Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 722

Archive 715

←

Archive 720

Archive 721

Archive 722

Archive 723

Archive 724

Archive 725

?

Hello,

I would like to raise a concern that many of your pages that include scientific information also include evolution as fact. Whilst this may be the general "faith" of people on this platform, there is NO real proof of evolution. And as I see it evolution is just as much a belief as any other religion. It is upsetting to me and I am sure others that you never publish alternative views to evolution such as different religious views? Is there a reason?82.69.21.15 (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon. Content on Wikipedia follows that published in reliable sources, such as scientific journals and scholarly books, the overwhelming majority of which present a strong scientific consensus that evolution by natural selection is the single most important driving factor in the diversity of life on Earth. If you would like to change the way Wikipedia covers this topic, then you will first have to change the scientific consensus, which Wikipedia follows. GMG^talk 09:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Please also be aware that you are not permitted to edit articles by introducing your own personal unsubstantiated opinions, as you did with this fundamentally damaging edit to Chalk. ALL edits that purport to be factual require a citation to a Reliable Source to substantiate them, and  to allow others to judge whether the edit is valid. Finally, you asked: "...you never publish alternative views to evolution such as different religious views? Is there a reason?" We can do better than that - we can demonstrate to you that we do. See here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

And just to add, we in fact do have extensive coverage of creationism and religious perspectives on evolution, see Portal:Creationism. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Firstly I would wish to point out that I said why do your (scientific pages) not religious pages only hold evolution as the primary (accepted view) and not refer to other views. And secondly the bible which has been around longer than Darwin is not "reliable"? One man who states that animals can miraculously change from one species to another is to be believed. Evolution is so called science but if you cannot prove how a species changes from one to another then is it not a faith "to believe what is not seen"? Extensive the coverage may be but it is not on any of your scientific pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.21.15 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The article on evolution only discusses evolution because that's what it is supposed to do. It includes links to the articles Creation–evolution controversy and Objections to evolution for readers interested in other points of view. The article only presents what independent reliable sources publish. The same is true of creationism. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Rebecca Solnit?

Labeling the neologism "mansplaining" as sexist seems like introducing opinion

Just came to read about Rebecca Solnit and stumbled over the word "sexist." I checked out the history and it's a very fresh edit. Seems questionable to me, and I see it has happened before and was called vandalism. I too would consider it vandalism. Is it appropriate to undo?

Aatist (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Aatist. I believe it is inappropriate because it doesn't adhere to a neutral point of view, so feel free to revert it. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism. Vandalism is a deliberate effort to undermine Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, which is only one type of inappropriate editing. My guess is that the editor felt that the term was accurate and worth including. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Anon126.

While now reverted, it needs to be seen as part of a larger pattern of unregistered users targeting this writer with mysogynistic edits.

On January 11, User 50.101.83.131 added "with her feminist panties in a bunch."

On [28, 2017], user 122.56.85.61 changed Solnit's name to "Fat Bumbum."

In October, 2016, users Bootsmedia and Wiki-overseer (now blocked) made multiple inappropriate edits. Aatist (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Aatist (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Aatist, it's true that users have made inappropriate edits in the past. But a key difference between vandalism and other inappropriate editing is that if someone continues adding the same material, you shouldn't fight back by continually removing it unless the case is clear-cut. Such fighting is known as edit warring and is also not allowed. Instead of edit warring, you should open up a discussion on the talk page and invite them to present sources or other reasoning. This isn't to say that they're right, just that there are different ways to handle the situation. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

disagreement with an editor

I have a disagreement with an editor on an article submission I've created - we went back and forth a bit with no resolution and am not sure what steps to take next. Philacevedo (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You didn't tell us which submission, but if it's User:Philacevedo/sandbox it looks like an advertisement to me. I'm glad to see that you have declared your conflict of interest. It is the difficulty for such editors in maintaining a neutral point of view and avoiding promotion that leads to the recommendation that you wait until someone unconnected with the subject considers it notable and writes an unbiased article. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Philacevedo. The answer to your specific question is detailed in Dispute resolution. But I advise you to take David Biddulph's reply very seriously. --22:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs)

New page about John Etchells, a famous record producer and engineer but...

Reviewer Matthew Vanitas declined my new page, even though, John Etchells produced George Harrison, Queen, Dire Straits, the members of Pink Floyd, and many more notable artists in rock history. I personally was produced by him in 1982 with my band Spectre, which released an album and a single that he produced in Orlando at Bee Jay Recording Studios.

He is now semi-retired, and I think it's time that his contributions to music are recognized in this way. Thank you. Greg Vadimsky 2600:1700:F360:D040:45DA:EA04:B6EC:95A3 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello anonymous and welcome to the Teahouse.

