Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 738

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 735

Archive 736

Archive 737

→

Improving and expanding article Clara Martinez Alberola

Hello everyone! I am new to Wikipedia, and recently created article Clara Martinez Alberola since she has recently been appointed Head of Staff at the European Comission, which is an important role. Only, the article is short at this time, and I am not sure how it could be improved. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi DeeM28 thanks for creating a nice new article. As you said, she is newly notable so there isn't very much reliable information available about her yet. We simply wait for more news about her to be published then we can expand the article. What you can look for now is more information about her earlier career, education, family background, etc. The infobox mentions the University of Valencia, but there is no detail about it in the article text. I have done a little edit to change "currently" to a specific date and a few other minor fixes and tweaks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Notability and (Promotional) Language Issues

Hello everyone, a submission of mine, currently available at draft:Shine.com has been declined. Please help with pointing out the mistakes, specific or general, and how to improve upon them with respect to modifications, additions, and removing content. Also, citations were mainly from the third party sources, there still may be notability issues, please help with that. I look forward to your helping hands. I would like to declare that the article is an assignment from my employer.Amangoinplaces (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amangoinplaces: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have been asked by your employer to write an article, you need to review the conflict of interest policy located at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID before you edit further; reviewing the latter policy is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use.

You and your employer seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a business or even merely tell the world about a business. Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wishes to say about itself or how it wants to be portrayed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties write about article subjects such as a business. Primary sources like press releases, interviews with company staff, routine business announcements, and brief mentions are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. Most of your sources seem to be routine announcements and or press releases. The notability guidelines for businesses are listed at WP:ORG, and you should review those as well.

As you work for the business, it will be difficult(though not impossible) for you to write in the neutral point of view Wikipedia requires. In order for you to be successful in writing about your employer, you would need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on what third party, independent reliable sources state about it. As I stated, that does not include primary sources. If your business has not been sufficiently written about in independent sources, it will not be possible for their to be an article about it here at this time. Not every business merits an article here.

If you have reviewed the notability guidelines and truly feel that your business does merit an article, you can attempt again to rewrite the draft and resubmit it. Again, though, if you cannot find proper sources, you should wait for your business to become sufficiently notable(as Wikipedia defines it) and allow others who notice it to write about it. If you just want to tell the world about your business, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Hello, thank you for the tips. I have already declared the conflict of interest as required. As of the citations provided, except for one, I have personally made sure they are all independent third party articles, some from competing news publishers (as we are news publishers as well). I just wanted to know if they are sufficient to establish notability or shall I research more. Also, if you would please help in identifying the points where language was promotional and/or not appropriate. I am already working on a new draft and any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Amangoinplaces (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amangoinplaces: From what I can tell, most of the issues are likely related to the sources. They mostly seem to be press releases or routine business announcements(like the merger of the business, or the creation of one of its platforms). If you review WP:ORG you will see that such sources are specifically called out as not appropriate for establishing notability as Wikipedia defines it. To do so, this business needs to have been written about with in depth coverage by third parties, that does not merely discuss a routine business transaction, press release, or consist of an interview with company staff. I would again stress that you need to forget everything you know about the company and only write based on the independent, in depth coverage given by third parties that have chosen to write about your business.

I suspect that the reviewer who rejected the draft as an advertisement(you can ask them directly to be certain) did not mean "advertisement" in the sense of "Buy X service from Shine.com today!!!!", but in the sense of the piece being something that you might read on a business directory site or social media. As I indicated, Wikipedia articles must do more. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Alright, will see what I can do. I tried to be comprehensive, to provide as much information as I could find. Will providing just the basic information with proper sources (which will greatly reduce the content as well) do the trick. I understand now that it is required to be factual and simple which I will try my best to provide. Also, is there a possibility to address the issue of sources 'looking' like paid/PR content and getting them verified as independent since these are all the independent and reliable sources I could find. Thanks. Amangoinplaces (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amangoinplaces: The issue is not necessarily the sources themselves, but what they are stating. They mostly if not totally seem to consist of routine business announcements; the merger of the business, the business raising funding, launching a new marketplace, merely telling of things your company has done, etc. All of these things do not establish notability. The pages WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND(both subsets of WP:ORG, the guidelines as a whole) discuss this better than I probably can. In all honesty, I'm not certain your business merits an article at this time, especially if these sources are the only ones you have found. Again, not every business merits a page here; you may wish to inform your employer of this and show them this discussion, as well as the notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: That is a little disappointing but no problem. I will certainly inform about the same. Thank you very much for your time and efforts. Hope to see you again sometime. Amangoinplaces (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is my article keep getting deleted

