Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 594

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 590←Archive 592Archive 593Archive 594Archive 595Archive 596→Archive 600

Help on making a draft to an article and also definition of "reliable sources"

Hello Wikipedia Experts,

I woulded like some help because I am making na article, it is called Draft:Kotoka Shiiba, I want to create the but first it has to pass to the submission, but I asked and it said that it didn't had many reliable sources, could someone help me cite and organize the article?

Any help would be nice.

Also what's the definition of "reliable sources" and what is the best websites to find it?

Thanks for your time

Wrestlingloveditor (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Wrestlingloveditor. You can find out about reliable sources at WP:IRS. Looking at Draft:Kotoka Shiiba your first reference appears to be little more than a directory entry, and is probably not independent of the subject; IHeartDG looks to me like a fansite, so it is not reliable; all the Cagematch references are simply listings, and do not contribute to notability. What you need to find is places where people who have no connection whatever with Kotoka or Dragon Gate have written in depth about him, and published in places with a reputation for editorial control, such as a major newspaper or a book from a reputable publisher. If you can't find such places, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article on him, because there is nothing which can be written about him. --ColinFine (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I want to learn more

I am a new editor and i really love to learn more about editing. Getting guilds here is not a bad idea. thank you martin osas king 15:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osasere2012 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Osasere2012. I belive what you mean by guilds is something along the lines of a WikiProject. You may also want to check out our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 17:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Doubts over the article International Cricket Records

Abishe (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)I also wanted to clarify the doubts that whether the article International Cricket Records is fake,but there are evidences we could get from cricinfo.com about the international cricket records which are combined stats of ODI,Test and T20I.International cricket recordsAbishe (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I dont think the article is fake as it cites enough references.Though, all references are from crickinfo itself. The article may be outdated though Yashovardhan (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

AbisheAre the wikipedians still discussing about this article whether to delete it or not.I can't understand about it.Thanks.

Reordering material in citation quotes

Citations may include quotations form the cited source. I recently discovered such a three sentence quotation where the second and third sentences quoted come three paragraphs before the first sentence. Using ellipsis to exclude words, phrases or one or more sentences is an acceptable practice but I am unaware that entire sentences may actually be reordered in a quotation. (This is a quote included in the ref, not used in the article.) Another editor vouches for this practice but I don't buy it. Am I missing something? Does a policy address this specifically? — βox73 (৳alk) 05:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Box73. The relevant section of the Manual of style can be found with the shortcut MOS:PMC. Here is the most important part:
"Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets (for example, [her father] replacing him, where the context identifying "him" is not included in the quotation: "Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate"). If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic] or the template [sic] to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important."
I share your concern and hope that this helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I would be very suspicious of re-ordering sentences in a single quote. If a large chunk is omitted, wouldn't it be much better to close the quotes then re-start for the later sentence? The principle is that the sense of the original must not be changed. Dbfirs 07:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks guys. The quotation however is that included in the ref in the "quote =" field. But it's been resolved. — βox73 (৳alk) 19:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

New to wikipedia

I am new to Wikipedia and was thinking about what kind of pages I should start editing first, essentially what topics are the most controversial and have alternating opinions? thanks Shanice100 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shanice100 and welcome to the Teahouse. Please get some experience editing, becoming familiar with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, before getting involved in controversial topics. I've put a welcome message on your talk page with some useful links. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

subcategory declaration

How do I place an article in a subcategory by declaring the subcategory?Galical (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Galical. Don't capitalize the second letter. It is "Category:Education theory". Don't put draft articles into categories. Just put a colon in front of the name to keep them out of categories until accepted and moved to mainspace. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thank you!Galical (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination for academic library page

I am creating a page about the Feuchtwanger Memorial Library at USC Libraries. I saved it in draft form and it was immediately tagged for speedy deletion. Since I have the permission of the library to create the page, and for branding purposes, they would prefer I copy/paste, how do I best navigate this process? How do other academic libraries do it? Thank you.Dioneoliver (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dioneoliver. Most Wikipedia articles aren't written by people closely associated with the subject, so the question "How do other academic libraries do it?" is looking at this from the wrong perspective. You should consult Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before you proceed. Articles should be written in a neutral, encyclopedic style and should largely be based on what independent sources say about a topic, so text supplied by the library about itself is unlikely to be suitable even if permission is given to use it. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Dioneoliver, Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject (whether a company, a person, a band, a charity, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. That includes the subject's own publications, and also anything published by an independent source but based on an interview or press release from the subject. An article should be largely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. In any case, every single fact or claim in an article should be derived from a published reliable source. Please see WP:V for more information.. --ColinFine (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is my article tagged as not having "significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"?

I am having trouble having my article approved. I believe I have followed all the guidelines for creating a new article, however, I found out today that it was declined given the grounds of not having enough independent sources. Then again, upon checking and comparing with other similar articles, I can say that I disagree with this decision. Almost all of my references are independent news articles from major local newspapers and music and non-music magazines.