I understand your sentiments, but for a Wikipedia article to exist, there must be sources. If Etchells has been written about by independent reporters, publishing in suitable reliable sources, then there can be an article about him, based on those sources. Music producers are often unsung heroes in the music business, so finding suitable press coverage of them can be quite challenging. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I did a Google search for coverage of Etchells and the best thing that I could find was a trivial passing mention by Brian May in this article in The Independent. I do not doubt his involvement with recording and producing popular music but I was surprised that my Google Books search yielded no coverage of him at all. I fear that he is not notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. He is no George Martin. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

2600:1700:F360:D040:45DA:EA04:B6EC:95A3 Cullen328: if you search his name on GoogleBooks along with specific bands, like "John Etchells" queen I do find a number of passing mentions of him, but just not anything substantive enough to base an article on. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It is unfortunately quite a common mistake to think that Wikipedia is an appropriate place to give recognition to people or institutions: it is not. Until something or somebody has already achieved a level of recognition, in that several people unconnected with the subject have chosen to write in depth about it, Wikipedia will not be interested. --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

What is wrong with my Article ? Tree_ofLife_(video_game)

Hello ! I'm really a newbie in wikipedia, i'm actually working as a community manager and got asked to work on our game's wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tree_of_Life_(video_game) I've been waiting for my article to get reviewed but it got declined. Could you help me make the article get verified ? I'm not sure what is wrong in my article, could you help me ?

5.48.175.202 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, the game does not have "a Wikipedia", it has a Wikipedia draft article. The draft is essentially a promotional piece for the game. It does not have independent reliable sources (WP:RS) that indicate how it is notable (WP:N). Also, you have a conflict of interest, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID as soon as possible. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

331dot: while I agree with you about the wording, when being picky I prefer to point out that nobody and nothing in the world "has" a Wikipedia article: Wikipedia has an article (or in this case, a draft) about a thing. --ColinFine (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

ColinFine You are absolutely correct, usually I catch myself doing that but did not this time. Thank you 331dot (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this a good place to ask question about Wikia, or should I ask elsewhere?

Is the teahouse a good place to ask questions about Wikia or should I ask them elsewhere. If I should ask elsewhere, what would you suggest as a good place to ask any questions that I have about Wikia. I run the Diary of a Wimpy Kid Wiki as it's only active bureaucrat right now and edit there the most/more then any other Wiki. Greshthegreat (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Greshthegreat: The Teahouse and the Help Desk are for asking questions about Wikipedia. We can't help you with Wikia. You could try the Reference Desk, but a forum that specializes in the topic is probably better. I found this page, which has links to further help and community forums: [1] 00:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why the above answer is only half-signed, but it is from me. RudolfRed (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

RudolfRed, you added an extra tilde. Three tildes will render only your username and associated links, five tildes renders just a timestamp.

Greshthegreat, Wikia is a totally separate for profit company. The only relationship between it and this place, en.wikipedia, is we use the same software. The only relationship between Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation, the non profit corporation that owns Wikipedia, is they both have the same founder, Jimbo Wales. John from Idegon (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney

Someone has been adding Nickelodeon and Comedy Central back into Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney. I added the note on talk page saying that Nickelodeon and Comedy Central is not allowed in the list. Why it keep added? 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:BCEC:EA7B:AA5F:E37D (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No one agreed with you. Also, the information is sourced. 191.205.41.210 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It removed and then this IP user adding Nickelodeon and Comedy Central back into the list. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:BCEC:EA7B:AA5F:E37D (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

As may be, but "not allowed" according to whom? Ravenswing 11:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

how to engage an editor who disagrees

So someone undoes my edit with a comment that I think points to a miscommunication between us. I figure this is something to discuss on the article talk page, yeah? But then can I mention the editor in my comment on the talk page in a way that notifies them, or do I post something on their user talk page, or - Legbracesarecool (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Legbracesarecool: You can use the template {{ReplyTo}} to notify the other user of your message on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Best to start on the article talk page, explaining that you see the other editor's point, (including their name, for example, Legbracesarecool), and then state your disagreement. Rhadow (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

question

How do I make a committed identity to put on my userpage. I do not know how to do it Thegooduser talk 17:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

In general if you are looking for information on a particular feature of Wikipedia administration it is worth trying WP:whatever_the_feature_is, so in this case WP:committed identity. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Licence issue UK

