Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 336

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 330

←

Archive 334

→

Can we add a page for our company if it is completely neutral and not promotional, and does not give external links?

I am from a skate brand from the UK. We are increasing in size rapidly and I have been told by various outside advisers that I should create a WP entry for our brand. Having just read the guidelines, I am keen not to infringe them and/ or have our entry removed. Is there a way that we can add a relevant, non-promotional, non-linking entry about our brand to Wikipedia, without offending anyone or doing anything wrong? We ship 12,000 boards a month and have a turnover of £2m, not sure if that is relevant. 31.51.209.242 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Very simply, yes if your company is notable, you declare your COI somewhere public, and I personally suggest using AfC. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suggest most strongly that you use the WP:AFC process, and take all feedback for reviews as a positive thing and act upon it. That process will help rip out promotional material which will creep in by accident.

What you need to be sure of is the reason you want an article on your org. It can be a two edged sword, documenting embarrassing elements as well as other facts.

Your org needs to pass WP:CORP. Read it with care.

You have done the right thing by asking. You need to know that, during the WP:AFC process, your conflict of interest (read WP:COI) is tolerated. Once an article is accepted then you are advised most strongly to stand away and let it sink or swim by itself. There are processes to allow you to edit at arm's length once it is a main space article. Once it is accepted you will need to use those.

You should create an account, a personal account, for corporate accounts are a concept we block, edit as that account, and deploy {{Connected contributor}} on the draft article's talk page to document your connection. You should also document it on your user: page by making a simple statement. These things show good faith (as does your question here). Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, a link to your corporate website is valid. This is usually best deployed in {{Infobox company}} which should be placed at the top of the article. WP:PRIMARY also allows the limited and very careful use of primary sources to verify facts that are not susceptible to potential challenge. Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I should also have mentioned references. Newcomers find these hardest. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. You may deploy these as a list of references (since this is an org, not a living person), but the best method is as citation. WP:REFB and WP:CITE are your friends here. So there is a lot to read and research to do first. Fiddle Faddle 15:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

With all deference for the opinions of EoRdE6 and Timtrent, I disagree. The simple answer to your question is, I'm afraid, "no, not really". As a person connected to the company, you have what we call a conflict of interest (follow the blue link to read about it). Our guidelines are quite clear on this: conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (you can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} – exactly so, with the curly parentheses – at the beginning of your request; requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted). There are also important legal implications – please see the section on WP:conflict of interest#European fair trading law.

If your company is interesting and important enough, sooner or later somebody not connected with it will want to write about it. My personal advice would be to wait until that happens. Meanwhile, we have almost five million articles, many of which need work ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement is healthy. Before we had the Article for Creation process and the Draft: namespace, I was in complete agreement with Justlettersandnumbers and defended against all corporate (created) articles, however unbiased they were. Consensus has overtaken us both and seems to allow conflict of interest provided it is in the AFC process and the Draft: (and its predecessor) namespace. I cannot think why this corner of Wikipedia is immune from conflict of interest, but I have learned that consensus is a moving thing and changes as does all of Wikipedia. I was heartily surprised at this change of view, but can see how it works to the benefit of Wikipedia. Reviewers are usually 100% clear on matters like WP:CORP, though we do, all of us,make mistakes. We do not approve drafts that fail, and so puffery and the worst excesses of COI do not make it out of the AFC process. Fiddle Faddle 16:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your measured reply, Timtrent. My personal view is that if there is such a new consensus, we should wait until it is reflected in our conflict of interest guidelines before offering advice based on it. OK, they are guidelines not policy; but they are quite specific on this topic. Also (this probably isn't the place to mention this) not all reviewers are as careful and as experienced as I know you to be. I've said my say, I'll now leave this for others to continue if they wish. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement and have left you a note on yur talk page. The informal consensus over this makes it an awkward area for reviewers and editors alike. I am 60% in favour of the system as I have described it, but do not feel strongly enough about it to start the discussion in the correct forum. if invited I will be happy to contributed to one.

To our IP editor Skate Brand friend I say simply, work as professionally as you are able, and take all the advice on board. And note that there is disagreement in the area. Fiddle Faddle 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I, too, respectfully disagree with Justlettersandnumbers. There is nothing in our policies, guidelines or terms of service that forbids or even discourages a paid editor with a disclosed COI from editing an AFC draft. Drafts are not articles, and this very circumstance is one of the reasons the draft namespace was created. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Involved editor repeatedly hatting discussions about their own behaviour

An editor has repeatedly hatted discussion at Talk:Acupuncture here[1] and here.[2]. This editor is the subject of the content being hatted which is questions about their own behaviour, meaning they are an involved editor. I believe only non-involved editors are allowed to hat discussions. Furthermore, the hatting is moving discussions into a "closed discussion box" the template of which states that editors should not modify.[3] This is becoming extremely disruptive for the talk page. What should I do? DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Since I see no one has answered this, I will just say go to WP:DR and follow the advice there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Using images in articles

I'm trying to use an image at the top of an article's infobox, but I can't figure out how. Any help? 7degreedarkness (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 7degreedarkness. You can use any freely licensed or copyright free image which has been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Simply place the file name in the image field of the infobox template. You can upload photos you have taken to Wikimedia Commons. In very limited cases, you can use low resolution versions of non-free images. Those exceptions are described at WP:NFCI.