Is there any help I can get to have my article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ang_Bandang_Shirley, reviewed by another editor?

TheBandShirleyFan (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TheBandShirleyFan. First, read the neutral point of view, and eliminate all traces of promotional language from your draft. Next, take a look at your references. You now have 18, but quality is more important than quantity. Eliminate the Facebook page, for example, since that is not a reliable source. Eliminate sources that make only a passing mention of the band, or those which are blogs, social media and so on. Keep those that are truly reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the band. Get rid of the others. Also eliminate the section on influences unless it can be properly referenced. Every substantive assertion requires a reference. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This feedback is very helpful. Will do the necessary changes and will update you if I have resubmitted it for re-review. Thank you so much! TheBandShirleyFan (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I'm just a bit at a loss. If I were to delete the articles that mention the band in passing, how will I provide independent and reliable sources as reference for my assertions? For example, I mentioned there that the band's songs were used and they appeared in some films. There are articles about films, which I can call "independent sources", and these mention the band but not in full detail. But I used these to provide evidence for what I said in the Wiki article. Need guidance. Thanks! TheBandShirleyFan (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I made the changes (i.e., elimated promotional language, removed the Facebook page)and have resubmitted it. Please reconsider. I reviewed the references I included and none of them are blogs or social media sites (except for the Youtube one, that provides evidence that their song was used in a Cornetto TVC). If I were to point out, the references that I included are music magazine/website features (Pinoytuner.com, One Music PH, [Indie] Manila, myxph.com), local non-music magazine features (ClicktheCity.com, FHM.com.ph, Matador Network, Scout Magazine), and local newspaper features (Philippine Collegian, Young Star c/o The Philippine Star, GMA News Online, The Philippine Star, Sun Star, The Philippine Daily Inquirer). TheBandShirleyFan (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Made another edit. Removed all articles that contained interviews of band members. Replaced them with articles written solely by a third party. Please re-review. Thank you so much for the help! TheBandShirleyFan (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Arianna in Nasso article declined

Thank you, KGirlTrucker81, for your response. I've edited wikis for a good few years but this is the first article I've tried to write. I would appreciate some help in fixing the article. I had a feeling it wouldn't pass muster which is the reason I used the draft facility. You note the absence of reliable sources and checking further I see that these must be published sources. Does this mean print sources or would reliable website sources serve?

I attempted to write the wiki as this Porpora opera is of some historical importance in that it was the first shot across the bow by the Opera of the Nobility, aiming to sink Handel's rival company. It really does deserve a Wikipedia article although I'm starting to think that article may have to be supplied by someone rather more experienced in writing wikis. :) aldiboronti (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aldiboronti. If you'd like to leave a message for KGirlTrucker81, then the best place to do so would be at User talk:KGirlTrucker81. As your question about the draft you're working on, you can try asking for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. The editors in that WikiProject might be more familiar with the subject matter and better able to provide you with specific advice than what you will tend to get here at the Teahouse. Just post a message on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera and make sure to provide a link to your draft (Draft:Arianna in Nasso). Lots of drafts are declined the first time they are submitted to AfC, so perhaps the WikiProject Opera editors can help you find the references you need and offer other suggestions on how to improve the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Aldiboronti. I think that it is likely that this opera is notable and deserving of a Wikipedia article. But your draft is completely unreferenced and so cannot be accepted into the encyclopedia in its current form. I encourage you to develop the draft by adding references to reliable sources. As for determining the reliability of a source, it makes little difference whether the source is printed or online. To simplify, a printed book published by a university press is a highly reliable source, but a printed tabloid gossip newspaper is not. The website of an respected museum or long established educational organization is probably reliable, but a blog of some random guy who spouts his opinions is almost certainly not reliable. Each source must be evaluated on its own merits.
Ask yourself how you know the information you included in your draft. You must have read that somewhere. If those sources are reliable, then cite them and add them to the draft article. It would probably be accepted then. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Article submitted for weeks

Hello,

I submitted my article weeks ago and I am wondering why it has not been published yet.

Thank you for your help.EmmieMV (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a large backlog of articles to be reviewed. It can take quite some time, so please be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, EmmieMV. If you look at your own talk page, you will see that your draft was declined on February 24, and the reasons why. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
EmmieMV resubmitted a modified version 25 February. It was declined shortly after the above post. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Need help with submission