Im after creating Matchbook.com Wiki in my spare time. Im not sure why this is getting flagged for speedy deletion. All information seems to relevant to the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddrumm1 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

While I cannot view the article, it has apparently been deleted as it violates our policy regarding promotional content, and is unambiguously an advertisement. All content on Wikipedia must be neutral and supported by reliable sources, and your draft was deemed by El Cid, a highly-accomplished administrator, to not meet these criteria. Moreover, editors who have a conflict of interest for an article which they are editing should refrain from doing so. Not sure if this applies to you, but it is worth parsing regardless... Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC).

As mentioned, Ddrumm1, the article was deleted as being promotional, under WP:CSD#G11. An earlier version was deleted after an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matchbook.com as not being notable. Additional independent sources that discuss the subject in detail, and a more neutral tone, would be needed for any later version to survive. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Guys, I have had a better read through the Wikipedia Guideline and think I know where I went wrong. Apologies and thanks for the help. Hope this can be rectified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddrumm1 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Advice on Page that I am working on

Hi,

I originally created a rather large article and submitted it for review. It was denied under the reasoning for notability. It can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:United_States_Bridge_Championships

Since then, I made the decision that I actually wanted to split this one article into multiple because I felt that it was overwhelming for the reader and it would only get longer in length. Also the idea transpired from the fact that the tournaments that each of these categories would qualify for each have their own wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Bowl and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Cup for example.

I created a draft for the first section of the original article found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:United_States_Bridge_Championships_-_Open where I also fixed the issue of notability because I found multiple New York Times articles about the events over the years. Do you have any other ideas on how to fix the page and make sure that it passes its review when it comes up?

I was sent here by Robert who originally rejected my first article to seek advice on how to improve the new page. He also said that the splitting up of the article would make the review more complicated. Why is that?

Thanks for your time, Hakan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htberk (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The rejection was not for lack of notability. Rather, it was that 107 of the 108 refs were from worldbridge.org or other bridge organizations. Your draft of a shorter option - just the Open Championships, still has far too many worldbridge citations. The few other types - NYTimes bridge columns back when the paper still had a bridge column - are annoying, as in addition to a bit about what was happening at the Open, each describes the play of a bridge hand, for which the accompanying diagram is absent. It may be impossible to find independent references for all the information you want to include. To be honest, I am appalled that scores upon scores of bridge plays are deemed notable enough to warrant their own articles - but then, I'm not a bridge player. David notMD (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Htberk: you should be able to get good advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge, by inquiring at its talk page. Maproom (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Htberk, I am a bridge player (not quite life master), and i am not appalled that scores upon scores of bridge plays are deemed notable enough to warrant their own articles, but I do think that David notMD has a point. However I would disagree that this is not an issue of notability -- the lack of independent source references is exactly an indication that notability has not yet been established.

I would advise creating a shorter draft explaining what the USBCs are and their history (when they were instituted, etc.) but without the many detailed results. Then once this is reviewed and established as an article, more detailed articles on the specific events with lists of winners can be created using Summary style. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I like to do minor edits like spelling from a different language or sorts but it gets deleted due to violation

I like to do minor edits like spelling from a different language or sorts to make it more appropriate but it gets deleted due to violation - like names or the actual spelling or pronunciation in that language because the English version is quite lacking in the proper term or usage. And hope the website will be more open towards new users like me since in my point of view, it is complex process to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heshbi (talk • contribs)

Hello, Heshbi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits were reverted on the basis of WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, a series of multiple discussions that state that Indic script should not be added into ledes of articles. It states that [o]ne reason why Indian scripts are avoided is because often there are too many different languages with their own native script, which can be original names for a topic. Additionally, there are too often problems with verifiability of the accuracy of the non-English spelling. A third reason is frequent disagreements over which native scripts to include; this led to a resolution to avoid all of them. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Photographs

Hi I recently wrote my first article for Wikipedia, on Amal Azzudin. I contacted her and asked for a photograph that I could add to the page, which she sent me. However, when I try to upload it I get an automated message about copyright, rejecting the photo. How do I go about uploading it? Thanks for your help. Sally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally Wainwright (talk • contribs) 15:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sally Wainwright: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In most cases, the person in a photo does not actually own the copyright to the photo; it is usually the photographer. There is some guidance in this area at WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: I can ask her about this - but once we have established who took the pic and have their agreement to publish, how do I go about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally Wainwright (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, is editing the question the correct way to reply to someone? Sally Wainwright (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sally Wainwright: yes, editing the question is the correct way to reply. (You should also indent your replies, as I have done for you, but that's no big deal.)

