Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 334

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 330←Archive 332Archive 333Archive 334Archive 335Archive 336→Archive 340

daldal (swamp) me log kaise doobte hai124.253.205.229 (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

daldal (swamp) me log kaise doobte hai124.253.205.229 (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.You mean to say how does one get to the bottom of the swamp (call it drowning). This question is not related to editing. You may ask these questions to question-and-answer website.
117.207.26.53 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

His question is how people drown inside a marsh/bogC E (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said (translated). And it is surely not an editing question. Some sort of hw question and not the perfect place to ask.
117.198.181.178 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

New fast growing British Internet business

Is it allowed to post details of a fast growing new business and reference any people and companies involved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarissima123 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarissima123, I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) -- those two pages should answer your question. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

references/citing

not sure how to reference/cite information. i am stuck and not sure what to do. please help! :) MakingProgress (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

MakingProgress, the most important thing is that you include the relevant information in the article (e.g. for a newspaper article: title, date, newspaper, author); the formatting is less critical. To learn how to make properly formatted references, watch the videos at Help:Referencing for beginners. I'd also recommend reading WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide if this article is an autobiography, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) to see if Brian Kessler even qualifies for an article at all. Right now the article is in rather sad shape and looks like an ad/PR puff piece. I'd recommend cutting every single thing out of the article that you are not able to add a third-party citation for, to leave at a maximum 25% of the current article content. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to upload photographs of a silversmith, Alfredo Sciarotta, and his work. The images are owned by his family and they have given me permission to upload to Wikipedia. What do I need to do indicate I have permission to upload them so as to ensure they are not deleted? Thanks! JRB250 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If the author is ready for granting you the permission: he or she must write a mail to declare that he/she has no problem with this upload and grant those rights. Here is the format.
Hope that helps and you can convince sending that mail!
117.198.177.251 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
JRB250 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Make sure you get permission not just for use on Wikipedia but use for any purpose including commercial uses, without asking permission, as long as credit is given.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Food Restaurnts

Can I post wikipedia page about food restaurant in Champaign? ThanksKdk1104 (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kdk1104, and welcome to the Teahouse. Restaurants need to meet the same criteria as any other organization if they are to have an article on Wikipedia - see the article at WP:42 for an outline of the requirements to see whether it is "notable" (in the special Wikipedia sense of that word).--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What is Teacup

Can anyone answer what this page is all about, and how I can interact with this? Nick2crosby (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You just interacted with it. It's like the 'nerd bar' in some electronics stores, you ask questions and talk to more experienced members. To contribute to another question, just click Join the Discussion. Student342 (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where you're seeing "Join the Discussion", Student342, but I don't see any such wording. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
"Join the Discussion" is made by "Ask a question" feature for the Teahouse project at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It's enabled by default but requires JavaScript. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

How to propose a deletion/revision?

Hello! I've encountered an article (multigenomic organism) that I think needs to be deleted or heavily revised, but I'm not sure if I should start an AFD discussion or simply add a PROD tag with reasons stated. Can someone advise me as to the best way to proceed? Unfortunately, I don't have time to revise it myself. The two major problems are that the article lacks references (since 2009) and has a misleading title that does not accurately describe its subject matter. The first sentence of the article describes obligate symbionts (a page which does not yet exist) very well, but does not describe multigenomic organisms at all. A multigenomic organism would be an organism that is described as a belonging to a single species but happens to have several different genomes - potentially from symbiogenesis or allopolyploidy. One could conceivably have a multigenomic organism without a symbioic relationship (i.e. distinct nuclear and mitochondrial genomes arising as a result of symbiogenesis are not called symbionts because the organisms cease to be distinct). I suspect that the title may have been coined by the author and does not reflect scientific consensus. Any advice would be much appreciated! Lagomorphae(t) 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Lagomorphae, Given the somewhat complex issues at hand, I'd recommend starting an AFD discussion with essentially the same explanation you gave here. (The basic question is whether WP:TNT applies -- would it be better to revise the article, or to blow it up and start over?) You could also add the tag {{disputed}} to the top of the article and post that explanation on the talk page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Calliopejen1! Your response was very helpful. I will start an AFD discussion. Lagomorphae(t) 01:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Best practices for addressing dispute with an Admin

I have been hired as a consultant to assist with monitoring and providing feedback on a biography of a living person. I first addressed the problem on my Talk page and when I received no reply started a discussion on the biography Talk page. I understand that as a paid contributor I am assumed to have a prejudice/conflict of interest, but would like to be clearer on what I can and cannot do to address present concerns - I cannot help but feel there is an agenda in place in edits made by this particular Admin and as a newbie I feel 'bitten.' When I read the Wikipedia guidelines for paid contributors, it appeared that I could make edits as long as I disclosed my status (which I have done on my Talk page and the bio's Talk page) but am now being told I cannot make any edits except to remove vandalism. The current state of the bio is IMO so poor that it is need of a rather lengthy rewrite, in part to give a context for criticism the subject has received. Do you think creating a sandbox would be a good idea? Note that only 30 people are watching this page.Bashamfour (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bashamfour: Yes you can make edits as you please as long as they conform to COI and Neutrality guidelines. Removing sourced content will be a contentious issue though. I'll head over to the article and take a glance, but I'm no expert in this area. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Refimprove tag