hi please tell me if you guys can check my article before i publish it? so that it doesn't get rejected for any reason after review.Isbat raihan (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Isbat raihan: you haven't told us what article you mean; and looking at your edit history doesn't help, as you've never contributed to any article. Maproom (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia Isbat raihan. As Maproom said, it would help to have something concrete to give you advice, but you can always read Wikipedia:Your first article for general tips before writing it. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, but not related to the original question
@Maproom: 'Never'? Is it possible that OP has actually created an article, which was then speedy-deleted and doesn't appear in the user's contribution anymore?
Based on the user's earlier question in the Teahouse I suspect they prepare some text offline (outside Wikipedia) and want to gather some knowledge how to publish it before actually creating any draft here. --CiaPan (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
As an administrator I can see Isbat raihan has no deleted edits. Others can also work this, for example by clicking "Edit count" or "accounts" at the bottom of Special:Contributions/Isbat raihan. The accounts link includes deleted edits in the count but only says 3 edits in total, and there are 3 visible edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Thank you. I looked at the links and found the page at the 'Edit count' link gives explicitly numbers both for visible and for deleted edits. --CiaPan (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Isbat raihan. Wikipedia is about collaboration and openness, so there is a strong preference for drafts to be created within Wikipedia for anybody to look at, rather than trying to do the process offline. If you have a draft of an article, I suggest that you first read your first article, as Tigraan suggests, and consider whether the subject is likely to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and whether your purpose in writing the article is compatible with Wikipedia (eg. you are not writing it to promote anything). If so, then use the Article wizard to create a draft in Wikipedia. (If you have created a draft outside Wikipedia, you're probably going to have to do a lot of reformatting to use Wikimarkup: particularly for references, but also for things like section headers. That's another reason why it's better to work in Wikipedia from the start). When you think that your draft is ready for review, you can submit, using the button that the wizard will have put at the top of your draft. --ColinFine (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

How do I use Wiki Markup?

On most pages, my bane is having to use VisualEditor to edit pages, which can be annoying, because it doesn't provide clear examples that I can relate to (e.g. the markup for an Infobox is not present on any pages in VisualEditor, but on many sites that still use Wiki markup have the code). And there are many variants of this format (being different sites), so I can't rely on any one site to give me the clear markup used on Wikipedia. However, on this page I can use markup. Why is this? Is this a thing, just for Teahouse questions? Or is there an option for this? If so, where can I find it? Is there a video tutorial for it? If so, where can I watch it? Which all boils down to: How do I use wiki markup on Wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by X4nMan20O() (talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@X4nMan20O(): if you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing there's a drop down menu of options to chose visual editor, source editor (markup editor), both or remember last choice. You can change to your heart's content. There's a primer on using the source editor at Help:Wiki markup. Nthep (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

How do I get to the drop down menu? Whenever I go to User Preferences, I get these options: 1. User profile 2. Date format 3. Skin 4. Files 5. Recent changes

Which one should I pick? Skin? If so, what does that all mean? I am very new to Wikipedia, and use iOS to edit pages. Does this mean something? X4nMan20O() — Preceding unsigned comment added by X4nMan20O() (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@X4nMan20O(): The described menu at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing is only at the desktop version of the site. I see you use a mobile version. You may have a "Desktop" link at the bottom of pages, but the setting may not affect later edits in the mobile version. When you start a mobile edit, do you have a pencil icon at the top right where you can switch to the source editor? The icon may disappear if you do anything without using it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You know what, Nthep? That actually helped a little. On every page I edit, there is an option to "switch to source editing." At first I didn't know what that meant, because when I did that, the page turned blank. Now it works. Thanks for clearing that up! X4nMan20O() 13:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

New to the talk aspect of wikipedia.

I am still having a hard time figuring out how to properly use the talk aspect. I'm creating a new page and have a lot of questions regarding the creation of the page, but I'm just still not quite sure how to get the help I need. Summersolsticejazzfest (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Summersolsticejazzfest. This is a pretty good place to ask your question, but since you have, the first problem is that much of your draft appears to have been copy/pasted from http://www.eljazzfest.com/, which is a violation of our copyright policy. I tried to remove only the parts that I could identify, but it looks like nearly all of it is a copy/paste, and so I have nominated the draft for deletion. You will need to start over and this time word the article content in your own words.
You also need to source your article to more than the main website for the organization, to show that it meets our notability guidelines for organizations, and given your username, you should probably also carefully review our policy on conflicts of interest. TimothyJosephWood 17:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the helpful response. So after further review of both the notability guidelines and policy on conflict of interest, it sounds like this article may need to be wiped. Sorry for any inconveniences caused, I'm very very new to how all of this works. With that being said, I do recall seeing something on here about requesting for an article. Is this an option for the article I would like to have on Wikipedia? If so, how should I go about it? I do work for the organization that hosts the Jazz festival and after reading the conflict of interest policy it sounds like it would be better to have an article requested and I would stick primarily to presenting advice or information on the Festival for talk postings?

Summersolsticejazzfest (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Summersolsticejazzfest, the correct place to request an article seems to be here, but it doesn't look very active, so I don't really have any idea how long it might take for a volunteer to respond to your request. TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok great. Thank you again for your assistance. I will do further research on this to see what the best route to take is going to be for our festival.