This is a simplified overview of a complex area. Please feel free to ask a follow-up question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @7degreedarkness: you can add

 image=File:THENAMEOFFILE.EXTENSION(e.g jpg)|SIZE(in px)

in the info box edit source

Hopefully that helped, by the way I like your name. Komchi^✉_☆ 02:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@7degreedarkness: In the article Caremark Rx the field is "logo =". I have changed it to show the current logo that you uploaded, and changed the caption appropriately. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

Ok, then. Thanks. 7degreedarkness (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Rule to Delete libelous data which is non-notable nor related to subjects notability...

What is the rule against added libelous information to a notable page which, in itself, is neither related to the subject's notability not notable.in its own rite? I want to delete such data from one article. HELP, please. Much appreciatedRickbrown9 (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If the information is not properly sourced, just go ahead and revert its addition. If the editor re-inserts the information, then discuss on the talk page and read the dispute resolution policy for options. In extreme cases, you may request that an administrator redact the information so that it is no longer viewable in the page history. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers all aspects of the subject, the good the bad the indifferent in proportion to what the reliable sources / mainstream academics cover the subject and its importance. a parking ticket - no. being called out as one of the highest debt owing unpaid parking tickets in New York - maybe. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Review of Heavily Revised Vernon Jones Article

Over the past couple of weeks I've undertaken a close to blow-it-up-and-start-over revision of the Vernon Jones article that was brought up here recently. I started with the April 15, 2015 version from and rewrote it for NPOV, BLP, and consistency with cited source material. More information on what I did is in the last three sections of the Talk:Vernon_Jones page and the article's edit history.

So why am I at the Teahouse? I've never worked on an article that needed to be BLP-compliant before for anyone with anything remotely approaching a controversial history. I'd appreciate if more experienced editors could patrol the article and check over my work. Thanks! Carl Henderson (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you might get a fuller response by asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. I can tell you that a cursory glance says that this looks like a worthwhile article, but,m short of checking every reference and every fact, I can't offer more than that as an opinion. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall inquire there. Carl Henderson (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright puzzle

Summary: Will somebody who really understands licensing and licensing templates please review File:1980 German KISS Logo.jpg for me?

I noticed that KISS (band) used a different logo in Germany, because (§ 1971–75: Early years):

The runic letters happened to look similar to the insignia of the Nazi SS, a symbol that is now illegal to display in Germany. Therefore, to avoid controversy, since 1979 most of the band's album covers and merchandise in Germany have used a modified version of the logo instead, in which the letters "SS" look like the letters "ZZ" backwards.

But the article didn't include an illustration of the German logotype, so I decided to look for one and add it. The German article on the band, in § 1980er-Jahre (1980's), includes , an image of a press release from phonogram GmbH (Phonogram Records) dated August 1980, which includes a copy of the "new" logo. I downloaded that image, copied the logo out of it, and uploaded it to English Wikipedia as File:1980 German KISS Logo.jpg.

But when I tried to fill in the licensing I found myself in a maze. The German press release image's page has the German licensing template de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe. That template's language sidebar links English to Template: PD-ineligible, i.e., the object is public domain because it is ineligible for copyright.

The comments on the German Datei (=File) page say:

Abbildung einer Pressemitteilung (Herausgabe zur Information der Allgemeinheit ohne Auflagen zur Art und Weise des Umgangs mit dem Dokument)

My German's not good enough to translate that with confidence, but it is good enough for me to trust Google Translate's output (emphasis added):

Picture of a press release (publication to inform the public without restrictions on its way of dealing with the document)

The boldface part seems to make it "PD because ineligible for copyright". That's fine, except that among the seemingly endless lists of PD templates I couldn't find any that fit the case any better than Template:PD-because. And wikilinks in the reason text simply didn't appear at all in the previews, presumably because of interactions with the template code. To add to the jollity, the German Datei (File) page has a big glaring warning in German and English not to upload the file to Commons without checking seven ways from Sunday - at least, that's what it felt like. So I added the corresponding template to File:1980 German KISS Logo.jpg.

And that's the tangle. Will someone please look it over to be sure it's A-OK? (And {{ping}} me when you've done so?) Thanks! --Thnidu (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Firstly, {{pd-ineligible}} seems appropriate to me; that logo does not meet the threshold of originality. Secondly, links to the English Wikipedia file and to de:Datei:1980PressetextKISS-Logo.jpg would have simplified things. Thirdly, personally I don't think the German comment, as referring to the entire press release, is correct; the text of the press release would likely be protected by copyright. Even if uploading the press release to de-wp were ok by German copyright law, I don't see how it would be ok under US copyright law, and thus I doubt the German image is Commons-eligible. That's not an issue that carries over to only the logo, though. Huon (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know Commons takes the view that logos that are "simple geometric shapes" and do not meet the US criteria of eligibility for copyright (and typefaces are not eligible for US copyright - though strangely the names are) are permitted on Commons. I would hazard a guess that the original uploader to German Wikipedia has been bitten by transferring (rather than copying) stuff to Commons and having it deleted, rather than moved back. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