Hi All, I am in the process of editing a wikipedia page which had very few references and relatively unedited in terms of grammar and phrasing. I have added approx 50+ references thereafter and wanted to know how I can go about removing the Refimprove tag on the top of the page as that does not seem to an issue with the page anymore. The page is Dydrogesterone Nnayak83 (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Nnayak83: Welcome to the Teahouse! Great job with the additions. If you feel like your edits have adequately improved the references (which I agree that they have), you're free to remove the tag yourself. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi @SuperHamster: Thanks for your reply, will go ahead and remove the tag once I'm done with the page editing. Thanks again, Nnayak83 (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nnayak83: No problem. For reference, if you see a maintenance tag whose issue seems to have been taken care of, you're generally free to remove it. That being said, there are other cases to consider: for example, an editor may have specified what exactly should be improved on the article's talk page. If there's disagreement or the tag was added as a result of a discussion, a consensus should probably be reached before removing it. Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup has more details on this. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
When you do, be careful to leave an explanatory edit summary, explaining why you have removed it, so that nobody mistakes your edit for vandalism. --ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @SuperHamster: & @ColinFine:, how do I know if the Ref improve was placed as a result of a discussion? the tag has no reference link... Nnayak83 (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Have a look at the article's talk page, Nnayak83 (or search the archives of the talk page if there has been enough discussion to require archiving). --ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
ColinFine, sadly there are no talk comments on the Talk Page, I'll update the talk page and mark in my summary as and when I do remove the Refimrove tag at a later date. Would that be enough? Nnayak83 (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Nnayak83, that would be fine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys, you'll have been very helpful.  Kaos  AD  =Talk= 05:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

getting my article approvedd

I am writing about a family run business and factory from 1920s which does not exist anymore. It was a thriving business for that particular time and location. The ruins of the massive complex exists to date. unfortunately i cant get much reference apart from other wikipedia articles and a book published by Barnes and noble. I am a 4th generation descendant from the same family and my article is based on accounts from senior family members. How do I g about it and ensure its not taken off wikipedia. Shitangsu (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shitangsu: I have moved this to Draft:Das's Rice Mill Of Jhalakati to allow you to work on it, and will leave some commentary there shortly, and let you know I have done so. The Draft: namespace allows you time to work in peace and quiet before submitting for review. Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I am trying to add a link in a wikipedia article to the name of one person. The article is written in Spanish and this person has no entry in Spanish, so I would like to link from the Spanish main article to the English page of this person. Is it possible? Many thanks in advance! Soymppo (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find the information at Help:Interlanguage links. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

To hyphenate or to not hyphenate?

I have just edited/updated a page RTÉ Executive Board which contains references to the Director General/Director-General of the organisation Director-General of RTÉ.

I have noticed that the title is variously hyphenated and non-hyphenated, and the more recent sources seem to have generally (pardon the pun) dropped the hyphen.

My question is: What should I do about this?

(a) create a Talk question on Director-General of RTÉ? (b) find some specialized Manual of Style forum and ask the question there? (c) ignore the whole thing and get a life?

Paul Dublin (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of WP:MOSDASH (yes, we have a whole style guideline on what sort of dashes to use...). My entirely personal take is that a Director General is not a Director and a General, but a General Director, which would - under our style guidelines - not require a dash. Then again, I just used hyphens instead of spaced en-dashes to offset a phrase, so what do I know? If there is dissent from other editors then you should instigate a talkpage discussion, but otherwise I'd suggest you edit it in line with the most common use in up-to-date sources and then follow option c. Yunshui 雲水 14:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui thanks for the quick response. I'm pleased to hear the answer (which I'll paraphrase as) "do your best and then move swiftly to option C". Best, Paul Dublin

Graphic Designer's barnstar

In Wikilove there is an option, Graphic Designer Barnstar. Where can i find those GD who are currently active. They might help us hereC E (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey CosmicEmperor. I don't know that there's a quicker way to determine who is active other than looking at their contributions one by one, but for a list of possibles you might look to Category:Wikigraphists. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Question on mass deletes