You will need the copyright holder (photographer or else) to go through the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted material. Make sure that they understand that the photograph, once uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, can be reused by anyone, anywhere, for (almost) any purpose and free of charge, not just on Wikipedia. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Tables - Sizing Guidelines?

In regards: Dallas_Fuel#Most_Appearances

Hi, is there any guidelines of when it’s appropriate to reduce the size of a table via making the text smaller? As in when a table is too large/stretched for an article? I think I read about it before, but I can’t remember where. And as I’ve had edits previously reversed for making a table text size smaller, I wanted to double check.

Cheerio Wiki nV (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wiki nV: You definitely shouldn't reduce the size of the text, that is obstructive for people who have trouble reading small text, we rarely go below the standard size, especially for content. There are some guidelines on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists and on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists. Also, we are an encyclopedia and not a directory or a collection of indiscriminate data. Larger tables are also very hard to use in the app, mobile website and in things like Apple's dictionary app, so another reason to avoid large tables. But of course a lot is up to case-by-case judgement. We have some terrible examples out in the wild though. Building lists is easy and writing prose is harder, so lists tend to balloon once started. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that for me personally, all the information beyond the 4th column is pretty useless, as I don't even understand what the headers mean. Writing some prose on the developments of the season seems much more appropriate to me. Also, you shouldn't use color to indicate something, as not everyone can perceive color (or bold for that matter). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheDJ: That was my worry as I exclusively use my PC, I don't how it appears on smaller screens. However, I've seen many similar tables for other sport teams so it's confusing. Seeing as making the text smaller isn't suggested, would collapsing the table as default be okay? In the sense it doesn't solve readability issues for smaller screens, but at least it shouldn't interfere with the rest of the article in terms of stretching the page?

In regards the writing prose, I had planned to eventually write about the season history, I just considered this table a separate matter? As in it doesn't seem logically to write about player appearances in detail, so it would be omitted in any written prose. It's literally just numerical statistics about the team.

The other columns are just a breakdown of where the total appearances from, see: example of a football equivalent. I do see how the headers are Overwatch esports jargon looking at your comment, so I'll add more tooltips for the headers to hopefully make it clearer.

Color/bold point understood, will correct.

Also, thanks for the quick reply. Wiki nV (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Help with citing my article

I've been working on getting the article "Dramatic Publishing Company" submitted for months and it keeps getting denied saying the sources aren't credible enough. I've searched similar companies to Dramatic Publishing such as, Dramatis Play Service, Playscripts Inc., and Pioneer Drama. All of these companies have had their pages approved with similar or less content than what I've provided. Can you please explain to me and help me understand why their pages are acceptable and mine is not? And what do I need to change to get it accepted? Am I just adding it to the wrong section of Wikipedia? Do different sections even exist? Thank you for your help.Corcoran42 (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Corcoran42: Other companies have an article, so should I is not a reason to approve an article. Writing for Wikipedia is hard, I always advice people to start making small contributions to other articles first, and wouldn't advice anyone to write an article in their first half year of being a Wikipedian (making multiple edits per week). You have made 4 edits to one article in 3 months. I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to successfully publish their first article that way unfortunately. Specifically for this article, you have not demonstrated why the company matters.. There are thousands and thousands of publishing houses and only VERY few will ever have an article on Wikipedia. You basically will need to demonstrate that this company has had a lasting, transformative imprint on society, and that multiple people other than you have concluded this (usually through national news publications). This is a HIGH bar, because we are not a directory listing for companies. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Corcoran42:, let me be a little more specific. You've supplied three references to the article. You're required, by the appropriate guidelines (which I'm sure you know at this point, because the links to them were supplied both times the draft was declined), to supply multiple references from reliable sources which provide the subject with "significant coverage." The first reference, to the Chicago Tribune, isn't about Dramatic Publishing, but gives enough information that I'd give that one a pass. The second is an obituary of the publisher and only mentions it in passing. The third is a press release, which the appropriate guideline explicitly rejects as a qualifying reference. More's needed ... and from the other companies you mentioned too (only two of which have articles). Thank you for doing the service of pointing them out, because they likewise have inadequate sourcing and have been nominated for deletion. Ravenswing 18:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedbackCorcoran42 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

When will Wikipedia get a facelift?