@Huon (of the Horn?) and Rich: Thanks for the advice. Huon, ~~I tried to insert links, but as I wrote above, "wikilinks in the reason text simply didn't appear at all in the previews, presumably because of interactions with the template code."~~ My bad! I pasted most of the original talk entry here from what I had put into the File page, forgetting that here there would be no interference from template code. FWIW, I've just added the links. --Thnidu (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Huon (of the Horn?) and Rich: Oy, well, I've gotten the links into the File page as well, in some cases by inserting the leading colon I'd forgotten. And {{PD-logo}} sure looks appropriate to me now, especially after looking at a few of its "What links here" pages and seeing what's considered to qualify as a "simple geometric shape", so I'm substituting it for {{PD-because}}.... But now that I've done that, the page's description of the file still quotes the original reason:

{{PD-because|Source image, in German WP, is labeled de:Template:Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe {{=}} Template:PD-ineligible. It is described there as "Abbildung einer Pressemitteilung (Herausgabe zur Information der Allgemeinheit ohne Auflagen zur Ar...

Is there any way to fix that short of re-uploading the file? --Thnidu (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's fine to leave that, it's a comment - the equivalent of an edit summary. If you were to re-upload (you can if you wish) it would remain, but you could , I suppose, put a comment "Ignore previous comment" or some such. I'm not sure what happens if you upload a "new version" that is identical. The logo could use a tiny bit of rotation, but it is very small. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Thanks. I can't edit the comment, though: everything in that table is apparently set at time of upload, and inaccessible via the editor. But I've already got something in the text, and I'm going to leave it at that. --Thnidu (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I submitted a new article, my first, and received an email I don't understand.

What does "patrolled" mean? I submitted my first article a few minutes ago and received an email saying my article is being patrolled.66.228.73.77 (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello IP editor! Patrol means that the page you have created is patrolled i.e. the page is found okay in every aspect. From Notablity to use (if a name space page is created) and the usage of media. But that doesn't means that it is 100% okay!
There might be some typos on the page.
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 18:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, aGastya, I can't let that mis-statement stand. 66.228.73.77, it means that the page has been checked for certain major problems, (for example, copyright violation) as detailed in Ukexpat's link below. It does not mean that it is "okay in every aspect". It might be a wonderful article, or it might be the barest skeleton of an article. --ColinFine (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

More at Wikipedia:New pages patrol.--ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

How to improve articles with little or no content

Hi, Whenever I browse Wikipedia by random article, I come across scores of little articles about obscure third-world villages and people that have no virtually presence on the Internet besides having a Wikipedia page. They often contain no citations, while some have one or a few. For example, articles like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garmasha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poshtaveh-ye_Sofla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinli,_Jabrayil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Fairmount,_New_Jersey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baricheh,_Karun are short and have little information, while not much could be gathered online at all.

My question is for more experienced users: how could I improve these kinds of articles? It may be impossible to gather more information or references to add to them, and I suspect that most are not notable at all. Should they be nominated for deletion? Is there a better way to handle it?

Thanks for helping me learn to contribute! Mechanic1c (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings @Mechanic1c: and welcome to the Teahouse. On the left sidebar menu, if you click on Community portal and page down to the Help out section, it shows a lot of ways that you can help improve existing articles. Cheers! JoeHebda (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mechanic1c. It is a basic principle described in the Five pillars essay that Wikipedia incorporates aspects of a gazetteer and we therefore should have an article about every city, town and village on Earth.

Here is how our essay on Common outcomes in deletion debates describes long-standing consensus: "Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source."

My advice regarding village articles is either to leave them be or try to improve them. They are not "obscure" to people who live there, people traveling there, or people whose ancestors were born there. The library in the closest city probably has plenty of published information which can be used to improve the article over time. This is a very long range project. If you have evidence the article is a hoax, then nominate it for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the response. I will keep that all in mind. Mechanic1c (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's one of the ironies of Wikipedia that a village of 30 people merits an article (or any high school) but the bar is set extremely high for academics. They have to be outstanding in their field to not have an article on their work deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It is an irony, Liz, but few editors would argue that every academic including a newly minted Community College instructor is notable. The consensus on villages and high schools is robust enough that it cuts way down on endless, repetitive battles at Articles for Deletion (where every active editor should help out). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I never thought every academic should have a Wikipedia article. But the bar is too high. For some editors, the academics have to have been covered by mainstream publications like the New York Times to be included here. What's ironic is that many are important enough to be cited on Wikipedia but not judged to be so outstanding in their field that they deserve an article. I mean, we are talking about 1% of academics/professors (or fewer). But that is neither here nor there and I will take leave and not rant at the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No article should ever have been deleted or rejected because the subject was not "so outstanding in their field". Nor on whether they were famous, important, significant, worthy, notorious or influential. None of those criteria has any relevance at all to determining notability. The issue underlying notability is "Is there enough material published about this subject in independent reliable sources that it is possible to write a satisfactory article about it?" If there is no published material, or no independent material, or no material published in reliable places, about the subject, then it will not be possible at present to write a satisfactory article, so it not permitted to try. --ColinFine (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirect link