Hi guys, I was over on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_April_21 reading the deletes for the day. Someone has been a little over active in nominating and under active in the verifying notability per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion Part D. How would I go about flagging and responding to several of these at once (since they didn't bundle the albums & bands together per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. Also, if the response isn't good to their talk page, who would I contact to mass pull their entries for a day? Thanks, -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it I'm going to assume your talking about @Lachlan Foley:'s nominations. Now that they have been nominated, it will probably be easier to handle each one individually, even though it may be a hassle. Once nominated there I'd no way to "mass pull" unless they are obvious false DR's, these have merit and policy. LF in the future, remember certain AfD's can be grouped for easier access. Thanks EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@EoRdE6: Yes, they are false - or incorrectly pulled without following policy of googling first before a deleteWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. Special:Contributions/Lachlan_Foley&offset=20150421060100&target=Lachlan+Foley... as you can see here, this person is nominating 3-5 pages per a couple minutes - it's obvious they are not googling as required. Due to the fact they are albums, I would have to defend each one by spending 5 minutes a set or an hour researching & copypasta links etc. That's not the extent of it either, this person has been on talk pages of 7 people (i've not read all the chats, but it appears 7 other people have issues with this behavior themselves). Where would we go to effect change if the user hasn't withdrawn the deletes? Since we can tell from the log of how long / frequently this person spent deleting pages that they are just looking for a change count score - should I just remove the deletion myself if they don't respond or is there someone I can contact for specialized advice. IamM1rv (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely not easiest to oppose these individually - I could be looking at hours of fixing this person's mistakes just justifying in the deletion thread, not counting if I go and add the links to the article itself and make it pretty. I'm doing my best to assume good intentions, regardless of their intentions but they are damaging the Wikipedia & taking time for responsible Wikipedians. IamM1rv (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
IamM1rv, I think you did the right thing by leaving him/her a talk page message. Note that the question for these nominations isn't whether Basement Jaxx as a band is notable, it's whether the particular release by Basement Jaxx is notable. So it's a matter of finding sources specific to that particular album to support the existence of the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for saying nice things @Calliopejen1: ... but, you did not read enough before posting to me here. The wikipedian in question did report the band and everything associated with it. I get that each page in a standard situation with a responsible wikipedian should be opposed individuals based on it's merit. This is not the case though ... which is why I am here asking about it. As a stop gap, I copy pasted the same links to each article so other users won't vote blinding thinking the deletion request was done "due diligence" (googling per required deletion policy) for each page reported. IamM1rv (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, I read in WP:PROD that I can object by simply removing the tag - but if the article is questionable - I don't want to trigger permanent rule about how you can't ever put something up for AfD a second time if I might be wrong. IamM1rv (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
IamM1rv, Since Lachlan Foley used the full "AFD" (articles for deletion) process rather than "PROD" (proposed deletion), you can't remove the tags. LF didn't nominate the band itself, or any of its studio albums, as far as I can tell. It appears that he only nominated remix/b-side/EP albums, whose notability (in my mind) may be doubtful. Maybe it would have been ideal if he had moved more slowly, but I don't think what Lachlan did was unreasonable. It is possible that Lachlan had previously googled each of these albums, made a list of potential deletion targets, and then nominated them all at once. I don't think it would have been appropriate to do a mass nomination, because each album has to be evaluated on its own merits. Please see WP:NALBUMS for the notability rules for albums. Being sold on a major website, having a music video, or having a passing mention in a book is not sufficient. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair point on batching it with notes off line - not likely as I did my homework & saw other key indicators of lazy behavior, but it would seem possible if you didn't look into it like I did.
  • I read WP on albums already, ... addressing the music videos - the music videos were by major production companies (equivalent of saying martin scorsese is an uncredible hack) that's why I listed them & the ones that weren't, I put weak keeps only if there something else - anyone without something peridical and notability missing I just left.
  • Like I said 3 times, it's a combination of two factors: the lack of time invested in this by them (clearly if my weak googleFu can find national top seller lists for britain where I don't live - someone living there should be able too also) & the spammy behavior of it making tough to stomach looking up all the pages, saving them. Then editing the pages to reflect this one. I can found reasonable and notability - just too much time on something this user should have done themselves.
  • I am going to let this die, as you guys are indicating there's not system to protect against this & my only investment was that the band was notable & that was taken care of by another guy I chatted up. You guys answered my question on if there's a way to protect the wikipedia in these cases where no one has time to save it, so thank you. -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

How do I link a person from another wiki page not using full name ?

I am editing another wiki encyclopedia page to link a name it it to another newly created page, of that linked person, but I do not want to use the middle name as displayed. How do I bracket that name without using the middle name so it will connect?

Thanks. 73.164.74.187 (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You use [[full article name|name you want to display]], for example [[Barack Obama|Obama]] shows the name Obama, and links to the page Barack Obama. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
To add this is called a piped link, due to the use of the '|' pipe symbol which can be difficult to find on some keyboards. Full guidance in how and when to use piped links can be found at Wikipedia:Piped link. Nthep (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. This is called a piped link. You could for example link John Lester Miller with [[John Lester Miller|John Miller]] which renders as John Miller. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I will do that. However, on this same encyclopedia page, the full name, as it is titled, is not "piped," yet it gets "redirected" to the subject page. Is there another edit that is done to the receiving, or "subject page," so it can be linked from an inexact title reference?

