Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 713

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 710

Archive 711

Archive 712

→

Can you allow me to post my article on Wikipedia for a limited time?

Me and my friend have classwork to do by a teacher which will go great on our C.Vs and we were hoping that we could review each other's Wiki page and then improve to review again to take it down afterwards.

We aren't infringing any rights and therefore would love to just use this site for our coursework for I.T.

Thank you for taking this into consideration, I hope to hear from you soon,

MariaMaria567 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Maria567: I don't think this is possible. If you have been assigned this from your instructor, has your instructor followed the guidance at WP:ASSIGN ? RudolfRed (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not free webspace for assignments, but if you read WP:Your first article and WP:Referencing for beginners, perhaps you could work on a genuine article that would remain here and benefit the encyclopaedia. Dbfirs 21:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Maria567. Wikipedia never accepts an article on a pre-planned temporary basis. High quality articles are kept forever. Low quality articles are either improved, or if that is not possible, deleted. You have been working on a draft article about a topic that already has a Wikipedia article, Online community. We never accept a new article about a topic when we have an existing article about the same topic. One topic, one article. Instead, any editor interested in a topic should work to improve the existing article rather than trying to write a new article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Alice Lloyd

I reviewed Draft:Alice Lloyd at Articles for Creation and declined it, saying that it did not establish the notability of Alice Lloyd. I also said that the formatting was inconsistent and needed to be improved, and the article lacked a proper lede sentence. The author, User:Quovadiszero, replied on my talk page , saying that they were having difficulty with the icons for the references, and that they had used a method of formatting the quotes from the newspapers, and that they had information based on correspondence with Lloyd’s granddaughter. I am doubtful about their ability to use the private correspondence, because it isn’t from a reliable source, and said that the way that they had inserted the quotes from the newspapers was distracting and non-standard. Will other experienced editors please look at the draft and advise the author? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Private correspondence may not be reliable, but more relevantly it isn't published, and is therefore not acceptable as a source. Maproom (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Will other editors please comment on the draft in general? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. Based on my search, especially using Google Books, I am reasonably confident that this person is notable, and that this encyclopedia ought to have an article about her. According to several accounts, she was a major star in vaudeville, on Broadway, and also in silent films about 110 years ago. That being said, the current draft is unacceptable, because it is not properly referenced. Quotations require inline references. The style and formatting is terrible, and the quotes look like typographical errors by someone with no understanding of how we structure an encyclopedia article. I suggest you work with this editor to help them understand what is necessary to whip a poorly written draft about a notable topic into shape. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Citations = External Links?

Good Morning!

My new article was rejected this morning for have 6 external links in the body that violate guidelines. I would love to fix this issue, however, all of my external links found in citations - the links in the body go to Wikipedia pages. I have updated those links to include the w: (I was missing the "w" before). Is this the only thing I need to fix or am I missing something?

It is possible that they were flagged because I simply have too many. Any insight would be helpful.

My draft is Draft:Leighton School of Nursing

Thank you!

NurseEducator (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the inclusion of the w: prefix, as that wasn't needed. I find it surprising that User:Chetsford declined the submission in the same edit where he/she changed the Wikipedia URLs to WP:wikilinks. Having done that change, it seemed strange to decline the submission on grounds that no longer existed. I have removed one reference to Wikipedia, for reasons which are explained at WP:CIRCULAR. I notice that you have tried to do the formatting using HTML tags rather than wiki markup, so that could do with tidying up, see Help:HTML in wikitext and Help:Wikitext. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

David Biddulph - to the best of my knowledge all I did was hit the "decline" button on the nomination, however, on looking at the edit you are correct that all the external links were then fixed in the same edit [1]. Unless the AfC script is set-up to do that, I'm not sure what happened as I definitely didn't go through and manually fix all those. I'll check some of the other articles I've declined for EXT. (Either way, I guess it's great they got fixed?!) Chetsford (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@NurseEducator: the concern I have with this draft is the almost complete lack of sources from external, reliable sources. Using internal (primary) sources to verify factual information is fine but what is needed is the secondary sources that discuss the school. Nthep (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

NurseEducator, my concern is whether an independent article for this school that is part of a university is even needed. Why not just include the information at Marian University? John from Idegon (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Weird AFD interactions

Okay so, long story. It goes without saying that I'm fairly new. A while ago I voted "Keep" on an AFD for an article a friend told me had been targeted by trolls. The very next day, I noticed that another article I had recently done some work on was targeted for AFD and at the same time, it came under heavy vandal attack (to the point to where it was locked). One person even edited in the AFD from the *first* page to second. Nearly every account that voted "Keep" was flagged as an SPA. Including accounts that had long and varied edit histories, going back as far as 2005. Someone had also hidden the comments I made about the one page being targeted because of the other under an "extended content" tag. Articles for deletion/Brenton Lengel (2nd nomination)