Summersolsticejazzfest (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my response posted. But I got an idea from another Wikipedia user who was having a similar issue as I am regarding their musical festival. The user was also flagged for speedy deletion after trying to create a page for their music festival, and mentioned that they were thinking about posting about their festival on the page of the city in which their festival is hosted. So instead of there being a single page for their music festival, they would just feature information about their festival within that city page. Is this a solid alternative to my current situation?

Summersolsticejazzfest (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Summersolsticejazzfest—as a first step I think it would be easier to incorporate some of the information about the festival into the article on the city in which the festival takes place. It could also be suggested on the Talk page of that city's article that perhaps a freestanding article on the festival be created. This could be discussed and productive feedback may be generated. Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Festival

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey I received an idea from another Wikipedia user and wanted to see what the possibility of it happening were. The user had mentioned they were in a very similar situation as I am, and suggested they were going to try adding an article about their festival to the page of the city where the festival was hosted. So rather than the festival having it's own Wiki page, it would just be a section on the page of the city that hosts the festival. Is this a good alternative to my current situation?

Summersolsticejazzfest (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Summersolsticejazzfest. I'm afraid you may be making the mistake that many people do, of supposing that Wikipedia may be used for promotion. It may not (and it makes no difference whether the thing promoted is commercial or not). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, that summarises what independent reliable sources have already published about a subject. If there exists substantial material about the festival, published in reliable places such as major newspapers, and not written by or based on the words of anybody involved with the festival, then we could have an article on it, based almost entirely on what those independent sources say. See your first article.
For mentioning it in an existing article about the city, the standard of reference is somewhat lower: but still, any information about the festival added to the article about the city should be based entirely on published information, and should be a neutrally written summary of what the published sources say about it. Even then, it is not a given that it should be mentioned in the article: some information, especially about a large entity such as a city, is too trivial to be mentioned in an article. It would be up to a consensus of editors to determine if it was appropriate.
A final point - your language (and your user name) suggests that you have a connection to the festival. If this is so, then it is important that you read conflict of interest and observe its recommendations; and if you are in any way paid by the festival, you must declare this according to WP:PAID. Also, usernames which suggest that you are editing on behalf of an organisation are not allowed, so I suggest you abandon that account and create another one: see WP:ORGNAME. --ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this a justifiable project idea?

Hey guys I'm not exactly a new user but I wanted to ask this question before making articles on it, because if they're just going to be deleted it's a waste of my time. List of American police officers killed in the line of duty is a long page that is in serious need of cutting down. How about I make it so we have separate pages by year? Such as: List of American police officers killed in the line of duty, 2017 and one for 2016, 2015 and so on and so forth. These pages already exist for List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, it's even been done by month per year. Surely this means we can get some new pages for the officers who died in the line of duty? Just though I'd ask because I don't want to spend hours creating pages like this only for them to be deleted. Inexpiable (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

May I be added to the List(s) of Philosophers?

Dear Wikipedia,

May I be added to the List of Philosophers page?

My name is Wendell O'Brien.

Here is information about me.

I have a Master's degree from Harvard University, where I studied theology and philosophy. I have an M.A. and a Ph.D in Philosophy from The Johns Hopkins University.

I have been on the faculty of Morehead State University for 25 years. I now have the rank of (full) Professor of Philosophy.

I have published thirteen articles all of which are in respectable peer-reviewed venues. Some recent articles were invited. I will have a chapter on "Heidegger and the Meaning of Life" in a book published by Routledge (forthcoming). My two best known articles are "Butler and the Authority of Conscience" in History of Philosophy Quarterly (I am considered in the philosophical community as one of the experts on the philosophy of Joseph Butler) and "Boredom" in Analysis, the most established and esteemed journal in the world for short papers in philosophy. (I am, I believe, considered one of the two or three main experts on the philosophy of boredom in the philosophical community. I have been invited to write the entry on boredom for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) I have an article in the popular journal Philosophy Now, which claims to be the most widely read English language philosophy journal in the world. I have published two articles on the meaning of life, and I believe I am considered one of the 10 or 12 leading philosophers writing on that topic. My article "The Meaning of Life: Early Continental and Analytic Perspectives" in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has generated a good deal of interest. I am now actively at work on several more articles and a couple of books.

I do not want a page of my own on Wikipedia. All I want is to be added to the List of Philosophers.

Thank you for considering my request. I hope to hear from you soon.