Hello, I've got a logo for the English Touch Association. You're asking me to ask them to send a very technical email that relates to US law, to grant permission to use the logo. I received it from the COO, but he'll have to pay a wad of cash to a lawyer to decypher the email proforma you want me to send him. How is that beneficial? When he said I could use it to create a wikipedia site? SamCardioNgo (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@SamCardioNgo: Permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough. The permission must allow for reuse for any purpose, including commercial useage RudolfRed (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, he doesn't have to use the release form. If the organization wants to release something they own under a free license, all they'd really have to do is indicate on their website "The image xyz.jpg is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license version 4.0." Of course, make sure he understands that by doing so, he would be allowing anyone to use it, not just Wikipedia. If they're not willing to do that, the image could be used only as nonfree content, though it is normal practice that the logo of an organization may be used in the article about that organization even if it is nonfree. "Permission to use on Wikipedia" doesn't really change anything, that's still not free licensing so it would still be considered nonfree. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@SamCardioNgo: Are you planning to make a page English Touch Association? If the page is explicitly the page for the ETA you can add the logo under Fair Use (see WP:Logos for more info) without any forms or lawyers. If you're using it somewhere else, then you would need actual permission. That said, why would a company release control of their own logo (that's what your asking them to do)? There is no "released just to Wikipedia", you're literally asking them to allow just anyone to use their logo for whatever, which doesn't seem a good idea. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not true that the release allows just anyone to use their logo for whatever. It releases much of the copyright, so it loses whatever artistic value there was in the logo (usually not much; unless you plan to sell for profit T-shirts with the company logo or whatever, the artist's fees are a sunk cost), but it does not release trademark rights (i.e. you cannot sell your own product under their logo even if it is CC). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way, if you do create English Touch Association, note that you cannot upload the logo (using the Upload File link on the far left of your Wikipedia screen) until the article is up and running. You cannot add the logo while the article is in Draft form or in your Sandbox, gotta be a full article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

One other thing, SamCardioNgo. Your wording above "he said I could use it to create a wikipedia site" rings warning bells in my mind. Do you have a connection with the ETA? If so, please make sure you are familiar with the policy on editing with a conflict of interest. IN any case, I suggest you reframe what you are doing from "create a wikipedia site" to "write a Wikipedia article". Apologies if I'm being over-suspicious. --ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought you might say that. Sorry, wording was not ideal. I certainly do not work for England Touch, and the idea for the page was entirely my own. I had to get the logo and so had to ask someone. Article is/will be vanilla. Will augment as discover more online sources.SamCardioNgo (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that the article in question is England Touch Association, "the national governing body for Touch football within England". Gandalf61 (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, England Touch Association not English Touch Association. I wonder if I could get some help. I have contributed other pages to wikipedia, which have been carefully researched. But in the beginning you're going to have limited live articles. I don't see how this org is not noteworthy. 20k members. And England came third in last world cup with team from this organisation. How is that not noteworthy? It's a catch 22, if I knew more about it I'd be able to find better articles. But it's up for deletion, I honestly believe that is not equitable. SamCardioNgo (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability doesn't mean importance or significance. To demonstrate notability, there needs to be a substantial quantity of reliable and independent reference material about the subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikilink help

I'm adding wikilinks to the 1965 in Norwegian football article and I'm running into some trouble. I'm trying to create a Wikilink for Frigg, but the corresponding article is named Frigg Oslo FK. Is there any way to enable the user to click on Frigg, but get taken to Frigg Oslo FK instead?

Hope I made sense, and thanks in advance. LampGenie01 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's very often a sensible thing to do. You can do it with a "piped wikilink", like this: Frigg. Maproom (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@LampGenie01: Demonstrated in Special:Diff/783828257/824838627. Sam Sailor 20:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

committed identity

how does committed identity work? Thegooduser talk 20:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: You may find Template:Committed identity helpful - TNT^❤ 20:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

teahouse

Do you think I have enough experience to be a teahouse host? Thegooduser talk 19:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Thegooduser and welcome back to the Teahouse.

Not everyone who answers questions here has signed up as a "host". Anyone who has suitable answers and maintains a friendly and welcoming demeanor is free to respond to questions here. You can skip questions you are not sure of, but if you know the answer, then please pitch in. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: So should i not be a host? Thegooduser talk 19:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the only consequence of being a host is that your picture (which you supply when you register as a host) sometimes appears near the top right corner of the page. Maproom (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Maproom: Does this mean I can go ahead and become a host? Thegooduser talk 19:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no Host Approval Committee, really; you need no one's permission if it's something you want to do and feel capable of doing. Ravenswing 20:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

question

I just signed up to be a host. What is the script required when answering someone's question? Thegooduser talk 20:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: No script is required. Sam Sailor 20:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome as a Teahouse host, Thegooduser. Here are my suggestions: Always welcome and ping our visitors. Be sure that your answer is correct - do not guess. Give clear explanations avoiding Wikipedia jargon or acronyms. For example, say "Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, and should include references to reliable sources", instead of saying "Follow our policies WP:V and WP:RS". Adopt a helpful, friendly style instead of acting brusque. Thanks for helping. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I Made some editing contributions to wikipedia

I made some editing contributions to Wikipedia hope it's noted?Reekado Baba (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Reekado Baba and welcome to the Teahouse.