Thanks, I'm very new to this. Chauncy1 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Chauncy1, could you tell us the link you're talking about, and the page it leads to? I think I know what you're getting at, but I want to be sure before launching into an explanation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It would help if you could be more precise (which name on which page), but I suspect it is a redirect - a page designed to link one version of a name to the title we have chosen for our article. If you click on Robert Allen Zimmerman you will end up at Bob Dylan but (if, and only if, you go via Robert Allen Zimmerman) the third line down on the Bob Dylan page is "Redirected from Robert Allen Zimmerman" - is that what you see if you use the link to the full name, but end up on the shorter name? - Arjayay (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The St. Jos. Cathedral reference to Emmanuel Masqueray takes you directly to Emmanuel Louis Masqueray. But, for Edwin Lundie, also referenced in St. Jos., if I edit/bracket it, it will not take me to Edwin Hugh Lundie wiki page. I looked and cannot find any "piped" language.

Chauncy1 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Joseph_Cathedral_(Sioux_Falls,_South_Dakota)

Chauncy1 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As I suspected the link to Emmanuel Masqueray is a redirect (it appears in green if you have the right settings in My Preferences) to Emmanuel Louis Masqueray which states (Redirected from Emmanuel Masqueray) if you go via the shorter name. if you click on the Emmanuel Masqueray in that heading it will take you to the redirect page itself.
Redirect pages have to be created like any other page - for instructions see Wikipedia:Redirect - but the standard toolbar includes a redirect short-cut (second from right under Advanced) - Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Learned a lot today. Thanks!

Chauncy1 (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Moving out of stub class?

I recently expanded this article. How do I get it moved up from the stub class to "good article" (or at least better than stub)? Kaseydyann (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Learned a lot today. Thanks!

Chauncy1 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ignore previous post..

Chauncy1 (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Chauncy1 your questions are always welcome here at the Teahouse and thank you for your visit. The good news is that any other editor can provide an assessment for your article, I did the assessment and I certainly think that it is better than just a stub. But I do have to let you know that it is quite unlikely that an article can progress from a stub class article to a good article in such a short time. As a matter of fact, for an article to become a good article it has to go through a pretty intensive review process by multiple editors… You might not be there yet but I like your enthusiasm.
  Bfpage |leave a message  20:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

HELP WITH IMAGE UPLOAD

Hi Hi, Can someone provide me some details on image uploads? It is a free-use logo?

Dannee112 (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dannee112: What sort of image are you trying to upload? What article are you planning to put the image in? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dannee112 and Calliopejen1: First he told you it was a free logo, and where doesn't matter. To the question, free logos (most like free under PD-text logo) can be uploaded to http://commons.wikimedia.org using {{PD-text}} as the license tag. Feel free to reply here if you need more information. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
EoRdE6 "It is a free-use logo?" may be a question, not a statement... Given that Dannee112 is new at image uploads, I don't think we can necessarily assume that it is PD-text. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Dannee112, if you were referring to File:WestConnex Logo.png, you did the upload correctly! Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Point taken. I have left a nice graphic on your talk page explaining it all in this edit. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi guys. I'm trying to upload an image to use on the page SOREA Band at the moment. The photos are licensed and I don't think/or is allowed to upload this to Wiki commons for public use. It's a profile image of the Group and two members present. It would be nice if someone could tell me what I should do. I am a new user and only just finished my tutorial here on wiki and it may take days for my auto-confirmation to take place. Thanks. Pennene11 (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Can't get my page approved