Wendell O'Brien, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy Morehead State University U.S.A.173.191.31.102 (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Wendell. The List of American philosophers article only includes philosophers who have a Wikipedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Welcome to the Tearoom. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, not a directory like LinkedIn. The list is of philosophers with articles. We have articles about people and other topics that are already well-known as shown by publication in significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.To have an article you would need to meet the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). StarryGrandma (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Expalin "Puffery"

I read WP:PUFFERY, but I don't understand how it applies to the last deletion from from the music section of the typewriter article. Looking at the examples in WP:PUFFERY, the statement seems neutral in tone. (I understand it is lacking a citation, but instead of adding "citation needed", it was deleted and "puffery" was cited in the explanation".) Please explain. Phatblackmama (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That edit does not look like puffery to me either, but you should be asking the editor who removed it, User:BeenAroundAWhile, either on the article's talkpage or on his talk page. Meters (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I too see no puffery there. I do agree with the removal though, if not on any the bases listed in the edit summary. The tacit reference to WP:BURDEN (challenge and remove), while always available, is for statements where you believe the statement dubious or have checked and have not been able to find found a source (rather than for content that is "just" unsourced, which calls to the verifiability policy in general). The problem is that it implies that if a reliable source can be found and cited using an inline citation, then returning the content would be okay. A good reason for the removal is that it is a poster child for connective trivia, and violates what I think of as the "Scooby Doo rule" of editorial judgment for relevance and focus – that whereas it is quite on target to mention Shakespeare in a Scooby Doo episode list if Shakespeare's ghost terrorizes the team in an episode, it is absurdly out of scope and immaterial to the topic of Shakespeare that his ghost appeared in an episode of Scooby Doo. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Archive bot configuration

The WP:SPEAK project talk page is using the outdated miszabotII archive not that is no longer functional, there are a lot of things that haven't been archived in a few years, I just joined this project two days ago and it isn't very active, I figure the best way for a new start is to have all of the old stuff archived. I can't figure out how to set up the lowercase sigmabot III bot or what to do with the old archives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia Please help!! ThatGirlTayler (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw your post at Wikipedia:Help desk#Is this archive bot set up right? and replied there. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Can somebody clarify conflict-of-interest?

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm aware that there's a policy on conflict-of-interest editing. I'm a bit confused on it and I'd like some clarification - does this mean that if, for example, I have an account on a website, I'm not allowed to edit the article about that website because of a conflict-of-interest? Or is it even considered a COI in the first place? I apologize if the answer is blatant, but the more I read the page, the more confused I get. Galactic-Radiance (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Galactic-Radiance, to give an answer to your example, probably not. Sorry it isn't straightforward, but their isn't really a straightforward answer available. It depends on the editor's conduct. In your example, if the editor's edits were strictly promoting the website, then yes they may have a conflict of interest. If they financially benefit from promoting the subjects of their edits, or they have a close personal connection to the subject of their edits (such as family), then they most likely have a conflict of interest. It is possible to be in a situation where there would be a conflict of interest and edit in a manner that does not indicate a conflict. Clear as mud, right? John from Idegon (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: Yeah, clear as mud, pretty much. I appreciate your help, though, because that did help a bit! Galactic-Radiance (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Galactic-Radiance. Maybe try and think of it like this: if you're here to help build Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and adhere to it's core principles, then you'll probably be OK even if you have have a COI; on the other hand, if you're here for other reasons, then you're going to find yourself having problems with others. COI editing is highly discouraged, but not something which is expressly prohibited. The reason it's highly discouraged is because it can quickly lead to more serious problems which are contrary to those core principles. At the same time, there are editors who have a COI, some who are even paid for their work (see Category:Paid contributors), who are able to edit in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines and thus positively contribute to building Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I think that might be the point that John from Idegon was trying to make above: COI is not automatically bad in and of itself; it's only bad when it leads to more serious problems. Anyway, try taking a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for more information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Folks, I have seen this editor over at WikiHow and I'm not concerned in the least that he'd break this project. GR if you'd like to ask on my talk page what you're planning to do, I'll certainly give it my best shot to point you in the right direction. I may be wrong, but not all the time. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  02:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Marchjuly - that helps a lot. And yes, as Aloha27 says (nice to see you here, by the way!), I'm a regular contributor over at wikiHow and don't have any intent of promoting anything here (or there, for that matter) - just found myself a bit confused on the policy and needing clarification to avoid potential issues! Thank you all for your help. Galactic-Radiance (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Does this violate any rules....?

Are you allowed to ask someone else on their talk page if they would like to write an article or expand a subject in an existing article, if you have a COI yourself? RM2KX (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RM2KX. There is no rule against what you are describing. I will give you a few suggestions, though. Select an editor who has a general interest in the type of article you propose and have a list of links to reliable sources ready. If the person says they are not interested, then move on graciously. Avoid developing a reputation for pestering people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@RM2KX: Article-specific talk pages can be a good way to contact multiple editors to suggest changes and reach a consensus. Also, if there is a related Wikiproject, its talk page is another avenue for more general discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

About Deletion Tag

Dear Wikipedia Admins,

Please fix the deletion tag issue on article Endoca. Now it is to long to stay this tag on the article. You take your decision on the basis of discussion about deletion.Wikibaji (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikibaji. The AfD template will be removed once the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endoca has been closed. Sometimes it takes a bit of time for a consensus to be established, so there's really nothing that to do except wait for the process to run its course. I've added a {{Please see}} template to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis. Perhaps doing so will help in establishing a consensus either way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks User:Marchjuly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaji (talk • contribs) 07:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Article declined