Congratulations on making some edits, we appreciate the help even in cases where it's just the addition of a missing comma. Keep up the good work! You won't always receive acknowlegement or thanks after every edit, but if you continue to make useful contributions, your fellow editors will probably let you know occasionally. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please help

Please make Suck my d*ck (but replace the star with an i) a redirect to Fellatio, since Suck my c*ck (but replace the star with o) redirects there. I can't add my question if I don't censor them. And please don't revert my post, since I'm being serious. Thank you. ShadeOfGreen (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not the Urban dictionary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The request has already been denied, but may I ask why you want it done, as it is an highly strange request to make. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

No, just WP:DENY, Stormy clouds. Sam Sailor 21:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Curiosity killed the cat, I suppose. For the record, I absolutely oppose this suggestion as it is ludicrous. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I only asked since Suck my c*ck redirects there, so Suck my d*ck redirecting there too would be consistent, but alright, I'm sorry. ShadeOfGreen (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Stormy clouds and Sam Sailor: I fail to see how the redirect suggestion above is not constructive, let alone raising to a level worth to get an "unconstructive edits" template. Yes, it is obscene, and I would argue it is not a reasonable search term; but the existing suck my cock was created in 2011 by User:Crazytales (hardly a vandal). I would venture that both redirects should be brought to RfD to stand or fall in a similar fashion.

The OP has no other contributions, so unless you know something I do not know (in which case you should have hatted the thread and brought the case you-know-where), there is no DENY to be done. That is a constructive suggestion, though a silly one and maybe one that will eventually be rejected. But ShadeOfGreen deserves better that a hard WP:BITE. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 01:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Amended warning so as to be less confrontational. If the OP wishes to serious tackle this issue for the creation of an admin-protected page, he can do so via RfC, as the Teahouse is not the correct avenue. As I oppose the suggestion from the get-go, I will not instigate such an RfC as it would be a violation of WP:BURO. Thus, @ShadeOfGreen: - begin an RfC for this creation if it is a serious suggestion, though expect snow closure. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this notable?

Hi! I'm new to editing Wikipedia and was wondering if the company "Cardlay" is notable enough to create a wikipedia page for? Concur and Expensify have one and Cardlay have just received funding. Thanks! NadiaLarsen (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You need to read the notability requirements at WP:NCORP, and then look for significant coverage of the company in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject. Notability is not demonstrated by anything the company writes about itself, or by its press releases. If you are convinced that those notability requirements are met, you can read the advice at WP:Your first article and write a draft based on those sources, submitting it review through the Article for creation process. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@NadiaLarsen:(edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. One company having an article does not automatically mean other companies get articles too. On Wikipedia, a company merits an article if it has in depth coverage in independent reliable sources that indicate how it meets the notability guidelines listed at WP:ORG. This coverage cannot include things like the company's own website, press releases, or transcripts of interviews with company staff(a more extensive list of what is not acceptable is also at WP:ORG). Wikipedia is interested in what independent sources write about a subject.

I would note specifically that a company being funded would be a routine business announcement that by itself would not establish notability. There would need to be other things independently written about it, like coverage of its business practices, news stories about it, etc.

Is there a particular reason you are asking about this company? 331dot (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

As in, are you associated with this company? Being paid by this company to create a Wikipedia article? David notMD (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the user will return; and I take her removal of this discussion to mean that she is associated with the company in some way. Could be wrong, but.... 331dot (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

No doubt.[2][3] Doug Weller talk 15:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm in no way connected to the company. Just interested in how something qualifies for having a Wikipedia article and have seen the company before as I'm in the accounting business and was interested in their product and how to create a wikipedia page. I tried to delete because my question was answered and thought there was no reason for the post to be up then, however, I have now learned from my mistakes. Thank you NadiaLarsen (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Excuse accepted (at least by me). The company still appears to fail the notability criteria. As for deleting stuff, you are entitled to delete stuff from your own Talk, although many people archive that when it gets longish. Should not delete content from article Talk pages. The reasoning is that it aids people in not raising the same debates that were already settled in the past. David notMD (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Author versus subject person: Can they be one in the same?