Hi,

I have tried to submit a draft on Efrem Smith and it is getting rejected because it is too promotional. Is this promotional because of the tone or becuase the references are not reliable? Really confused!Dawsonvj (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The particular language that was used in the speedy deletion nomination has to do with the tone, not with the references. Since you created the article in article space rather than in draft space, and it has been speedy-deleted, I can't view the article and comment on the tone. If you had created the article in draft space, and its submission was rejected, other editors would be able to view it and comment on it. However, it appears that the tone was too promotional, and is not an issue about the references. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's the link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Efrem_SmithDawsonvj (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Dawsonvj, I removed a part of the article that clearly sounded promotional. I think there is a problem with the references, even if no one else has brought it up yet. A great number of the references are from sources affiliated with Smith: World Impact, Church Leaders (that is likely a bio he submitted himself), IV Press (same), Forge (same), and Exponential (same). Pietist Schoolman is a low-quality source (blog). And The Christian Post barely mentions Smith. The UYWI site is just a talk he gave, which can't establish his notability. Same with the Rapzilla and Willow Creek Association site. So really there is not a single good source in the article. Based on the draft as it currently stands, because there are no appropriate references, Smith appears to fail the notability requirements and does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the relevant rules. You may want to come back here to ask more about notability and referencing before you spend a lot of time working on an article that may not ultimately be accepted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Most of those were just to show that he has spoken at those events. if a conference shows him on the website as a speaker, does that not suffice? Dawsonvj (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Dawsonvj, yes, but separate and apart from being able to verify the content of the article, the references must show that he is notable (see the linked guideline above). Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Where "notable" doesn't mean "famous" or "important" or "significant" or "worthy", Dawsonvj. As detailed in the link Calliopejen1 gave, it means that several reliable sources have published substantial writing about Smith, by people who have no connection with Smith. If such sources don't exist, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about him now; and if they do exist, any acceptable article must cite several of them. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Dawsonvj My two bits - It's always a lot more difficult to create pages about 'not very notable' people. This is because of the lack of quality verbose content that can be put on the page and also you'll find it harder to find references for them. The comment Continues to read like an advertisement. Please do not submit unless substantially rewritten. implies that only positive aspects of the person feature in the article, making it seem more like a highlight platform rather than a neutral account of the person written and referenced by a neutral third party. Also, all references are from the companies of which he is CEO, this is a bit of a conflict of neutral information? Well pointed by Calliopejen1  yanka  AD  =Talk= 05:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This has been very helpful, thank you! Dawsonvj (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Wouldnt he be considered notable if he has spoken at some of the biggest Christian conferences and is the President of a National Christian Non-profit? Dawsonvj (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Dawsonvj, not necessarily. What we really need is articles about Smith by reliable sources (magazines, newspapers, books, etc.) with no connection to Smith. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

citations and references

Why is only one of my references showing up in my bibliography/reference section?Jcv2181 (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jcv2181 and welcome to the Teahouse. It seems like you have figured this out for yourself just fine. I have used the ref name function to consolidate one of your sources and left instructions on the sandbox talk page for you to do this with the other two sources. Also, under the section you have labelled References you will need to manually add any sources you want to appear. Let me know if you need any further help. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Jcv2181 I see now what you are asking and I will follow up with you on your talk page. Flat Out talk to me 05:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I need help creating a few pages.

I want to create new pages called "List of people who have walked across Tasmania, Australia" and "List of people who have walked the perimeter of Tasmania, Australia" and "List of father and son teams who have walked across Tasmania, Australia."

I am the world record holder of these events ( the last one will be accomplished on May 16 2015 ( I am currently walking ) HEAPS of media, contact me at cnlinton at gmail dot com 121.223.146.97 (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello cnlinton. This may not be a very practical subject for a list, as very large numbers of people have walked across Tasmania. For example apparently several thousand in just one incident in 1830. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, cnlinton. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your achievements, however impressive they may be. As I understand the policy in WP:LISTN, such lists would be appropriate for Wikipedia only if there were reliable independent sources which discussed the group of people involved as a group; e.g. a couple of magazine articles about "These are the people who have walked across Tasmania" - they wouldn't need to mention every one, but they would need to be about such people in general, not about one or a few particular ones. Without these, the lists would fail notability, and not be accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Partner parameter

This is an issue regarding putting someone's name as a "Partner" in a page's infobox. As I reviewed the guidelines, 0livia Poulet should not be categorized as "Partner" of Benedict Cumberbatch to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:GRAPEVINE, and WP:BLPGOSSIP as evidenced in the following:

1. Source doesn't specify the year when they started dating, thus there is no encyclopedic evidence that they started dating in 1999 as written in the personal life section of the page. Other sources outside those cited say they have been together for "a decade" while some indicate "12 years" with no mention of a year whatsoever. No hard fact to say they indeed started dating in 1999. Dates should be verified as this is a biography and in this case it lacks verifiability thus should be removed accordingly.

2. In a 2005 interview, Cumberbatch has stated "My break-up was completely out of the blue" he says. "I had been very nervous for us because of where we were in our relationship and because I was going away for such a long time." http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/05_may/19/earth5.shtml This gives further credence that they do not have a stable and linear relationship.

4. In one of the citations (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3648695/Whatever-acting-means.html), Poulet herself was quoted saying "'We've been good friends for a long time. But then we were not such good friends for a bit. And now we're good friends again." which indicate an unstable and on-off relationship.

3. In the citation provided, which was an interview done in 2010, it is indicated that Poulet and Cumberbatch indeed have an "on-off" relationship: "He and Olivia split up for a few years, but have been back together" (source under subscription, see here for transcript: http://www.benedictcumberbatch.co.uk/interviews/the-sunday-times-the-fabulous-baker-street-boy/). This was before their permanent break up in 2011. (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a309612/benedict-cumberbatch-olivia-poulet-split.html#~paJV33xYXX0cCL)

Since there's a muddled timeline and conflicting sources at hand, isn't it better and more fair to just indicate that they met at university and eventually broke up in 2011 in the page's personal life section? There is no indisputable evidence of co-habitation and an established long-term partnership (no definite year of when they started dating, there were break-ups between 1999-2011 per source) so Poulet shouldn't be categorized as a life partner and should be removed in the infobox. This is a biography and any wrong or unverified information should be removed immediately.