The mobile site looks sexy. The regular web version looks like a neglected geocities cite from the Clinton administration. This hurts users as they will be less likely to read and interact with the platform. Is there a facelift on its way? And if so, when will that be rolled out :) ? Thank you, Amin (Talk) 06:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amin: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know if you are referring to the Main Page specifically, but I know that there is general agreement that it should be updated, but not agreement on what it should be updated to, despite many attempts at reaching agreement. Incremental improvements are made occasionally, but for a wholesale redesign you would need to find a way to reach consensus among hundreds of thousands of editors from around the world all of whom have different ideas and opinions. I also think(though I don't have statistics on it) that the percentage of readers on phones is increasing more than on computers(which editors tend to use more). 331dot (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amin: I would also add that there are still many parts of the world with poor internet access, and the site could not be so glitzy that it would impede access to users in those areas(i.e. needing a lot of bandwidth). 331dot (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amin: Personally, I don't expect an encyclopaedia to look sexy, but I appreciate that some people are attracted by appearance rather than by content. Dbfirs 08:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I quite like that it looks like "a neglected Geocities site from the Clinton administration" myself (well, maybe not the neglected part). ;-). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well that's a bit of an exaggeration on Amin's part. The current vector skin was introduced in 2009, in the Obama years. This is what Wikipedia used to look like. And since then small additions like the VisualEditor, notifications, the new diff and edit conflict interfaces have kept it moving forward. Personally I don't think it looks out of date at all, but maybe I've just got used to it.

Looking back now, it's remarkable that the introduction of Vector was so smooth. These days, the WMF seem to struggle to push even minor changes, both in terms of their internal capabilities, and the fact that their relationship with the community has broken down to the point where everything they do is vociferously opposed as a matter of course. I doubt they would be prepared to, or capable of, attempting a major redesign like that again. I like the mobile version too, but I gather it is rather unpopular with the majority of editors. – Joe (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

De gustibus and all that...

Users can reskin the site for themselves with browser add-ins like Wikiwand. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And there are of course some easy skin options for registered users at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Timeless was added recently. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The introduction was not that smooth either, trust me. It's just that most people were too busy writing articles and fighting about the content back then, to care about something like this. But there were pretty big discussions about it and several shifts in the launch approach. It was also one of the first software developments that the foundation ever did (at least visible to users). Ppl were in general sort of happy that we finally had staff to take care of stuff no one else wanted to work on, so that too made it less controversial I think. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Eh, for my money, it pisses me off when websites I use a lot just scramble everything up because of the fetish our culture has for New! Improved! I just dropped the site that's been my home page for my web browsers for over a decade because it just kept getting busier and busier with NooStuf to capture the attention of the easily-bored. Wikipedia being the 5th most trafficked site on the Internet, I'm thinking we don't have to do handsprings to get the world to notice us. Ravenswing 18:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for the replies. I am surprised that some here are defending the current look of the web interface. You guys must like the mobile site right? At the very least, the web interface could easily look as good as the mobile site. It could even look as good as Medium.com, without compromising functionality. We should not romanticize bad design "because this is an encyclopedia". Even Britannica looks better, and no one consumes their content. Good design is never merely about 'looking good'. Good design is always practical, saving its users time and allowing them to be lazy. On a car dashboard, for example, the buttons that you use most often are designed to be larger and located within reach, than the buttons you only use rarely. On Wikipedia, doing simple tasks often requires users to read, learn, code, click on tiny text-links, or even install and enable obscure add-ons. All this noise makes our heads spin. It's hard to measure the stress that new contributors go trough, while they're trying to make themselves familiar with this platform. There is no valid excuse to leave it like this. Wikipedia's network effects are strong enought to be able to get away with it, but we should still strive to do better. Wikipedia needs a Mark Zuckerberg-like leader who's comfortable rolling out tiny changes every few days, to see what sticks and what doesn't. Alright, that's my rant. Thank you again for taking the time to respond. From the replies, I conclude that the answer to my question is "Wikipedia will not get a facelift in the foreseeable future" #Sad Amin (Talk) 18:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Mozillawiki

Moved from WP:Village Pump/Proposals

– –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Mozilla Attn: Mozilla’s Designated DMCA Agent 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View, CA 94041

Mozilla’s Designated Agent’s fax is [redacted].