What is the hard fast rule about posting a page as author and as the subject? For example, if I wanted to do my own page, is that permissible? If not, would you suggest that I find someone to do the page for me, and manage it as well? I have a sandbox version that I'd like to finish and post; but I don't want to break Wikipedia rules. Thank you... Shobuz99 Rick White (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Shobuz99: There is no hard and fast rule. It is allowed but strongly discouraged. Read the guidance at WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. If you decide to go ahead, read WP:YFA and use the wizard there to create a draft that you may submit for review. RudolfRed (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If you really want to do this, first, forget everything about you that you know to be true (handsome, intelligent, famous) and only use content written and published by other people who have no connection to you. Your references (required) cannot be a blog, or any social media. And there is no "your page" nor "manage." Once it is up, ANY other editor can add content that is true and verifiable, even if you don't want it there. How do you suppose Rob Porter is feeling about the Wikipedia article about him? David notMD (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Just curious, but is Rob Porter an actual wikipedian? Jmnbqb (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to say (but doubtful) if Rob Porter has ever edited or even used Wikipedia. The point David notMD is making is simply the one made at WP:PROUD, that having an article about yourself on Wikipedia is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Porter has ever edited Wikipedia. However, since Wikipedia is the fifth most popular website in the world, and #1 in terms of original written content, I consider it highly likely that he has read Wikipedia many times. Right now, my guess is that he is worried more about the worldwide press coverage of his two previous marriages than about how Wikipedia summarizes that coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Just asking for assistance.

So I tried to publish a article about an Indigenous Village in Guyana, which I am from just to let the rest of the world know that such village do exist, however when I submit the article for review it was rejected as it is said to be read like a tourism ad, however that isn't what I am trying to do, so I am kindly asking for assistance since I am new and don't have much experience in editing or writing articles for Wikipedia.Tearon Adrian (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tearon Adrian: Can you please send a reference to the article you are talking about? I want to help. --SoMeEcks (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Moraikobai. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tearon Adrian. In my opinion, the topic is notable, but all of the promotional and advertising language needs to be removed from the draft. An example of unacceptable language is "Its day to day environment lends a picturesque of an alluring expanse of white sand, an abundance of trees; both offering shade and fruits, and more importantly friendly, smiling residents who display great appreciation to those entering their quiet, idyllic village." That sounds exactly like a tourism brochure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If you go to Parika you will see an article about a town in Guyana. This could be a model. AND, at the bottom of that article are links to scores of articles written about villages, towns and cities in Guyana. So you actually have many examples to look at. Some are not well written - lacking any references and other useful information - but you should get a general idea of what to do. You are allowed to copy content from a Wikipedia article for your article, but need to attribute the source in your Edit summary. David notMD (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of encyclopedia usability, the user has an undeniable aptitude for the aesthetic. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hello Tearon Adrian -- Put your personal touches to the article and submit it again. Rhadow (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

List Internet Archive backup instead of original URL?

In the Wikipedia article for Slow-Scan Television, citation #6 has this URL listed:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/news/3827/lost-apollo-tapes-restored-and-broadcast

but that brings up a 404. The article had been deleted. Is it okay if I replace the URL with the Internet Archive backup:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140720193330/http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/lost-apollo-tapes-restored-and-broadcast/

instead? Also, if so, should I use the one closer to the access date or the latest available? RandomGuyDTB (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello RandomGuyDTB and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you use the {{cite web}} template, you can preserve both the original URL and add an archive URL. By setting the dead-url=yes parameter, you cause the archived version to be presented first. WP would prefer not to lose the original URL even if, as in this case, it is embedded in the archive URL.

As to the choice of which archived version to choose, that's a matter left up to your judgment. If the contents have changed over time, then you need to choose an archived version that still contains the support for the fact or statement it is a reference for. And you need to be sure that the archive version you use is not storing a useless 404 response or something from a completely unrelated topic. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse

I am a new host here at the teahouse. How do you get your picture to appear on the top right as a teahouse host? Thegooduser talk 21:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: - They cycle automatically, though changing your image from the default teacup may assist in determining when your profile has been listed. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: How do you change your picture? Thegooduser talk 21:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: - edit it directly here. You have EC rights, so you should be good to go! Stormy clouds (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: - Fixed that for ya!. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: Thanks! Thegooduser talk 23:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Thegooduser that's not the complete answer. Stormy clouds has rightly pointed you to where to add your name and preferred image as a new host (oh, and welcome, by the way!) However, the function that randomly selects and shows the names of Teahouse hosts is a bit out-of-date and could probably do with being looked at. If you view the source of this Teahouse page you'll see it uses the following command to select and show random pages: {{Random subpage|page=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured|start=1|end=12|seed=3}}, so the page it selects from is not the same as the Host landing page you've correctly just edited, but appears to be just the first 12 entries from this page. I've avoided playing with it myself as I'm also a 'new boy' here, and it seemed rather presumptive to do so. (The sub-page content is itself rather impressive.) But maybe the merits and methods of updating this function to show a suite of the more recently active Teahouse hosts is a discussion best moved over to our Teahouse Talk page, rather than here in the general discussion forum for newcomers? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Cite Web Templates

Hello,

I used to make references from scratch, but now I'm switching to using cite web and similar templates since I've noticed they have automatic bot functions. I was curious what all the automatic functions are that you get from using cite web templates.