I hope you guys can help me in resolving this issue. Thank you very much!GwynethGwyneth (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Procedural drive-by comment: This request was crossposted in multiple forums including a templated help request on the user's talk page, where she received a response, though the good folks here may wish to say more. I've annotated all the requests with a note that she ought to look here for a response. Best regards (and thanks to the volunteers here for all that they do), TransporterMan (TALK) 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'd definitely want to hear more from Teahouse members who can help resole this issue! Thanks!GwynethGwyneth (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note I have reported the OP as a sock of a prolific sockmaster. --NeilN talk to me 15:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory cleanup templates?

On public copyright license there are templates saying that the article has both too many and too few wikilinks. What should be don about this? Rubbish computer (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's definitely an odd situation. Looking at the page, it probably has too many Wikilinks (since quite a few of the things linked to don't have Wiki articles)- but as I don't know the topic, I'm not going to try editing it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rubbish computer:I think this is a clear case of mix-up of what things are called. The article have many links that links to the same article and as such is overlinked. Links to other articles should only appear once in the main text of an article. The "underlinked" should probably be "undersourced" since the article needs some more references. These do sometimes contain urls (links to websites) hence the mix-up. Best, w.carter-Talk 18:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. Rubbish computer (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted?

I am creating a wikipedia page for a small business. I posted it and it was marked for speedy deletion within a day. I have a few news sources that are not from the companies that they are affiliated with listed. Is there any way to repost my page, or is the page too insignificant to post? Here is a link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Obrowndorf/sandbox Thank you Obrowndorf (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Obrowndorf, and your questions are always welcome here. Wikipedia really is not designed to be a web hosting company to promote or advertise small businesses. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia designed to provide information about notable topics. At this time in your company's development, it doesn't appear that your business is notable enough to make it into the encyclopedia and any article you submit that resembles what I just looked at in your sandbox will probably continue to get deleted until your company becomes more notable. I am so sorry to be the person who brings you bad news. But please feel free to become more involved in Wikipedia in other areas of editing, we always need new editors and it looks like you understand the basic editing needed to create an article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Obrowndorf. If you really think that prose like "intuitive learning platform" and "online training marketplace" and "learning management system (LMS)" and "cloud-based ecosystem" belong in a neutrally written encyclopedia, then I urge you to rethink things. That jargon belongs in marketing brochures, not an encyclopedia. It is utterly inappropriate here, and must go away from here, along with all such fluff. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I have a similar question. The page for Vocera Communications was deleted - the admin cited G11. Would it be possible to gain access to the deleted page in order to re-write from a more neutral perspective and re-publish?

Appreciate your assistance! WPVCRA (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@WPVCRA: you may ask the deleting admin for help on their talk page. You find that via Vocera Communications. Fiddle Faddle 21:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@WPVCRA: you can also go to WP:REFUND.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

How to improve an article so that "peacock" and "news release" flags are removed

Hi, I'm teaching my friend how to use Wikipedia and showed her how to edit using one of the articles I created (Gregory Kay). I noticed while we were on there that there are still a couple of flags on the article. The flags were originally posted over a year ago, and I have done my best to improve the neutrality of language to make the article more Encylopedic. However, the flags are still there. Does anyone have any recommendations on how I can improve the article to have the flags removed? This was my first article, so it's kind of near and dear to me. I'd like it to be the best it can be. Thanks! SLPalmer55 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SLPalmer55. If you really think that you have done your "best to improve the neutrality of language to make the article more Encylopedic", then please rethink your approach. This article just reeks of promotionalism, and is full of promotional assertions that are unreferenced. Every assertion that might be challenged by anyone, including me and whoever tagged the article, must be cited to a reliable source. Adopt a scrupulously neutral tone to every word you write, and if you happen to have a Conflict of interest, please be sure to declare it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Sit down and relax a bit, SLPalmer55. While you have some tea and check your e-mail, I will head over to the article and fix it up for you. Just check the Edit summaries when you have time, and you will see what the other editors have in mind. Cheers. See you later. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What do I need to do to get an article accepted?

My page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Learning_Technologies_Group_(LTG) has been rejected. I had based it on other AIM listed companies (like this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_Group) and I would just like to know exactly what I need to do in order to get the page accepted.

I feel that this is citation related? But I'm unsure as to it means that I'm not using citations properly or the citations themselves aren't strong enough!

Thanks in advance.