I found one link in the See also section. That was linked to C2 photosynthesis which is just a redirect to Photorespiration. So, is it better to make the change to link to original page even though it creates no harm (I don't know if any until now)?
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 18:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, aGastya. Are you asking whether you should replace a link to a redirect to a link to the target page? If so the answer is yes, though I don't think it's very high priority. It's even possible to make it a direct link but pipe the link so that the displayed text is the same as at present: I don't know whether or not that is appropriate in this case. --ColinFine (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine:Yes it is what you assumed. Piping will display the text which can be understood by anyone: But link to target or to redirect or it doesn't matter?
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 10:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

aGastya Since it says in the first sentences of Photorespiration that the process is also known as "C2 photosynthesis" (that the two names are interchangeable), in a "See also" section you should link to the page where the article actually is. If it was in the text where the C2 photosynthesis term is used, then a piped link [[Photorespiration|C2 photosynthesis]] is more appropriate. Linking to the "end page" when possible is always preferred to linking to redirects. w.carter-Talk 10:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

2nd Hand Quote Question

I have made some additions to the page on the book "The Waters of Kronos". I found a quote that I think would add to the description of the book:

"Frank Wilson's review of the Penn State Press edition in the July 13, 2003 Philadelphia Inquirer asserts that the novel is 'at once a searing examination of conscience and a heartfelt act of contrition. John Donner learns, not that you can't go home again, but that you can't really leave home in the first place. Home is the baggage you carry wherever and however far you wander.'" at https://secureapps.libraries.psu.edu/content/richter/wok.htm

But I have not been able to find Frank Wilson's review to cite it. I think the newspaper may not have content from back in 2003 online. Can I use this quote and cite the psu.edu URL or would that be unacceptable? Rippedcloth (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rippedcloth - Cite the psu.edu page, per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Chemical name or formula?

...The photorespiratory pathway is a major source of H₂O₂ in photosynthetic cells. Through H₂O₂ production...
Should not here hydrogen peroxide be used instead of H₂O₂?
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 18:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, aGastya. I would think that was appropriate (and probably wikilinking it to Hydrogen peroxide as well). What I think I would do is say "of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂)" so that subsequent mentions can use the more compact formula (this follows WP:MOS#Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence if you you regard a chemical formula as a kind of abbreviation). --ColinFine (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you!
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 10:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Article Re-submission

I have re-submitted my article,Draft:Carborundum Universal, which was previously declined for lack of reliable resources. I want some help whether the article is having the good source. SiloniSam (talk) SiloniSam SiloniSam (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@SiloniSam: I'm sorry, but it looks like one source is bad. Wikipedia does not allow sources on an article that are made by the subject of the article (please see why we can't handle these kinds of sources). --Phil roc^{My contribs} 13:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How to move an article (ViewPoint 3D) out of article space and into a user sandbox without leaving a redirect?

I'm trying to help a company owner who wrote about his own company ViewPoint 3D. The article is up for deletion, and will almost certainly be deleted in a few days. The person claims the company will become notable in future. I suggested he move his contribution from article space to his sandbox, improve it, and resubmit later via AfC. I know how to move articles, but (as I understand it) a redirect is automatically created. I don't want to leave a redirect from article space to draft space, obviously. How do I move without creating a redirect? I did read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:How_to_move_a_page but it didn't help. Thanks SageGreenRider (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Once you've done the move, you would need to tag the redirect for deletion ({{db-g8}} would be the appropriate tag). However, since there is now a well established deletion discussion underway, you ought to wait for the outcome of that process before acting - moving a page which is at AFD is rather disruptive, and while it's not prohibited, it's not going to make you very popular, especially if it's a userfication (which is tantamount to second-guessing the closing administrator). Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't going to move it myself. As I understand it, the primary contributor can move their own contribution unilaterally.(?) I was going to suggest it to them. As it turns out they aren't interested in the idea, so the idea is somewhat moot at this point. Thanks again though. I'll let nature take its course. SageGreenRider (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

New article in Spanish

I would like to create a short article in Spanish based on a pre-existing article in English. The English article has no language links, so I need to be able to make the language link as well as the new article. How do I make a language link?Juandxmurphy (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So you want to translate an English Wiki article into Spanish for the Spanish Wiki, correct? If so, you want this guide Help:Interlanguage links. The way it works is like [[:fr:Jeux olympiques]] would link to the article on French Wiki about Jeux olympiques (Olympics Games). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Juandxmurphy: I think you ask about how to place a link under "Languages" in the left pane. You can do that by first creating the foreign article and then clicking "Edit links" or "Add links" under "Languages" at the English article. Then you should get a box where you can write the foreign name. Joseph2302's [[:fr:Jeux olympiques]] is about how to make a link in wikitext and not under "Languages". For attribution purposes you should do that somewhere at the Spanish article to show it was translated from an English article, but the Spanish Wikipedia may have a specific procedure for that. I don't know Spanish but see es:Plantilla:Traducido de. See also es:Wikipedia:Traducciones. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