Thanks, Jmnbqb (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jmnbqb. I guess you refer to a feature to automatically fill out some of the fields by a tool visiting the given url. See Help:Referencing for beginners#Using refToolbar. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Partially. I was also curious about bot functions such as when they tag URLs as dead and other functions that I don't know about. Jmnbqb (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jmnbqb: Bots are not a feature of citation templates. Bots are computer-controlled user accounts performing various tasks in order to maintain the encyclopedia. But the English Wikipedia does have some bots which are coded to do maintenance work on citation templates, often among other unrelated tasks. I don't know the details of current bot tasks related to citation templates. There are currently around 300 approved bots in total. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Cynthia MacAdams

I reviewed Draft:Cynthia MacAdams last month and declined it as not being neutrally written, saying that it appeared to be written to praise MacAdams rather than to describe her neutrally. User:Lynneuna has asked me, on my talk page, if I will re-review the draft, because it has been reworked to be more neutral. I said that I would ask for the comments of other editors here. I do notice that the editor has only worked on this one draft, and have asked whether they are working for or with MacAdams. (If not, they can help improve the encyclopedia as much by working on some of the five million articles that we already have as on one that we do not yet have.)

Comments from other editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. I believe that this person is probably a notable photographer, and therefore the encyclopedia would be better off with an acceptable article about her. Too many of the references are to her own published work and ought instead be placed in a bibliography section. Independent sources should be emphasized. The fact that her work is in the permanent collection of major museums points toward notability but those claims are unreferenced. That is a major shortcoming. Lynneuna has access, it seems, to three offline newspaper clippings published in the Argus Leader of Sioux Falls roughly 65 years ago. This an indicator of a close connection to the subject, which it would be wise to disclose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Cullen328. I am inclined to agree as to notability. I declined the draft not on notability grounds but on neutrality grounds. As we know, AFC does permit a draft to be sent back for rework if it establishes notability but is non-neutral or promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I took the liberty of cutting chunks of the draft and trying to revise the lead to be more neutral. Article still needs work. Saw that Lynneuna blocked for a week for using two User names to create and work on this article - and no other article. Begs the question of non-disclosed COI. David notMD (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Next steps following drafting an article

I just drafted an article and clicked publish changes. However, it still shows as being a Draft. What step(s) would I need to take to have it become a main article and searchable online?Eromtlib (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Eromtlib and welcome to the Teahouse.

I've added a template to your draft to enroll it in the articles for creation process. When it's ready, you can submit it for reivew. Don't submit it yet!

As it stands, your draft does not establish the WP:notability of this company and reads more like an entry in a business directory than an encyclopedia article. These problems will have to corrected before it can be accepted as an article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Cab someone explain why this edit was reverted? How can we work to get this citation into the article

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Arvin_Overton&oldid=prev&diff=825058149

Vwanweb (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The explanation is in the edit summary of the diff you gave us. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You have already solved this question, in fact over-solved it. Your one citation of evidence for Overton being oldest surviving WWII vet was reverted so you continued by adding four different citations for the same fact. One would have been sufficient. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red 2- Feedback sought

This is a bit cheeky, but following on from the Women in Red question above below, could I invite some feedback either from hosts or from newcomers who watch these pages? I've been preparing this handout to give participants who attend a WiR Editathon at my local university next month. The handout's aim is to give attendees something to take away with them towards the end of the event, guiding them into the next steps after their first few hours foraying into Wikipedia.