JakeStory (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

JakeStory hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I moved your question to its own section and also located it near the top of the page for better visibility. Questions usually run in reverse chronological order here.
Your references should be formatted, first of all, but that's not what is keeping the article from being accepted. Most of the sources look okay, but you could do better.
You can't use a Wikipedia article as a source. Ideally, you would take the source used by that other Wikipedia article, if there was one. Also, at this stage you don't want to use press releases, as they are not independent.
There is very little information in the article, and what is there borders on promotional. You don't use "solutions" to describe what a company does unless you are writing about chemistry.
And the article does not make clear what makes this company notable.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Merging an article

Hello, I've been sent a list of articles to edit via SuggestBot some of which have been tagged as possible candidates to merge with an already existing article. Can anyone give a bit of guidance as to the best way to go about this? I imagine the quickest way would be to copy and paste the text to be merged into the already existing article, edit as necessary and then tag the now superfluous page for deletion? Thanks Eagleash (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Does WP:MERGE help?--ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I read it — or rather tried to — only served to make me give up on the idea. The article has been tagged for 3 years so it can't be that important an issue anyway. Thanks for help. Eagleash (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Eagleash. The link above will help greatly. But addressing what you said above, copying and pasting to the merge location is part of it, but you must provide copyright attribution to the source (the merge-from page) when you do so, and its history is where the information on the copyright owners of the merged content remains, which means you would never tag it for deletion and, rather than being superfluous, it is vital that it is retained. It is usually redirected once the merge is completed. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I wrote the above without seeing your next comment. If you found the page overwhelming, you might want to skip to Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that's where I gave it best. Sorry. Eagleash (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Copyright owners? That's where you lost me. There is no copyright on Wikipedia pages, from my understanding. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, BeenAroundAWhile, Wikipedia pages are copyrighted, and are also freely licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. Copyright to each edit belongs to each individual editor. The license requires attribution, and that is done through the edit history of the page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting review of or another editor for my article

I have created my first article in my sandbox, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lprosenberg/sandbox, and wish to understand how I can have another editor review it and publish it (including any edits that you recommend to make sure it in no way violates any Wikipedia policies). It is a biography of a living person. I am a marketing consultant being paid for it, but I have put immense hours into making sure that I'm providing credible sources/citations for every thing included. Thank you in advance! Lprosenberg (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Lprosenberg hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Be sure to disclose your conflict of interest on your user page and your talk page (links to both are in your signature). And if the article is approved, it will also have a talk page where you should also disclose your status. We appreciate your trying to do the right thing here and we hope you have followed the rules and done everything right.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The article isn't perfect, but I don't see that it cannot be kept with some improvements. At least some of the sources seem to be the type we expect. I'm not certain about the others. This is after only a quick look.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Lprosenberg: I have declined the speedy deletion and added a banner at the head which will allow you to submit the article for review by a team of volunteer reviewers. This is an iterative process, and may push to back to you more than once for additional work. I may make one of the reviews. Do not be discouraged when further work is asked for. Use it as a learning process. Fiddle Faddle 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

removal of my edit

I joined today and edited a page related to Mr X Film. the edit was done in the reception part and I have also added due source in support of the edit. My edit was undone after sometime and I have received an intimation by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CosmicEmperor. The message says that my edit is not upto the standard and guidelines. I want to know why my edit was not at par with the guidelines and why it was removed. Aniltheultimate (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Aniltheultimate, and welcome to the Teahouse. I had a look at your edit to Mr. X (film) and the only comment I would make is that the quote could be a bit shorter, but I don't see why CosmicEmperor reverted it with the comment "Joke edit". I suggest you follow the standard Wikipedia process of "be bold - revert - discuss". You were bold in making the original change, another editor reverted, so the next step is to open a discussion on the article's Talk page. Describe the extra citation you want to add, explain that it was removed previously by CosmicEmperor, and ask for editors to discuss. Ping CosmicEmperor so he can explain why he is opposed to it. Once everybody has discussed it, hopefully the matter will be resolved by consensus.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Gronk Oz (talk) He considers this as reliable source. He is a new user.C E (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's some personal blog which can't be cited in WPC E (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It would therefore have been sensible to have pointed out to the new user that blogs are not considered as reliable sources, and referrred him to WP:BLOGS. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know that link before, anyway I mentioned your link on his talk page.C E (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Gronk Oz David Biddulph and CosmicEmperor for your replies on my edit removal. As per your mention I have checked WP:BLOGS., the information their says " self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs". I rechecked the source I have cited for the edit and I found that Dark Moon page is not operated by any individual self proclaimed person who claims to be expert of the filed. It is actually operated by a company Dark Moon Media Pvt Ltd. The Facebook page of the company https://www.facebook.com/DarkMoonin clearly indicates my citation page as an official website of the company. The company is not running that page with the bloggers platforms such as world press or google, instead it has the address www.darkmoon.in on the Facebook page. So I don't agree that this website and this company Dark Moon Media comes under the definition of an individual self proclaimed blogger. However I do agree with the suggestion of Gronk Oz that the edit should have been of lesser word. So I request you to revert the removal of my edit. Aniltheultimate (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Waiting for the response regarding removal of my first edit done for Mr X. The citation I have given does not come under the definition of an individual blog. So please allow me to re-edit the page again. Aniltheultimate (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, @Aniltheultimate:, and sorry I didn't notice your reply earlier. (A hint here - in discussions like this, it helps to use the {{ping|xxxx}} template, so the other editor is notified of your comment.) There are two different issues with blogs. One of them, as you discussed, is about blogs which may not be independent of the subject. The other issue still remains, and it concerns how much confidence we can have in the contents of the blog. Anybody can start a blog and claim to be an expert and put forward their opinions, without any checks. Hence the guideline on WP:BLOG that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." So how much do we know about Shivangi Bajpai, the reviewer on Dark Moon? What track record do they have, how reputable is their opinion? Again, I suggest that the best place for this discussion is probably at Talk:Mr. X (film).--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Noticed violations of BLP guidlines, no what?