accusation of being person that im writing about

Hi, My name is Faith McNally and I recently did a draft on the actor James Bryhan. As a newbie to Wikipedia, I understand that for me its a learning process with Wikipedia offering to help in any way they can without judgement or bias and offer support in the best way possible so that I can finish and hopefully publish my article. My problem therefore is that Matthew Vanitas who was reviewing my article has accused me of being Mr Bryhan and therefore trying to advertise on Wikipedia. I believe he is acting in a unprofessional manner by making this accusation and based on this, using judgement on my article from a negative standpoint which I thought was not associated with Wikipedia's guidelines. I am simply trying to make a article on a actor for who I think is notable and in doing so, learning how Wikipedia works. I am gratefull for all and any help in doing this, not in being insulted. so I would like my article reviewed , if possible by another and to find out how to make a complaint against Matthew Vanitas who quite clearly believes me to be James Bryhan Revenant2015 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Revenant2015 and welcome to the Teahouse. I think the main thing that is causing the trouble is that you have a lot of facts about James Bryhan on your user page. That page is intended to describe you as an editor on the Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:User pages. A common misconception among new users is that this page is a kind of "facebook" page where you can write about yourself, and many, many have tried using it to promote themselves. That is why the editor jumped to that conclusion. Please remove the text or it may be removed for you, and use your page the way it is intended. And to make matters worse, you also have info about James Bryhan on your talk page, a page for discussing editing of articles and other things Wikipedia. So a double faux pas that make other editors suspicious. If you want somewhere to doodle and test for writing the article, there is your own sandbox to do that in. A quick Google search shows that there seems to exist one Faith McNally who is a fan of James Bryhan, hopefully you are not so close to him as to have a conflict of interest. Best, w.carter-Talk 16:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please calm down, Faith. On the end of a paragraph explaining why the article was not acceptable, MatthewVanitas made the throwaway comment: "Frankly, it really looks like you're just writing about yourself and trying to use Wikipedia as advertising". Maybe could have expressed it more kindly, but that, to me, does not add up to the "accusation" you are complaining of. I concur absolutely with what Matthew has said (apart, perhaps, from that last line). The way I would recommend thinking of it is this: a Wikipedia article, especially one about a living person, should be based entirely on information published in reliable places, and almost entirely on information written and published by people unconnected with the subject; and the sources for everything should be indicated inline. If it hasn't been published, don't put it in the article. If it has only been published in unreliable places like blogs, forums, or Wikipedia (yes, that is what I meant), don't put it in the article. If it has only been published by the subject, their family, their friends, their employers, their agents, their publicists: if it is uncontroversial factual information like dates and places, you can put it in the article, with a reference to the source; otherwise, no. If it has been written about by somebody unconnected with the subject, and published in a reliable place (such as a major newspaper, or a book from a reputable publisher) then you can put it in the article, with an inline reference to the source. Now, is there any substantial information to go in the article? If not, the subject is not notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) and no article on them will be accepted at present.

Your draft starts with two paragraphs of unreferenced facts. That is not acceptable in an article about a living person (please see referencing for beginners for information about how to reference.) Then there is a paragraph with a number of links, some of them garbled (apparently by having links to the draft itself inserted: I don't know why). The Beffta would be acceptable as a reference for the fact that he was nominated for that award, but nothing more. The Halesowen News link might be regarded as reliable (though local papers are a bit borderline for that) - but it doesn't say anything about him other than that he is to appear in something. There i nothing there, as far as I can see, where somebody unconnected with Bryhan has written at length about him, and published it in a reliable place; and without that, he does not pass the test for notability (which by the way, does not mean the same as 'fame', 'importance' or 'quality' - it's just about whether people have written about him.). --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How to Write and Post

Hello, I'm new here and trying to help a company owner who wrote about his own company, i would like to know how to write the article and post the article here, in Wikipedia. So, please kindly teach/guide me to know how. Thank youInnisfreeze (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Innisfreeze. I strongly advise you to read your first article, and then use the article wizard to create the article: it will put it in 'Draft' space where you can work on it without risk of immediate deletion (as long as you don't do something really bad, like copy the whole article from somewhere else where it is copyrighted). If you are working with the company owner, you, as well as the owner, have a conflict of interest, so you need to read the link I just included. --ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Innisfreeze: if you truly want a guide, ask for a mentor at WP:CO_OP Fiddle Faddle 17:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

I have a question about the disambiguation page OWN TV. My understanding has always been that dab pages are there to help provide clarification for cases where multiple Wikipedia articles with similar names exist; They are mainly intended to be guides and not articles in and of themselves which cite sources, provide external links or other information about stuff located outside of Wikipedia. One of the entries on "OWN TV" appears to be nothing more than self promotion regarding a ~~patent~~ trademark claim and not in accordance, in my opinion, with WP:DABNOT and WP:DABREF. Anyway, I am interested in finding out what other editors think before removing the entry from the page. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC); Above post edited by Marchjuly to replace "patent" with "trademark" - 17:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed it. Looks like the person adding it has done so many times before, and is the owner of that European trademark, but WP:DISAMBIGUATION says disambiguation pages should only contain relevant links to other Wikipedia articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Joseph2302. - Marchjuly (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Is a blog by the subject of a BLP a valid source?

Hello, I've been doing some light editing on the BLP for Sam Harris for the past few months. It's had some POV issues but I think we're making some good headway. I've found that most of the sources for his views are taken directly from his blog. I've got two problems with this.