So it's not something to see them through the day, but a tool to give brand new editors support and reassurance immediately afterwards, as I feel this is often forgotten about. I am of course also seeking feedback from the Women in Red Project, but I thought those of us who either are new editors here - or who help newcomers here on their journey into successful editing - might also have a different view on the sort of guidance we need to be giving. Comments here, or on the one handout's talk page would be really appreciated. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Archived so order is different.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Seems very useful, and is the sort of thing which I, as a (relatively) new editor would have relished when starting out. Kudos for organizing the editathon as well, and tying it into the Women in Red project is a great way to get prospective editors to join, and to ensure that they are here for the right reasons. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Need to turn a Women in Red from blue to red

I was adding women to the crowd sourced list for Women in Red March and Roza Salih, who does not have an existing article is blue, (instead of red) because her name is associated with Glasgow Girls (activists). I had recently added Amal Azzudin, also a member of the same group, but she is red. Can you help me fix this (turn her name red)? Thx MauraWen (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey MauraWen. If you just want it to appear red in the list so it's not confusing, you can do something like [[Roza Salih|<span style="color:#CC2200;">Roza Salih</span>]] which will look like this: Roza Salih instead of this: Roza Salih. GMG^talk 13:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, GreenMeansGo, that looks like really bad advice to me. It will work, yes, but it will create something that looks like a red-link but isn't one. I can't see why that could possibly be a good idea. Am I missing something? --ColinFine (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah Colin. I suppose that would make sense seeing the rest of the discussion now. I guess I figured if someone wanted it deleted they would have said deleted, rather than make it red. I may need a "this user may be sleep deprived at the moment" disclaimer for the next few days. GMG^talk 22:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@MauraWen: -or did you mean you want to write the article and you want it to be a redlink? It was an article a couple of years ago, but was redirected to the GG's page as (at that time) being non-notable. It can be made a redlink link again by just removing the redirect text from the page, although note that that would stop people finding anything at all out about her! Or did you mean just text colour like wot e said...? Cheers! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Yes, you are right. I will be writing an article about her in next month's Women in Red Editathon. I think she will meet notability guidelines now, more sources available, and she was named among Scotland's most influential young women recently. I don't mind if people cannot find out anything about her for a few weeks. I will write additional text for the Glasgow Girls article when her article is finished. I don't know how to remove a redirect. Can you explain that to me? thx MauraWen (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: One more question. How did you discover that she had an existing article? I could not find anything on her in Wikipedia except for her name in the Glasgow Girls article. MauraWen (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@MauraWen: It's only administrators who can delete a redirect or other page and change the normally written wikilink Roza Salih to a red link. But any editor can change the redirect to an article after clicking "Redirected from Roza Salih" at the top. Clicking "View history" [4] on the redirect gives access to the old article. I don't know whether WikiProject Women in Red has a special practice for their project pages but we never display redirect links as red in articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, MauraWen. When you come to write the article about Salih, I strongly recommend that you treat it as a new article, and create a draft Draft:Roza Salih - I suggest using the Article Wizard. Just ignore the existing redirection page. When you submit your draft for review, and a reviewer accepts it, they will handle moving it over the redirection. --ColinFine (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

My grandfather, Bob Olsen, has a Wikipedia page. His middle name is misspelled.

Bob Gillham Olsen was my grandfather. I am Bob G. Olsen II, my father was Bob G. Olsen the first, and my grandfather used the pen name Bob Olsen. His middle name is misspelled. Can I correct this? 45.36.85.183 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you saying that the article Bob Olsen should change Alfred Johannes Olsen to Bob Gillham Olsen? That would mean complete change of two names and not just a different spelling. Wikipedia requires published reliable sources. The sources I can quickly find agree with Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

How is his name printed in a source that has credibility? Such as the Times?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Alfred Johannes Olsen was the great-grandfather of 45.36.85.183, his grandfather was the first son of Bob Olsen. The grandfather's name was spelt Bob Gilham Olsen in the article. There are no sources on that spelling apart from Wikipedia mirrors. There are a handful or so primary sources online with the spelling Bob Gillham Olsen. Based on these, I chose to believe IP, and I have changed the spelling in the article in Special:Diff/818527155/825189153. Sam Sailor 00:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Are bestselling books not notable?

Are bestselling books not notable? Or is it that making the NY Times bestseller list is just not notable enough? I guess I don't understand what makes a book notable.

I tried to create a page for my teenage son's favorite book series "The Last Kid's on Earth" by Max Brallier. The series is well-known, very popular among young readers (a "notabl-y" tough demographic) and the current installment is both a NY Times Bestseller and a USA Today Bestseller. I would have that would be enough to pass muster.Tokaria (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Tokaria -  Working One moment. GMG^talk 01:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Tokaria. The book does in fact appear to be notable, and after a little bit of cleanup, I have accepted the draft at AfC. It may have been that the use of some sources, like Amazon reviews, which are pretty much universally unreliable, made it look like it wasn't as notable as it seems to be. For future reference, you really want to avoid using as a source anything that is user generated online. This includes blogs, user reviews, and things like IMDB or other Wikis, including Wikipedia itself.