Hi, I wrote a request for an article to be written about a school, it was declined. I thought by requesting others to write the article I would obtain a neutral response and am confused as to why it was classed as advertising. I included a lot of information/published sources about the school that were not by the school. Other schools have wikipedia pages, I would like to know how to arrange one for this school also. Caitlin Cronin - Secretary and Registrar Caitlin Cronin - Secretary and Registrar 17:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CountryCousins1951 (talk • contribs)

Hello CountryCousins1951, the school was probably not up to the notability standards of wikipedia Kb10r (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi CountryCousins1951 and welcome to the Teahouse. When you asked about the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk both times you received instructions on getting the draft of the article restored so you could work on it. We are all volunteers here, so it may be hard to find someone willing to write it for you, though we are very happy to help. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
CountryCousins1951, if you could supply us the name, location and grade range of the school, we could answer your question much more specifically. John from Idegon (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this the school? If so, it appears to not be a traditional school per se, but rather a specialized academy for the purpose of learning English. In order to qualify for an article, this company would need to meet the notability standard explained at WP:CORP, and additionally not be written in any way promotionally. John from Idegon (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi John from Idegon, that is the school, it is an EFL school, it is one of the oldest in the UK and has received a lot of attention, subsequently it has a lot published on it and I thought it met the notability guidelines. I put in a request for an article to be written about it by someone unrelated as I was aware I might write the article biased, I included sources from other publications so was confused as to why it was still deleted. Other schools seem to have wikipedia pages so I just want to know how to set one up similarly. Is it better to just write an article myself since the requested one was deleted?Caitlin Cronin - Secretary and Registrar 08:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

deleting a page

how do i delete a page after i make it Jabo57 (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jabo57: Since the page has been tagged for speedy deletion, someone else will likely soon delete it for you. PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Is mention a companys charity work a form of advertisement or promotion?

As the questions says, is mentioning charity work, or even environmental work a form of advertisement or promotion? If they are good to put on my draft to be submitted, would a company's JustGiving page be notable? I would assume not since it is 'self-published'. Thanks you for your time. UmarShah (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello UmarShah and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles should summarize what reliable, independent sources have to say about the subject. So if they have written extensively about the company's involvement with charities then it belongs in the article - otherwise not. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

GA

Can anybody say what is the subtopic for Kelly Williams, and that, is it fine for a GA? Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adityavagarwal. Kelly Williams has been submitted for review as a possible Good article. I think that it is best to let those reviewers evaluate it according to GA standards. I did notice that it was rated as a stub, and it is clearly a far better article than that. Accordingly, I have upgraded it to a B rating. I do not understand your question regarding "subtopic". Please clarify. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Cullen328, I think they're talking about the subtopic for the GA review, which is the category you have to put the article into when nominating. They have subtopics for agriculture, food and drink, arts, etc. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, White Arabian Filly. If you are correct, then this article is listed wrong. Adityavagarwal, because Kelly Williams is a professional basketball player, the article should be listed under "Sports and recreation", not "Miscellaneous". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I left the subtopic as is. I did not mark it to be miscellaneous. Maybe it was default. So Sports and Recreation is the one right? Thank You so much. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I was talking about that. Maybe it labelled the article as miscellaneous by default. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Article title

How do I add a title to my article by declaring the article title?Galical (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have moved User:Galical/sandbox to Draft:Yeh hypothesis. I hope this was what you wanted. Maproom (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Galical: I see that a few minutes after I moved it, you submitted your sandbox (which was by then a redirect) for review. I think you should undo that submission, and submit the draft itself for review. Maproom (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand correctly--what is wrong with my submission, which is now titled, "Yeh hypothesis"?Galical (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused about what I should do. Is there an advantage to "undoing" my submission? And if I undo it, is there a simple way to resubmit from my sandbox?Galical (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no view on whether anything is wrong with it. As none of its references is to an on-line source, and I don't currently have access to a library, I wouldn't be able to judge it even if I wanted to. But what you have submitted for review is not the draft titled Yeh hypothesis, it is a redirect to it. This isn't exactly wrong, but it's a bit confusing. If you feel you can't sort it out by removing the current submission for review from the redirect and putting it in the draft where it belongs, please say here and I'll do it for you. Maproom (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I typed "Yeh hypothesis" in the box and clicked on the button marked "Move to Draft Space" but received the following error message: "You cannot move pages because your account is too new or is blocked from editing." So it appears that I do not have the ability to remove the current submission from review and place it in the draft space. I appreciate your help with this.Galical (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I've done that for you. Good luck! Maproom (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thank you!Galical (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Galical: - While you are waiting for the draft to be reviewed, one useful thing would be for you to consolidate the references which are used more than once, see Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thank you, I appreciate the pointer.Galical (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

About Images

I am--whew--on the last step of my edit of the history of Eugene, Oregon, before I ask for it to be reviewed. I am trying to add two images.