1. In BLP it calls blogs 'original research' which we are definitely not allowed to use.

2. I would consider the blog of the person the BLP is about to be a POV source in many cases.

I believe this can be solved by trying to replace most of the blog sources with sources from secondary sources. There's no end to writings on his views so it shouldn't be hard to find. It would end up being a little bit shorter, but, I believe, significantly more accurate and better sourced.

So final question, is my understanding on the use of blogs correct, and do you think I have proposed a correct solution? YshuDS (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi YshuDS and welcome to the Teahouse. My understanding is that self-published sources such as blogs, social media sites and personal websites of third-parties are not considered acceptable reliable sources for BLPs per WP:BLPSPS. In other words, self-published sources written by other people about Sam Harris should not be used at all. However, self-published sources written by Harris himself can be used per WP:BLPSELFPUB as long as certain conditions are satisfied. So, Harris' own blog and social media sites, etc. may be used in support of simple factual information, but not to support comments about other people/unrelated events or any claims which might be deemed excessively self-serving, etc. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

On a side point, you refer to the BLP for Sam Harris. That is a disambiguation list. I see that you were editing Sam Harris (author). I agree with the advice that his blog can be used for information about what his views are, to the extent that his views are notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much.YshuDS (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Getting the article out of the sandbox, including a picture in article

Hello,

I have prepared a draft of an article for Wikipedia on Kurt Heinrich Meyer. It can be downloaded via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Horstm/sandbox

and I have the following questions :

a) Would it be possible to include in the article a ~1950 photograph of Kurt H. Meyer with two of his graduate students/assistants, one of whom obtained the 1992 Nobel Prize in Medicine (Fischer). I am unable to transfer this picture (its format is jpeg) into this space, its caption is "Kurt H. Meyer with two of his collaborators Roger Boissonas(left) and Edmond Fischer (right) in the free-boundary electrophoresis laboratory (1950)"

b) What is the next step in the processing of the article to get it ready to be a regular Wikipedia article - i.e emerging from the "sandbox" status?

Thank you for your help

Horst MeyerHorstm (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that you ask for reviews on this, the more so since it is not yet ready as an article. Do this by placing {{subst:submit}} at the head. If you are not sure what it does, use the 'Preview' button.

You need references. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42 Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your question about the photo, Horstm, the answer is that in order to be used in an article, the picture must first be uploaded to either Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia. In order to upload it to Commons (the preferred option), the copyright owner must explicitly have released it under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA (or explicitly placed it in the public domain). If you cannot determine who is the copyright owner, then this option almost certainly cannot be used. The second possibility is to upload it to Wikipedia as a "non-free" image. The criteria for being allowed to do this are very strict, and include using the image in precisely one Wikipedia article (not a draft); so that route will not be available until after the article has been reviewed and transferred to article space. Please see upload, donating copyright materials and non-free content criteria for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

about recruiting new members for the Wikipedia:Wikiproject R&B and Soul Music which has to do with editing

hello this is dfrr here i know i should not be doing this but i would like to know if anyone knows any User who would like to join The R&B wikiproject i mentioned above. i already have a tool on User:Conifer's Talk Page to help me with that but i still need new memebrs. so if anyone wants to join the project you may. you can also leave a message about this on my very own talk page. anyways thank you and have a great dayDfrr (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

latex yes or not?

...RuBP + O
₂ → Phosphoglycolate + 3-phosphoglycerate + 2H⁺
...
Should this reaction used in articles (or any of the reactions) using latex?
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 18:32, 27 April from2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Salve! Ibi tibi hoc dico:* I looked at the article and I didn't see any mention of latex. What's the connection?

* Acagastya's talk page link text is Latin for "To say something", so I said "Hi! I'm saying this to you here." --Thnidu (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya and Thnidu: Actually, I thought Acagastya might have been referring to the LaTeX markup code, but I could be completely wrong here... CabbagePotato (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure aGastya is asking about LaTeX, asking whether to use it for presenting chemical equations in the same way you might for mathematical equations. I can't find anything which says how to present these, so I think it is up to the editor whether to use it. However, my suggestion would be not to do so, because I'm guessing that people who work on chemical articles are not generally familiar with LaTeX in the way that people who work on mathematical articles usually are. --ColinFine (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes: it was about LaTeX editor: Well thank you for helping!
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 10:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is one reason why proper casing and spelling are important.
For suggestions on how to write chemical equations on WP, it would probably be more useful to ask at the WikiProject Chemistry talk page ... which I see you already know about. --Thnidu (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Creating user name for Grace Bay Resorts

Hi there,

Can you please assist with the creation of a user page and/or article? While I would prefer to create a user profile to outline the history of the Grace Bay Resort, please let me know if this is unable to occur.

Thank you so much! Katie Lee

KLpollack (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if you would clarify your question, please? Fiddle Faddle 21:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Katie: you seem to be a little confused. You already have a user account, and so you can create a user page any time you like, by editing User:KLpollack (currently a red link, as it doesn't exist). However, a user page is a page containing any information about yourself that you wish to share (predominantly about yourself as a Wikipedia editor): you may not put anything which looks like an article on it.