Noticed two examples of violations on policies regarding biographies of living persons:

  • 2000 as start of being active in his profession. Not one source from the hundreds cited explicitly stated when he started to work in a professional capacity. This is likely to be an assumption based on his first publicly known/available work which is a violation of WP:NOR.
  • 1999 as the start of his relationship to Olivia Poulet. Not one of the three sources cited explicitly stated that they started dating in 1999. This, again, comes from an assumption that since they have reportedly broken up in 2011 he must've started seeing her in 1999 (subtracting 12). A quick Google search however will present you articles from reliable sources that they have already split as early as 2010. This falls under the violation of WP:NOR as it was never verified that they indeed broken up in 2011 and started dating in 1999. Sources outside those cited in the page even reported they were together in varying lengths of time from "a decade," to "12 years". So basically, there are no reliable and consistent citations for a material that is being challenged (WP:BLPSOURCES) and it's also poorly sourced (WP:GRAPEVINE).24.244.144.104 (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: The post above is apparently about the article Benedict Cumberbatch. Deor (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: These seem very similar to the complaints made (and reposted about 6 times around Wikipedia) by a sockpuppet a couple of days ago. If you have issues, take them to the article talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

How to create an article for a SME company?

How to create an article for a SME company?122.176.58.251 (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Your First Article is a good place to get information about writing an article. Most importantly, you need to make sure the company is notable enough, see WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY- this requires lots of independent, reliable sources about the company e.g. newspaper articles, books not social media/blogs/self-published press releases. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello user with IP 122.176.58.251. It is also strongly discouraged to create an article about your own company, the Wikipedia is not a place for promotional material or advertising. But if you have articles in mind you should consider register an account since this will give you a lot of advantages for creating articles. It will also grant you greater anonymity since it hides your IP address. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Create a Page

How can I create an official page on Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshlightp (talk • contribs) 01:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Your first article would be a good place to look. Just to check, you're not playing to create an autobiography, are you? Because Wikipedia is for biographies, not autobiographies. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Maheshlightp, I took a look at your account and it seems that you have misunderstood the purpose of you user page. It is not for writing an article about yourself but for explaining your intentions and actions here on the WIkipedia. See Wikipedia:User pages. Wikipedia is not Facebook. You need to remove that text. I have left you some tips and links to pages you should take a look at you talk page. I would also suggest that you remove the infobox about yourself from that page, since it is for communication with other users and not just another page for self-promotion. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Trying to find a software logo image

I'm trying to find a logo/icon image for a computer program (FamiTracker, to be precise) article I'm drafting. There's tons of images of it in various places on the web, but there isn't one on the official website for it, and since it's a program that runs right out of the box/.zip folder as an .exe that doesn't need installing, there's no way for me to go into its directory folders to pull a graphic file that it uses for its icon or something like that. For a noncontentious/obvious detail like the program's icon/logo, does it need to be directly pulled from an official source or from the program's source files itself, or would an unrelated site (within reason, of course) suffice? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 12:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi BlusterBlaster I'm not sure why you said there isn't one on the official website. The main page has [1] this at the top that could be cropped and used either with or without the text. Alternatively from the wiki on the main site is this version of the logo [2] — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, wow, that was a major brain fart on my part, I didn't even think to pull the darned assets from the websites, thanks! Also, I had one more question if you had time for a two-fer: would you be able to point me towards a half-decent guide or essay for writing a well-structured software article? I'm not sure how much I should get into describing the program itself and its functionality/features, and to which degree if so. At the very least, a good software article that I could use as a guideline for how to structure and source such a thing would be great. Thanks again, BlusterBlasterkablooie! 13:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_334&oldid=1089267105"