I am taking the first image from the Wikipedia article about the camas plant. The second comes from the Lane County Historical Society (lchs). The LCHS photo is free to use and is already watermarked. The first, since it is already in Wikipedia, I assume is also free to use. I have located the Wikipedia Upload file page. (Question 1) But, I don't know how to credit either photo.

I have also found the Insert Media button but am unclear what will happen when I complete the process. (Question 2) Where will the photo actually go? Will I be able to move it and/or move text around it?

Thank you for your help. Silver WaterSilver Water (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Silver Water. If you are talking about the article Camassia, there are two photos there, both of which are freely licensed and already unloaded to our sister project Wikimedia Commons. There is no need to upload either of those images again, as either existing file can be used on any Wikipedia/Wikimedia project in any language, or used for any purpose anywhere. Click on the image and click the blue "details" box. That will show you the file name and there is an option to generate the wikicode which you can copy and paste to add the image to any Wikipedia article.
As for the historical society photo, we do not allow watermarked images except in very narrow circumstances. If the photo is otherwise acceptable, it may be possible to crop out the watermark. When you say that it is "free to use", we must have convincing evidence in writing that the photo is either in the public domain or properly released under a Creative Commons or equivalent license that meets our strict standards. So, you need to take a careful look at the language of the written permission to use the photo.
Please read Wikipedia:Images for additional information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Silver Water, please also read Wikipedia:Watermark. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
help meFunmibi (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello and welcome
For your second question, how to place images in the article, I will suggest reading this.
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 16:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

making a page

i was trying to make a page but got all of the wrong stuff in itJabo57 (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Jabo57. Do you need some help making an article?
  Bfpage  let's talk...  21:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleting an uncited statement

When you come across a statement without a citation, what are the wikipedia guidelines for handling it? Delete? Add "citation needed"? I couldn't find anything, although I am guessing I just don't know where to look. Phatblackmama (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Phatblackmama. I suggest taking a look at WP:UNSOURCED. If you find a clearly incorrect statement, then I would remove it immediately. If you find a statement that you know to be true, but which lacks a source, and you can't find a source yourself, then I would tag it with {{citation needed}}. Everything inbetween is up to your judgement really, but personally I err on the side of removal unless I can find a source myself. Once unsourced material has been removed from an article, the burden is on anyone who wants to add it again to provide a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Phatblackmama. Don't remove material that can be verified with a bit of work by someone who knows where to look. All material must be "verifiable" but "verified" isn't yet a requirement except in some cases. In the early days of Wikipedia it was felt to be unnecessary to provide references for material that was well-known enough to be in textbooks or standard books on a subject. Many, many science and math articles have few references even today for that reason. Recently someone tried to have the fundamental article Chemical compound deleted as lacking sources. These days we try to make sure that newly added material comes in with sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Phatblackmama - LOL! I like your user name. Do you need help finding references or do you just want to tag unreferenced content? I can help find references if you would like. Please leave a message on my talk page.
Best Regards,
  Bfpage  let's talk...  21:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I just had a book of poetry published by createspace. Is there a way I can have this noted in Wikipedia? Riverside1Poet (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I just had a book of poetry published by createspace. Is there a way I can have this noted in Wikipedia? Riverside1Poet (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Riverside1Poet. Newly published books are rarely notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Please read our notability guideline for books. Normally, we would expect several detailed published reviews by respected poetry critics, appearing in reliable, independent sources, at a minimum. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, books that you publish yourself are seldom notable. Anyone can go to a vanity press and pay to have a book published. At least if a mainline publisher publishes it, they think enough of it to take a risk on it. You can buy anything you want. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Createspace isn't a vanity publisher, it's self-publishing through Amazon. Still not notable but not vanity publishing either. Warshington (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Self publishing is when you publish something yourself. Just because they have a free option doesn't change the fact that it is a vanity press. They exercise no editorial control whatsoever. John from Idegon (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It is possible though rare for a self-published book to become notable. Consider Irma Rombauer's The Joy of Cooking, originally self-published in 1931. It is still in print and has sold over 18 million copies. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
You are a fount of knowledge, Jim. I wasn't aware of that. Reminds me, I need a new copy. John from Idegon (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability

Hi everyone,

I'm after some help. I'm creating a page for a British comedian who has had a show at the Edinburgh Fringe, writes for the Huffington Post, has been profiled by the BBC, is a campaigner and support of the Royal National Institute of Blind People and has been covered in Time Out magazine this week. She is disabled and went blind for a year making her a distinct individual in her field. Adding all of this together, I think this is a strong case for her being a notable person.

I've read through the guidelines for notability a number of times but must be getting something wrong as the page as been rejected and the feedback isn't specific enough for me to pinpoint why. Would any of you be kind enough to be help me identify what I need to do to have the page approved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Georgie_Morrell

Thanks in advance for any help.