If you want to create an article about a subject, you could create it straight in article space, as Grace Bay Resort (that is again a redlink), but I always advise inexperienced users against creating a page in this way, because it is immediately liable to be deleted if it does not establish that the subject is notable. The traditional way to create a draft that you can keep and work on was to use a "user sandbox" (U:KLpollack/sandbox) or "user subpage" U:KLpollack/Grace Bay Resort). This is still a possible route, but the current preferred place for drafts is in draft space, so Draft:Grace Bay Resort. In any case, I would advise you to read your first article, and use the article wizard to create your draft.

One point that might seem nit-picky, but may help you in the long run: Wikipedia does not contain profiles, which are (usually) self-written presentations of a person or organisation, appropriate to a directory or social media site. What it contains are articles which are neutrally written summaries of what reliable sources unconnected with the subject has written about them. They should contain nothing whatever which has not been published in a reliable source (and for most of the content, a source independent of the subject), and the subject has no control over what is included into the article and what isn't. --ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Katie. Wikipedia is not for promotion of any kind. I apologize if I'm reading into your post something that it not there, but often when we see a question from a person who's new to Wikipedia and their initial aim is to write about a commercial interest they are usually here because they have a self-interest in seeing coverage of that topic. If that is the case, please note our conflict of interest guidelines, that any edits in which anyone is being paid directly or directly, requires disclosure of the interest by them (See this section of the Terms of Use); and that Wikipedia articles are required to be written using neutral language. You should also know that we only properly have articles on notable topics – topics the world has taken note of by writing about them substantively in reliable, secondary sources that are unconnected with the topic – things like books published by major publishing houses, newspaper articles, magazine write-ups, treatment in peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources, etc., and writing about the topic in some detail (the flip side is that the following sources are not useful to show notability: the topic's own website, its press releases published anywhere, Facebook, blogs, random websites, etc.) Do those sources we want exist? If not, no article should be even attempted. If such sources do exist then an article is possible. User pages are not for listing the history of an organization. If an encyclopedia article belongs at all, then it belongs in the article "mainspace" or in a draft while it being prepared for the mainspace. Many users create drafts through articles for creation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Katie Lee. Your original account, User:GraceBayResorts, was blocked because it indicated an affiliation with a company. And your sandbox draft there, User:GraceBayResorts/sandbox, was deleted because it was unambiguously promotional. Some other websites allow companies to create profiles, but Wikipedia is not like that. —teb728 t c 05:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirects from foreign languages

If there is another name for the same thing in a foreign language- for example, the Tamil name given for Ekambareswarar Temple on the article, is creating a redirect unnecessary to the point that it could be seen as non-constructive? Thank you. Rubbish computer (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: If there is an unnecessary redirect you can always click disambiguation to see other results.Komchi^✉_☆ 19:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rubbish computer. Are you referring to the interlanguage links in the side-bar? Are you saying that the Tamil one links to a redirect in ta.wikipedia? If so, pick "Edit links", and it will take you to the Wikidata entry, where you can alter the ta: link to point to the right article. Or do you mean something else? --ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Komchi:@ColinFine:Sorry, I meant on the article itself there is a name on Tamil. Should I create a redirect on the English language Wikipedia to the article or is this non-constructive?

Sorry, Rubbish computer: I still don't understand what you are asking about. If you are referring to the name in Tamil at the beginning of the article, no it should not be linked. The link to the Tamil article is in the sidebar under "Languages". It is not usual to link to other language Wikipedias within the text: it is normally done only when a Wikilink is appropriate but there isn't an English article on the subject. Or am I still misunderstanding your question? --ColinFine (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine: I'm really sorry about how I've overcomplicated this. I mean, if somebody on the English language Wikipedia types in the Tamil text, should it redirect to the article in English? Rubbish computer (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think the answer is No: it doesn't make sense to have redirects for every language to every article; and besides, if you search for ஏகாம்பரநாதர் கோயில், it offers you two articles, of which the first is Ekambareswarar Temple. --ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine:Thank you. Does this mean that if I have created redirects in other languages-I have created Звонко Станојоски and Марат Илдусович Исхаков- do they need to be deleted? Do ones with languages more similar to English like Charte de la Revolution Socialiste Malagasy need to be as well? Sorry about this. Rubbish computer (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to worry about deleting redirects which already exist, Rubbish computer: I'd simply advise against creating any more, unless there is some particular reason to think that people are likely to search for that term. My opinion. --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thank you. Rubbish computer (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

want to create page for my company CEO

hi, I want to create wiki page for my company ceo ( edelweiss group ) His name is Rashesh Shah details i want to put is