But thanks for spotting this article that we were missing and helping us fill the gap. If you ever need any help in the future, feel free to drop back by the Teahouse or ask over at my talk page. GMG^talk 02:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tokaria. GMG handled the specific situation with your draft quite well. I want to answer your more general question. Although best-selling books are often notable, the sales numbers are no guarantee of notability. The most common indicator of book notability is that the book has been widely reviewed by professional journalists or academics. Books that have been adapted into scripts of major films or plays, or are widely taught in college and university classes are also considered notable. Please read our notability guideline for books for a complete explanation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

if the source is R

Hi! I need to hear more experienced point of view about the sourse. If it the RS? http://filmic-light.blogspot.pt/2011/01/kay-kamen-growth-of-disneyana.html thanks Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lidiia Kondratieva, the website appears to be a personal blog. It’s well done and indicates what it’s sources were. However it doesn’t seem to have an editorial policy or error correction process, both of which should be present in a reliable source. By the way, an excellent place to ask questions like yours would be the WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where you can also search for any previous discussions of sources you are checking on. Gab4gab (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

articles and pictures

Fatur Rahman Rizky (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)I want to ask how to edit articles on wikipedia and how to input images on wikipedia. and how to make an airport mapFatur Rahman Rizky (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Fatur Rahman Rizky. There's is a lot to learn on Wikipedia, and most everybody still doesn't understand everything even after years of contributing. But a good place to start would probably be our tutorial on writing your first article or to consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. Then if you still have specific questions this is the right place to ask. GMG^talk 08:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fatur Rahman Rizky: to edit an article, find an article with a mistake or omission in it, click the "Edit" link, make the correction, click "Show preview" to check that you've done it right, and click "Publish changes". I recommend starting with really simple things, like spelling mistakes. To add an image, either use an image already at Wikimedia Commons (there's over 30 million of them there), or upload one there with suitably unrestricted copyright; and then add it to the article as described at Help:Pictures. I would advise you against trying to create a new article – it's very difficult for inexperienced users, and those who try often end up disappointed an disillusioned. I believe GreenMeansGo is misguided in suggesting WP:YFA as a good place to start. Maproom (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Umm... Well Maproom, I think YFA is a pretty good tutorial, even if someone isn't looking to immediately jump into creating a brand new article. It manages to cover all the highpoints, COPYVIO, NPOV, COI, sourcing, etc. and is much more concise than WP:TUTORIAL, which winds up being several pages longer overall. GMG^talk 10:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add that images are icing on the cake; write a good article and start worrying about images only then. Airport maps are exactly the sort of thing that experienced volunteers have their own system for, and I'm sure you'll get help getting one once the rest of the article is in order. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

semi-protection

I want to ask how to make semi-protection articleFatur Rahman Rizky (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fatur Rahman Rizky: there are instructions for requesting page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Maproom (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very muchFatur Rahman Rizky (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

How do a start a Wikipedia page for a person

I would like to know how I can start a Wikipedia page for a person103.215.211.210 (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Information about starting a new article can be found at Your First Article; however, I would encourage you to also use THe Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial in using Wikipedia. Successfully writing a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and you will be much more successful if you read up some on how to go about it first, and even spend some time editing existing articles first in order to learn how Wikipedia works. As you have not registered a username, you cannot directly create a new article(if you do register, you can eventually do so after a brief time). so you must use Articles for Creation.

When you say you want to "start a Wikipedia page for a person", are you saying that you represent the person you want to write about? Please note that Wikipedia is not social media for people to "have pages", this is an encyclopedia which has articles about subjects shown to be notable, supported with independent reliable sources. You should also read the notability guidelines for biographies at WP:BIO. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

My menu is broken

My menu's links all go to ftlyingpig, although in the subpage it's clearly written that its supposed to be in my page. Please help, I've already tried purging. Itsquietuptown (Talk • Contributions) 13:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume that you're talking about User:Itsquietuptown/Menu? That's what you included, as the links for your images, when you did this edit. The links from the text presumably go where you want them to go. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Itsquietuptown: Your menu currently looks like this. Change link=Special:Prefixindex/User:fltyingpig|Special:Prefixindex/User:fltyingpig to link=User:Itsquietuptown|User Page Replace all other instances of fltyingpig with Itsquietuptown. That ought to do it. Sam Sailor 15:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Hi, a deletion discussion has gathered a relatively large number of keep votes with the same rationale in a short span of time. No other AfD's preceding or succeeding this entry (or delsort groups) have gathered more than one vote. A few accounts are even editing after a relatively long time, which makes me suspicious of socks being active. Is it possible for me to request a CU investigation? Thanks, MT Train^Discuss 17:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, via WP:SPI, but it requires strong evidence. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)