NickyNicolamarypaul (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Nicolamarypaul. As I said in my decline notes, the sources you included did not demonstrate that the subject met our guidelines for notability. You have since added more sources but a subsequent reviewer has also declined the article for the same reason. We do need widespread in-depth coverage, not just passing mentions to establish notability I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Theroadislong.
I guess the bit I'm misunderstanding - as the comedian has coverage in a number of prominent news, magazine and charity pages I think I need a bit more help to understand what constitutes wide-spread and what constitutes in depth. All of the articles and interviews I've cited have been lengthy and solely about her work so it isn't just a passing mention.
Can you give me some examples or elaborate please?
Thanks Nicolamarypaul (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Think of it this way, Nicolamarypaul. What kind of information does a true biography need to have? Where and when he was born, where he obtained his education and how much, what he has done for a living throughout his life. Is he married? What is his spouse's name? Children? Possibly his ethnic heritage or religious background; his politics, where does he live; where has he lived? If your sources cannot fill in that info, then you need more sources until they do. Not all of it is needed of course, but details like these are seldom covered in brief celebrity articles and at least some of them are needed to write a meaningful bio and not a publicity piece on the guys career.
Also, independence is needed to show notability and sources need to be reliable. The only two sources that are for certain reliable you have are the BBC and the Huffington Post. The HP piece is so obviouly from a press release, some of it is written in first person, so it is not independent. The BBC piece is just an announcement of an interview with him about an upcoming show. Interviews can be used to source personal information, but do not show notability. Keep this in mind. We have very little interest in what the subject of an article has to say about themselves. We do not write about a given subject; we write about what is written about the subject. That is the fundamental nature of an encyclopedia. John from Idegon (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Creating a Stub

I have noticed that sometimes a link on Wikipedia will lead me to a Stub page, which appears to be a page with a small amount of information and then some included links leading to the subjects website or related places websites or things along those lines. I'm wondering how do I approach creating one of those for a subject which exists on another page and also probably doesn't require a full separate article page? Joevquez7 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A Stub is " An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject". You can learn more on creating a stub here Yashovardhan (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Joevquez7. If you are thinking about creating a stub, I would urge you instead to consider creating a full article using the Articles for creation process to create it in draft. My personal view is that stubs are something out of an earlier stage in Wikipedia's history, that people should not be encouraged to create today. If there is not enough published material on the subject to ever expand the article beyond a stub, then the subject is probably not notable; and if there is, then it will be of more value to Wikipedia to create one well-structured article than fifty stubs. --ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Joevquez7: I wondered if what you described were not disambiguation pages (Wikipedia:Disambiguation) which we also have, and do point to the various notable maching content. As for actual stub articles, you will also usually see them marked as stubs using a special template, i.e. one of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types. PaleoNeonate (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

template for articles with no citations/references

What's the template for articles that lack any sources? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You can try Template:Unreferenced or Template:BLP unsourced depending upon the type of article it is. You might also want to look through WP:TMC and see if another template might be more appropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome back to the Teahouse, VerifiedCactus. Unsurprisingly, it is called Template: Unreferenced. To find a template, type "Template:" into the search box, followed by a logical keyword. That will work almost all of the time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks guys. The Verified Cactus 100% 23:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

How do I do a readability test within Wikipedia?

I've been using "copy and paste" to put text into an MSW doc, and then doing the readability test from there. This can't go on!......there must be a way to do a check inside Wikipedia. Help. and Thank You.PlanetCare (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, PlanetCare. Are you referring to this sort of readability test? I'm afraid I can't find any evidence of on-Wikipedia readability tests. There was a proposal in 2008 where a bunch of editors said it was a good idea but apparently no one ever did anything about it. Sorry, but it looks like there is no way to do such a check in Wikipedia right now. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, there is a tool I found here, not on Wikipedia but Wikipedia-related, which gives the readability of all pages in a given category (up to 50). There's a similar tool here. But that's maybe less convenient still since you can't just copy-paste the article text. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The tool for assessing 50 pages all at once is worth something. but it's not the kind of specific tool that will "drive action." I want to be able to show others working on the same pages that if they pay attention to readability they can actually influence the readability score, and increase the chances that people will understand what they have to say.PlanetCare (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Any chance of restarting the conversation, to see if we can get a better tool inside of wikipedia? I'm very new to wikipedia and have been working on sanitation related pages in the lead up to World Water Day. I'm finding the scientists are writing to other scientists, not to the general reader. PlanetCare (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi PlanetCare. I've added two online text statistics sites to Readability test. Most links out there are for commercial marketing sites trying to collect clicks, but I found two non-commercial sites. One, at Joe's Web Tools makes it very easy to paste sections of an article into it and get counts. I counted the text at "Readablility test" and the results are sad. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_594&oldid=1086089870"