Long draft article here

Rashesh Shah

• 1 Personal life and education • 2 Career • 3 Recognition • 4 Memberships

Rashesh Shah is Chairman and CEO, Edelweiss Group, one of India’s leading diversified financial services with businesses ranging across Financial Markets (Institutional Markets, Capital Markets & Investment Banking), Credit (Housing & Retail Finance), Commodities, Asset Management and Life Insurance. Rashesh founded Edelweiss in 1995 and today the group advises over 545,000 clients through 237 offices in 123 cities across the world. §Personal life and education Shah did his initial schooling at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and Manav Mandir High School in Mumbai. He has a degree in Business Administration from Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad. He also holds a Diploma in International Trade from the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), New Delhi and a Bachelor's Degree in Science from the University of Mumbai, India. Shah resides in Mumbai, India and is a voracious reader, a fitness enthusiast and an avid runner. He is married to Vidya Shah, CEO and founder of EdelGive Foundation, the philanthropy arm of Edelweiss. They have two children, a son Neel, and a daughter, Avanti. §Career Shah started his career as a management trainee at ICICI Bank in 1989. In 1993, he moved to Prime Securities, a boutique bank as head of research and investments. It was a good stepping stone into entrepreneurship. Shah quit Prime Securities in 1995 to explore an opportunity to set up a new age financial services company for a new India. In 1996, after 8 months of conceptualising, he set up Edelweiss with Venkat Ramaswamy, a colleague from ICICI. In the first four years, Shah and the team did a lot of advisory work and helped internet and BPO companies like Tranworks, Indiainfoline, Daksh, Educomp raise capital. The company broke even in 1998, March and the team was all of 5 people. Between 1999 and 2007, Shah focussed on broadening the company’s Financial Markets portfolio, especially Investment Banking (institutional and HNI) and Wholesale Businesses. Hiring and getting the right people on board was the first key focus area for him during this phase of the company’s growth. The second focus area was raising the strategic capital to enable the company to go Public. The second growth phase of the company was between 2007 and 2014, during which Shah’s strategy was to diversify into and build the company’s new retail businesses – Credit ( wholesale and retail ) , Commodities, Insurance and Asset Management. He also looked at strengthening the balance sheet and laying the foundation for the Enterprise functions. Today, under Shah’s leadership, Edelweiss has combined growth oriented entrepreneurship with a strong focus on risk and has one of the most broad-based employee-ownership models among financial services companies in India.

§Recognition Among the several accolades that Shah has been personally awarded, are the ‘Entrepreneur of the Year’ award from Bombay Management Association (2008-2009), ‘Alumnus of the Year’ from IIFT in 2008 and very recently ‘The Bull of Year’ Award at Zee Business Market Analyst Awards 2015. Under his leadership, Edelweiss has received numerous awards, some of the recent ones being, consecutively ranked ‘India’s Best Managed Mid Cap Company’ and ‘India’s Best Managed Company (upto US$500 million market cap)’ by Finance Asia in 2013 & 2014 respectively. Edelweiss has also been awarded ‘Best Corporate Governance, India’ by Capital Finance International, London, UK in 2013. §Memberships A regular commentator on financial markets, policy, and development matters in the mainline and financial media, Rashesh serves on the Boards of various companies and public institutions and has also served on the Executive Committee of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., India's premiere securities exchange. He has in the past served on the Executive Committee of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. and presently serves as Chairman, Maharashtra Council of FICCI. He currently also serves on the SEBI committee to review the Insider Trading Regulation12:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhavisha86 (talk • contribs)

Welcome, @Bhavisha86:. If you work for someone, then first you have what's called a conflict of interest, so I would strongly recommend reading WP:COI, also Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations is helpful too. Also, Wikipedia is not a social network, so not everyone can have an article- they must have significent, independent, reliable sources showing their notability, so that they pass the criteria at WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO. Advice for writing an article is available at Wikipedia: Your first article.

Last of all, this isn't the place for a draft, the appropriate places would be your sandbox, User:Bhavisha86/sandbox or Draft:Rashesh Shah. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And if he has asked you to create the article, he probably shouldn't have.--ukexpat (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

could someone help me in finding and citing appropriate references

I have been working on a page about a living author that has been rejected for issues with references. Could someone point of the specific issues? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_J._Tougias thank you 3AlisonO (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@3AlisonO:Hello, it appears that while your references are to good reliable sources, they are formatted in a way that is more suitable for traditional publications rather than Wikipedia. You might be interested in Help:Referencing for beginners which is a guide to adding references to Wikipedia. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask! Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It would also help if you included links to the on-line versions of the articles, so people can see what the article actually says. Although "dead-tree" sources are acceptable, particularly for older topics, the first reference I looked at, The Boston Globe, is on-line, and I suspect the others are too. - Arjayay (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

In correct township listing

I was on google maps earlier today and came across some wrong information that is referenced on your website. I have filed error reports with google maps as well. We have worked diligently with google maps in the past in order to keep our roads and maps as up-to-date as possible.

Your website talks about Florence County, Wisconsin.

It correctly lists: Towns: Aurora, Commonwealth, Fence, Fern, Florence, Homestead, Long Lake and Tipler

It incorrectly lists: Unincorporated communities: Aurora, Commonwealth, Fence, Fern, Hematite, Pulp, Ridgetop, Spread Eagle, Tipler, Tyran

The errors: - None of the Townships within Florence County are incorporated. - Of the unincorporated communities that are listed on your website there are certain names that do not actually exist: o Hematite o Pulp o Ridgetop o Tyran - Spread Eagle is part of the Town of Florence. It is generally considered to be an area located on the map how it shows up in google maps.

Please help us clean-up the records for the Town. If you have any questions, please contact us.

71.13.109.154 (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Much of our geographical data comes from the US Census Bureau and the Geographical Names Information System of the United States Geological Survey. For example this page describes Hematite.

It would be useful if you can point us to a reliable source that lists exhaustively the communities, towns and other settlements in Florence. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC).