in place in roughly the same core form since 2005 (when there were about 700K articles).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit sure, core policies have always been in place, but they have had wildly different content and context. Take notability for instance. Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Importance lists three criteria, which have little bearing on notability as it is defined today. Back in the day, a topic was notable if it met one of the following:
  1. "There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (e.g. it is at least well known in a community)."
  2. "It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject." (cf. WP:ARTN which today directly contradicts this rationale)
  3. "Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance."
Let me quote Wikipedia:Notability/Historical for an excellent summary of its flaws:
"Importance (August 2004 – August 2006) – Criteria included the ill-defined "important", "famous" and "relevant", and even more questionable ones such as having a longer-than-stub article already, or declared to be "important" by multiple editors on the article's talk page (echoes of this idea remain in the Criteria for speedy deletion, in which articles that simply assert the notability of their topic, even without sources, cannot be speedily deleted on grounds of non-notability). This one is principally interesting for its talk page rather than its sparse and confused content. Disposition: Inactive and moot (replaced by more objective criteria on the road to WP:N)."
Before those criteria were devised, a topic had to be merely verifiable to exist, which was arguably even worse. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

GA

Before the GA of the Hexapoda article, can you say if it meets all the GA conditions? I tried improving the article a lot, so can you say if it is of a good quality now?Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, Adityavagarwal, it could do with some copy-editing. First sentence of [[Hexapod#Hexapod morphology|]]: "Hexapods have bodies ranging in length from 0.5 mm to over 300 mm and is divided into an anterior head, thorax, and posterior abdomen." (emphasis added). Third paragraph: "As is typical of arthropods adapted to life on land, each leg has only a single walking branch composed of five segments, without the gill branches found in some other arthropods an with gill on the abdominal segments of some immature aquatic insects." (emphasis again added). I didn't read any further. --ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
What is the meaning of copy editing? Also, if I give it for a GA will it be removed immediately or there are minor errors that can be improved as the reveiwer says?Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean spelling and minor word errors?Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
See Copy editing, Adityavagarwal. Minor errors of grammar and consistency are not a big problem, but it is a waste of the reviewer's time reviewing articles that contain them. --ColinFine (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I did not see a few of them. Thank You. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, where you can request a review of the grammar and such in an article. There's about a month backlog but they're thorough, so it's usually worth it. TimothyJosephWood 16:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank You for your assitance. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Adityavagarwal the GA reviewer will typically give you 7 days to address any concerns they point out.
My opinion is that the article is awfully short given its scope. There must be millions of pages of scientific literature about Hexapoda and I doubt that this article is a representative summary of them. Completeness of coverage is one of the GA criteria. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I should add more information maybe. However, I gave it for a review. So, should I remove the nomination or should I add more information while it is in the review list?Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Adityavagarwal: Add information while it's on the list awaiting review. It usually takes a long time before someone begins the review (my nomination once took 6 months...) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, you seem right. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

uploading photograph

How can I upload a photograph to a piece I originated? Janbridget (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have done it!Janbridget (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Janbridget: unless you took this photo in c. 1914, it did not originate with you. Evidence of public domain status needs to be provided every time, not just upon request. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Why are things so complicated? I do not know who took the photograph originally. It was sent to me by a descendant of William John Sutton's wife, Helen Annie Fox, for use in a book I am writing about William John. Could you please tell me (in simple terms) what I need to do?Janbridget (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have just realised I actually have the original photograph - it was sent me by Basil Fox, descendant of Annie Fox. Now what do I do please?Janbridget (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have also just found the name of the person who took the photograph: John Savannah (1868-1925).Janbridget (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Janbridget, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, there isn't an easy answer to your question. The issue is that copyright law is a very difficult subject matter. Wikipedia is very strict in ensuring compliance with copyright (especially US copyright law), and therefore, unless you can prove that the content is in the public domain, falls within the very restrictive guidelines for use of non-free content, or the owner of the copyright to the content (in your case, most likely the person who took the image) has donated the content for use on Wikipedia, there is nothing to be done. Perhaps you may find some guidance to your questions at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright.--talk2Chun(talk) (contributions) 15:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe I have sorted it now. The photograph was taken by the photographer John Savannah who died in 1925. It was taken in Victoria, B.C. Under Canadian copyright law this is therefore in the public domain.Janbridget (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I forgot to say thank you.Janbridget (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Janbridget: thank you for the additional information. That's enough to settle that the image is in the public domain both in Canada and in USA. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank god for that! I had totally forgotten Basil had sent me the original and also, when looking at the original I was able to identify the photographer! Sloppy of me.Janbridget (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Article

So, I was reviewing a GA article and there seemed quite a few places where for a list a comma was not present. However, the person said that it was a reference or something which I did not completely understand the meaning of. So, can anybody explain what it means?Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing that your question refers to the article Mentolat, and the phrase "the central portion of Magdalena Island, Aisén Province, Chilean Patagonia". You have mistaken this for a list. It is not a list; Magdalena Island is in Aisén Province, which is in Chilean Patagonia. It's like an address: "he lived in Dwyran village, Anglesey, Wales", with no "and". Maproom (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
That seemed some misunderstanding. Thank You for assisting. Also, can you see if the GA review I did for that article was nice or were there any improvements that I should have had?:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityavagarwal (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I know nothing about the GA process. Maproom (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It is fine. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I've taken a look at your review and it seems mostly ok, though it's a little hard to tell since this article passed so many of the criteria: the difficulty in GA-reviewing is communicating what's wrong with an article. That said I have a few suggestions. Firstly, it's often ok for the reviewer to perform minor copyedits themselves (though you must be careful, as in your review, you could misunderstand the text). On a broader note, I prefer to provide more 'meta-information' in my reviews. That is to say, on top of the criteria breakdown, I like to give a summery summary of where I think the article is and what needs to be done (if anything) for it to pass. I also like to use colour to clearly signpost my thoughts. To see what I mean I suggest taking a look at my latest review here. All the best —♫CheChe♫ talk 17:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. It might be easier to edit once the problems with the article are mentioned. Also, I copyedit your "summery"? :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oops, haha, thanks. That happens more often than I care to admit. Best of luck with any future reviews, and don't forget I'm always around if you need anything. —♫CheChe♫ talk 17:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

why my article is not accepted

my college article is not submited in wikipedia why?? my college is the extension centre of bit nesra and my college bit mesra deoghar extension article is not submitted ,but the extension center jaipur and patna are having their wikipedia page.Sourabhbit (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sourabhbit. The explanation for declining the draft is given in the comment. Another way of looking at it is that Wikipedia is not intrerested in what you know, or what I know: everything in a Wikipedia article should be verifiable from a reliable published source. Everything. Furthermore, Wikipedia has hardly any interest in anything which a subject says about itself, whether on its website, or anywhere else: it only wants to know what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it. The bulk of the material in an article - and everything which is in any way evaluative - must come from a published source independent of the subject of the article. Since your draft has only one reference, and that is to the official website, it is not surprising that the draft has not been accepted.
Words like "picturesque" and "very famous" are examples of what I mean by "evaluative": they should never appear in a Wikipedia article in Wikipedia's voice: they may be quoted from an independent source, but Wikipedia's text must be neutral.
Finally, the fact that other stuff exists is never a convincing argument. Wikipedia has five million articles, and many of them are substandard: if we let inferior articles be used as a standard of comparison, the standard of Wikipedia will tend downward, rather than upward. I am dubious whether Birla Institute of Technology, Jaipur ought to be kept. Birla Institute of Technology, Patna looks rather better, as it appears to have a reasonable number of reliable sources, though I haven't looked to see if any of them are substantial. --ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Undo deletion of large parts of article text

Hi, a while ago I added various bits of information to the London_Fire_Brigade_Museum page. When I looked the other day it had all been deleted since the museum had finally moved to it's new location. Personally I would have thought it would be useful to have kept that information and moved it to a 'History' section but I wasn't sure of the correct approach. I didn't want to undo the changes made by the user who deleted it without being sure. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Loweredtone (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Loweredtone. As usually on Wikipedia, the answer is to obtain consensus. According to WP:BRD, you can revert an edit, but you should not revert a reversion: rather you should discuss it on the article's talk page. If you think an edit might be controversial, it's best to discuss it first.
So, in this case, you could either restore the text to a "History" section, as you suggest, and wait and see if anybody disagrees and removes it again; or you could start a discussion on the talk page with that suggestion. Either way, the consensus may end up being yes, no, or something else entirely.
You realise that the old text is still there in the history of the article? So if you want to restore some of it, you can go to a relevant version in the history, "Edit source" (it will warn you that you are editing an old version) and copy the marked-up text to the clipboard before cancelling the edit. --ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
ColinFine Thanks for the info, I'll try editing it with an additional history section rather than undoing the previous change and see what people think. Loweredtone (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Loweredtone, I took at look at the removed information and do believe that is useful information that should most definitely be included in the History section. Thanks for editing and good luck! Justin15w (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a place to ask for help with an article?

Hey,

I'm looking for help to correct a specific article. I know that every article has a talk page but if nobody happens to look at it you will never get a response. Is there a place to ask other people to help you with a certain article?

Thanks! 82.134.197.75 (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi 82.134.197.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which article is it? If it's part of a specific WikiProject, you could post at the WikiProject talk page where you'd likely get more response. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Does a term from the field of theory of terrorism meet the Wikipedia's notaboility criteria?

Does a term from the field of theory of terrorism meet the Wikipedia's notaboility criteria? The term has been used in a book and in some other publications, but as far as I know, it hasn't been covered in any encyclopedia. The term in question is a sort of "measuring tool", a criterion for telling apart an act of terrorism from an ordinary crime.Stevdja (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stevdja. It may have just been a manner of speaking, but we don't normally have articles on terms as terms (or qua terms) – because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary (whereas Wiktionary is a dictionary). Of course, every article has a title, and so "terms" are involved; so too, many articles start with a definition, but an encyclopedia article covers much more, and once expanded beyond a stub, an encyclopedia article will look very different than a dictionary entry. If there can't be much more to cover as a topic than a dictionary definition, then Wikipedia is the wrong place for it, at least as a stand-alone entry. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary for more on this issue. That being said, the way to tell if a topic warrants an article is to see whether multiple, reliable, secondary and independent sources cover the topic in substantive detail (not just mere mentions). If that is the case, then the topic is notable and there are sources you can cite to verify the content to allow an article to be written. That is the only relevant test. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

creating user box

Hi. I was trying to create a user box and can't figure out if I was successful nor where the link is to it. It was called Black Lunch Table. I thought it was {{Userboxtop|Black Lunch Table}} or at least {{Template:Black Lunch Table|Black Lunch Table}} Thanks for any help! Heathart (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Heathart. Your userbox is located at User:Heathart/Userboxes/Black Lunch Table. You can link to it by pasting {{User:Heathart/Userboxes/Black Lunch Table}} onto your page. MereTechnicality ⚙ 20:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want other users to see it and have the opportunity to use it, you can post it on the appropriate page of Wikipedia:Userboxes. There are separate pages for books, movies, TV shows, etc. etc. It's totally up to you whether you list it there, however. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much!MereTechnicalityWhite Arabian Filly--Heathart (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_583&oldid=767312571"