What happens after sending the DMCA Notice?

If the Notice complies with the requirements of the DMCA, we will remove or disable access to the content that is allegedly infringing. We will make a good faith attempt to notify the alleged infringer of the takedown, with a copy of your DMCA Notice. We also may send a copy of your DMCA Notice to Lumen or post to our wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelynam27 (talk • contribs)

@Lovelynam27: I don't know what you refer to but you are in the wrong place. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Legal issues should be sent to the legal department and not discussed here. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us RudolfRed (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Published Article

I have recently published the article Darkovibes and would like to humbly request that one of the experienced Wikipedia editors take a look at it and help make it much better. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlikotoSam (talk • contribs) 11:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello AlikotoSam, and welcome to the Teahouse. Some additional source citations would be helpful, particularly for the "Early life" section. I have done some minor copyediting. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

DESiegel, I have removed the passage in the "Early life" section you tagged as needing citations. Contentious material about living people needs to be removed immediately without any discussion (and material contested with a citation needed tag is, by definition, contentious). AlikotoSam, you can see what I removed here. Restore it only if you can find sources that support the content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Finnusertop I must strongly disagree that material contested with a citation needed tag is, by definition, contentious, and had I thought that any experienced editor would consider the content in question to be contentious, I would not have used a cn tag. I will probably restore much of the content, as I do not think it is the kind of thing that WP:BLP is aimed at and mandates the immediate removal of. Indeed if your reasoning is correct, Finnusertop, one should never use a cn tag on a BLP, as a cn tag is in effect saying "this content should be cited, but it is fine for it to remain while a citation is sought". The contnet in question is precisely the sort of non-controversial content often sourced to the subject;'s own web site or other self-published source which would not be sufficient for truly controversial content. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

New Wiki entry- have I done it correctly

Hello Everyone,

I tried to publish an article about Zeben Jameson last year and it was deleted soon after. To be frank as I'm new to this I didn't really know what I was doing. Apparently I added too many citations. I thought they were necessary as a way to back up the connections he has to high profile people, bands etc. When I contacted Wiki HQ I was advised that the citations were why my post had been deleted. I have now redone the entry and I really wanted some feedback on whether it is now OK or whether I need to change anything.

Any advice gratefully received.

Thanks so much, Xanthe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanthe Milton (talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xanthe Milton: No, "too many citations" are rarely the problem. Now, useless citations making it hard to find the good ones can be a problem. Examples of useless citations are Youtube and Discogs. Seriously, don't bother linking to those ever.

My usual advice for writing articles:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources about the subject you can find.

2) Select the sources that are not affiliated with or dependent on the subject, but are still specifically about the subject. So, don't bother with sources made by the subject and don't bother with a source that only mentions the subject in like just one line out of twenty pages or something. If you don't have at least three sources at this point (preferably ones that are independent of each other), the subject is not currently notable and it's best to just go work on something else.

3) Take those professional sources that are specifically about the subject but independent of it, and summarize them, putting citations at the end of each summary.

4) Combine overlapping statements (and citations) where necessary or possible (without arriving at new statements).

5) Paraphrase the whole thing once again just to be certain you don't have any copyright violations or plagiarism.

6) Post this draft to establish the subject's notability. Then expand it with other sources (like ones that only mention the subject once, or sources connected to the subject).

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The article was deleted because the topic was deemed to lack notability. You can read the deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeben jameson. The problem is not going to be fixed unless: lots of new coverage (in the kind of sources Ian.thomson listed above) has been published between last year and now, or, if you have found lots of older sources like that that the people in the deletion discussion are likely to have missed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop and Xanthe Milton: I must strongly disagree that Examples of useless citations are Youtube and Discogs. Seriously, don't bother linking to those ever. Youtube is a platform. Many of the items posted on it are completely unsuitable as sources for Wikipedia articles. Others are highly reliable, excellent sources. For example, some news organizations post official copies of broadcast news stories to Youtube. These are as good as printed newspapers as sources. Other posting vary. The source of the content is generally the important factor, and Youtube sources range very widely indeed. Discogs is an excellent source for the basic publication facts of music: titles, artists, dates, publishers, credits, and track listings. In some cases it carries signed reviews which may be useful. I have cited it many times when adding sources to articles about albums. What it mostly does not do is add much to notability. But many sources are useful once notability is established, even if they do not themselves help establish notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I would also say that don't bother with sources made by the subject is poor advice. Such sources can be essential, provided that one realizes that they do not help establish notability. But they can be used to support facts not in contention, but that are helpful or even essential to providing proper context to an article. See WP:SELFPUB where it says that Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities provided that, among other tings the article is not based primarily on such sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I will mention that connections he has to high profile people, bands etc. are generally not a good way to establish notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC) @Ian.thomson:

I would also note there there is really no such thing as Wiki HQ. There are individual editors, some of whom are quite experienced, giving individual views. A deletion discussion tries to form a consensus out of the views of several editors. But it is still not the result of some sort of official "HQ" pronouncement. Except for the very few cases in which a foundation policy or office action applies, each individual editor speaks only for him- or herself. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Your pings are mixed up (such that it looks like you're telling me that there's no such thing as "Wiki HQ"). My comments were in the context of establishing notability. In 2, I did say don't bother with sources made by the subject, and later (in 6) I said that once notability is established to expand the article using sources that 2 rejected. If the first draft is just sources that establish notability, the article is less likely to be deleted because its notability is more immediately clear. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, I apologize for the poorly placed pings. I meant to ping both the original poster and all those who replied, left one out and added it, and then added an additional comment about the "Wiki HQ".

I see your point about using independent sources in a first draft, and only when there are enough of those to clearly establish notability, adding in non-independent sources. That is reasonable, and i mis-read your comments. My apologies for that also. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Pokémon Crystal

Good day.I just wanted to find out if a Pokémon Crystal page would be a notable topic.The thing is,all other Pokemon core series games have their own pages,including the remakes such as Yellow, Emerald and Platinum and even the enhanced remakes have pages such as Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire and Ultra Sun and Moon. So why not Crystal since it is just as much an enhanced remake as the other remakes are ? It even introduced some firsts for the Pokémon series that would go on to become staples in subsequent releases! So please,let me know if its notable as I'm willing to create the page and bring it up to the standards of the other Pokemon pages....and also it would be my first page as I just started Wiki about 3 weeks ago.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miskazama 101 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Miskazama 101

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page on Operation Spartan Shield

So my Draft:Operation Spartan Shield is an extremely rough start. I’m looking to consolidate some information on locations, activities, and dates of units that have been deployed in support of this mission since 2011. It is related to Task Force Spartan. I have a semester of HS HTML experience and that was 12 years ago so I’m reteaching myself the basics here and could use any help given. RussHink (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RussHink (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RussHink. I recommend that you read Your first article. As for the details of coding, Help:Cheatsheet should be useful to you. Please ask specific questions here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion

How do you nominate a page for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobs1 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Roobs1. There are a few different ways that content on Wikipedia can be deleted. It will probably help us to better answer your question if you can give us an indication of what you would like to nominate for deletion and why. GMG ^talk 12:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

How to nominate a page for deletion

I have been on WikiPedia for a while to know that fake news has had a big impact on wikipedia so i would like to know how to nominate a page for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobs1 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Roobs1. We generally do not delete articles for reasons of bias, of the type that might be caused by the use of poor quality sources. Instead, the article should be improved by replacing these with high quality published sources, and more accurate information. GMG ^talk 12:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Roobs1 If you don't like how reliable sources report the news, you need to take that up with them. If you wish to challenge the validity of a source, you need to visit the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but just saying it's "fake" will not be enough. We provide sources so that readers can verify the information themselves to decide for themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Revising the name of a page

Hello I am new to Wikipedia and recently saw that there is a page about one of my ancestors. The name of the page is not completely accurate and missing his title. I would just like to amend this so that it reads correctly by just adding his title so the name would be exactly the same as it is now - just with a Sir in front of the name ( he was knighted) . Please let me know how to do this as I don’t want to change anything but want to add Sir. I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.250.203.63 (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use such honorific titles, except in rare cases such as royalty. The titles of biographic articles should be simply the subject's name, without such embellishments. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Not even royalty! – Joe (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about this, but from looking at Christopher Lees article the honorific title should be added as a parameter inside the persons infobox. NinuKinuski (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsupported parameters for infobox company

The page Hill's Pet Nutrition contains a Infobox company template. It looks like it has unsupported parameters. How do i fix this and where are the unsupported parameters? Thanks, PorkchopGMX2 (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a line in the infobox that starts "| Brands = ". Infobox company does not support a parameter named "Brands". You could fix it by replacing "Brands" by "brands", which is supported. Maproom (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox frozen?

Hi I created my first article yesterday, yeah! I moved it from my sandbox to the main Wikipedia and it clearly appears there. However, it is still in my sandbox and now I can't type in my sandbox at all. I have reviewed the sandbox howto and all sorts of getting started on Wikipedia materials and can't figure out why I can't use my sandbox anymore. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profarch (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Your sandbox has been blanked for you by Shalor (Wiki Ed) so you can now reuse it. Dbfirs 16:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When you moved the article, it left behind a redirect in place of your sandbox. Shalor blanked the redirect page. I've added the {{user sandbox}} template back to the page so should now look like a regular blank sandbox to you. There should be no reason why you can't go on using it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Profarch and welcome to the Teahouse. I forgot the greeting ritual we normally do in my haste to respond. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Writing an article for a non-commercial body

Hi there,

I have been commissioned to write an article for a non-commercial body. They are a professionally formed committee that sets out guidelines and principles for a specific industry. I see that I should not just copy/paste from their website, however if they were to donate information from their website, would that be permissible to use in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLL87 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey JLL87. First off, you should carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest and be sure to abide by them, since not doing so can attract a lot of unwanted attention. This includes disclosing your outside relationship, usually on your userpage, which can be created by clicking on the red link where your name is. Should you write an article, you should also submit it for our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer prior to publishing.

You are correct that in nearly all cases we cannot use information copied from elsewhere online for copyright reasons. For these purposes, it is technically true that if the owner of the content follows the instructions at WP:CONSENT, and agrees to license the content appropriately, this removes the legal barrier regarding copyright. However, even if that is accomplished, most content online is still not suitable for Wikipedia, because it is not written in the neutral encyclopedic tone expected of our articles.

Beyond that, if there are no other sources for information on the subject other than the official website, then it likely does not meet our standards for notability, which requires sustained in-depth coverage in independent published sources, usually things like books, magazines and newspapers, and excluding things like press releases and official websites. If the subject has not received this type of coverage, then it is likely too soon for it to qualify for an article, and if one is created, it will likely be deleted. GMG ^talk 12:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JLL87. Something that is implicit in GMG's answer, but that I would like to make explicit is: Wikipedia has very little interest in anything said about themselves by the subject of an article, or by their friends, relatives, employees, or associates: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it, in reliable places. Many people (and particularly, organisations, commercial or not) have a misconception that a Wikipedia article is or can be part of their online presence: it may not. Promotion of any kind is forbidden (not only commercial promotion), and the subject of an article has no control whatever over its contents. You may find it useful to read the essay WP:PROUD. --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

How to Prevent an Article from Being Deleted

Hi,

Recently, I've tried submitting a doctor's bio and it has been shut down times. The page has been reported by the same person and all 3 times deleted. Wikipedia doesn't have a call center and I'm interested in finding a solution for a page when you have one person constantly reporting your page. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.248.27.69 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon. The solution is to write an article and/or choose a subject that does not qualify for deletion according to the rationale that was provided to you when the article was nominated. If that was because the article was overly promotional, the solution would be to write an article that is neutrally worded. If that was because the subject does not meet our standards for notability, the solution is to write about a different subject, or wait until this subject has received in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, so that they do meet this standard. That one person repeatedly nominated the article is immaterial, because the standards for deletion are agreed upon by the community, and apply equally across the encyclopedia. GMG ^talk 14:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

While experience shows that the problem is probably the article and not the editor who has deleted it multiple times, there are venues for getting input from uninvolved editors cases like this. See Wikipedia:Deletion review. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I would add that Wikipedia has no central authority or headquarters to call about issues with content or editing help. Forums like this or the help desk are how we editor communicate with each other 331dot (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Translating articles from other wikis and using non-english sources

Hello, I'm relatively new to actually creating content from scratch on wikipedia. I'm planning on creating an independent article out of Hymnos conlang by using the sources from jp/zh articles, but I'm not totally sure if this is allowed. Is it? NinuKinuski (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, NinuKinuski. Translation from other language Wikipedias is allowed, and even encouraged provided 1) the licence is satisfied by attributing the source appropriately, and 2) the result meets English Wikipedia's criteria. (I understand that not all language Wikipedias have identical policies for referencing and notability, so that does not necessarily follow). See WP:Translation for more on this. I would recommend treating it as a new article, and using the article wizard: some or all of the content can be translated from the other language articles, provided it can be referenced as required by enwiki.

As to sources: yes, non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, if there are not adequate English sources. They still need to be reliable sources (so you cannot use a Wikipedia article as a source, ever). See WP:NONENG for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Should Draft:132456 be deleted?

I was browsing around looking for drafts and i found Draft:132456. This draft was created by a user near 00:00 12 October 2017. They typed random letters and, and then a few minutes later they blanked the page and left only a References section which was also blank. To me, this looks like it should be deleted. It contains nothing but a References section that is also blank. I think it should be deleted per Wikipedia:A3. However, i understand that i am new and i dont understand everything on Wikipedia. I apologize for asking another question a few hours after another. Thanks, PorkchopGMX2 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Drafts are not eligible for the "A" criteria, but this looks like a test page to me. Adam9007 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Publishing Relevant Pages

Hello - I have a working relationship with a notable podcast called The Fantasy Footballers. They have been featured by several reputable media sources, are recognized both the Fantasy Football community plus the Podcasting community, and have won top awards from reputable organizations at the top of both fields.

I would love some advice as to how to accomplish publishing a page for them - we've tried once, which got deleted, and would rather get advice than keep getting shut down. Is it impossible for us to successfully create? We're sincerely trying to add neutral information about them as they have an immense impact on both the podcasting and fantasy sports industries.

Here are references (please excuse my lack of html knowledge)

Two (out of many) Awards:

Academy of Podcasting Award

Wiki Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast_Awards

2016 People's Choice Award: http://academyofpodcasters.com/past-winners/

Fantasy Sports Trade Association (FSTA)

Wiki Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_Sports_Trade_Association

Awards: https://fsta.org/awards/fsta-industry-awards/

News / Press / Articles List:

ABC15 - https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix/cool-full-time-job-for-three-phoenix-friends-is-to-talk-about-fantasy-football

Patreon Blog - https://blog.patreon.com/fantasy-footballers/

IHeartRadio - https://www.iheart.com/content/2017-11-07-dominate-fantasy-football-with-the-fantasy-footballers-podcast/

Fantasy Footballers Website: https://www.thefantasyfootballers.com/

7sIntern (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 7S Intern

Read the information at WP:YFA about how to create an article. There is a wizard there you can use to create a draft article for review. Please also read the guidance at WP:COI and WP:PAID and post the required disclosures. RudolfRed (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft: The Untouchable (band)

I reviewed Draft: The Untouchable (band) but didn’t accept it or decline it. I asked which of the musical notability criteria was applicable. I got a long answer on my talk page from User:DMV2017, but I am not really sure how to respond: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=830202306&oldid=830151714 Will other experienced editors please comment?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

How does a draft page become public

Hi

How does a draft page become public and how long does this process usually take. If I've written a draft page, is there a way I can keep track of progress?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottem88 (talk • contribs)

@Lottem88: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts are "public" in the sense that anyone looking for them can see them, though they are not part of the encyclopedia. Do you mean to ask how your draft can be formally placed in the encyclopedia? 331dot (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes that's the one.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottem88 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lottem88: I have added the appropriate template to your draft to allow you to submit it for review. Reviews are conducted by volunteers, so it may take time. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Not many of us work Articles for creation, and it's backlogged a couple months. Ravenswing 23:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Newbie wants to query a fact

Hi, I found some information that may be wrong in a Wikipedia article. I am not sure enough to edit the article. How do I leave a message for the page editors (with links) showing that the info may be wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beep4BoingEE1 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Beep4BoingEE1. You can leave a note on the article's talk page, usually accessed by clicking the "Talk" tab at the top of the page if you are viewing on PC. If you then click the "New section" tab, you can start a new thread to discuss the changes. If you include the text {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) along with your comment, it will be added to a list of request to be answered by experienced volunteers. Be sure to include a reference to the source of the information, so that the content you would like changed can be verified.

Alternatively, you might consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure, which covers a lot of the basics about editing, so that you can fix this or other errors you might find in the future yourself, and help us build a better encyclopedia directly. Hope this helps. GMG ^talk 12:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Beep4BoingEE1, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best way to do that is to post on the talk page of the article in question, including any relevant links. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC) @Beep4BoingEE1: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm really confused how my comment ended up on top. Computer magic. GMG ^talk 12:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I clicked on Talk but couldn't find a way to leave a message, so I made an edit and added an explanation with links. My edit shows on the article but I cannot find any evidence of the change in the revision history. Why? Beep4BoingEE1 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)