This morning the page was deleted and I got a nasty comment on my talk page from someone involved. Is there something I'm missing here? like maybe the page didn't have the sourcing it needed, maybe it did (I've seen similar pages with way less that are fine) and if I put my foot in my mouth, fine I'm a noob, but I don't think I was ever inappropriate...and the whole thing has left a bad taste in my mouth. What did I do wrong and is there someone I can/should report this to? Joseph dejacque (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joseph dejacque. I'm sorry to hear that your experiences with Wikipedia so far have been negative (and confusing). Looking at it, I think the problems began with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Maupin (2nd nomination), which was heavily disrupted by editors canvassed from outside Wikipedia, and that perhaps gave you a distorted impression of how we usually conduct these discussions. But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenton Lengel (2nd nomination) was started by Galobtter, who is an experienced editor and certainly not a troll. I doubt that they didn't do so out of any sort of "retaliation"; it was just an article on a related topic that you happened to have edited before. The vandalism was probably related to the off-wiki activity that is clearly associated with both these AfDs.

In the second AfD, there are a few points of AfD etiquette that you tripped up on:

Whilst AfDs are discussions, repeatedly arguing your case and responding to others' comments is generally frowned upon. It's better to let other editors read the arguments and make their own minds up.
It's expected that participants keep their comments concise and focused only on the issue of deletion. Long comments, repetition and general discussion about the page make it more difficult for other editors to participate and for administrators to assess the consensus. That is the reason some of your comments were 'collapsed'.
We never edit other users' comments.
It's not a good idea to remove SPA tags that other editors have placed. These are purely meant as information for the benefit of the closing admin (who is free to disregard them if misapplied). It's not any sort of slight on the user who was tagged.
Consistently using indentation and bullet points helps keep the discussion readable.

Some of these are unwritten rules that you as a new editor really had no way of knowing about. Others I think show a battleground mentality on your part, perhaps coming from the previous AfD and the feeling that you were being 'trolled', which is never productive. I do agree that Guy's note on your talk page comes across as rather abrupt, but AfDs are amongst Wikipedia's most contentious discussions and tempers do get frayed. If I were you I'd take a break from them for the time being. Working on writing articles is usually a much more pleasant and rewarding experience. – Joe (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO, you're being trolled. This user made seven edits to Wikipedia over 18 months before !voting on the Maupin AfD and then filling the AfD on a now-deleted vanity article - one previously kept only because of a pile-on by suspiciously inexperienced editors - with endless commentary responding to pretty much every delete !vote. If that was not the result of off-wiki solicitation then it is a really perverse coincidence. More than half of all his edits since registering in June 2016, and the great majority of all his contributions by character count, are to that one AfD. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I started it on the behalf of a IP editor so that IP editor could be a troll :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

So it WAS a troll from Caleb's page. I knew I wasn't crazy. Thanks Galobtter that clears things up. Sorry I thought you were one. Like I said, I'm new at this. Joseph dejacque (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I highly doubt it was a troll.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thank you Joe. I didn't know. It seemed like the two things were related because of the vandalism and the timeline. Maybe it was just a coincidence. I just felt really guilty which was why I was a little combative. And yes, I haven't made many edits Guy but again - I made a few edits (mostly anarchist stuff) then became active when my friend told me about Caleb's page...and I guess I sorta over-reacted. I just hope I didn't hurt things on the other page. That would be really ironic. Joseph dejacque (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Page was deleted

I am affiliated with a company called Revcontent... the page was recently deleted. I am looking for help in getting it set up, but want to follow all the rules and guidelines to ensure it won't be deleted for improper usage. I can provide media coverage about company from unaffiliated third party news orgs.

C.terenzi (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@C.terenzi: The usual advice is don't do this. It is difficult for new editors to create an article and doubly so to create a neutral article when you are affiliated. If you want to proceed, read WP:YFA on what is required for an article (particularly what it means to be notable) and then use the wizard there to create an article for review. You also need to disclose that you have a conflict of interest and if you are being paid. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. I would suggest instead you edit articles that where you don't have the conflict of interest. RudolfRed (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there someone who would help us create a new page? C.terenzi (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, C.terenzi. The problem you face is that articles are only deleted from Wikipedia because the consensus at the time was that the subject wasn't notable enough, as per our definition, which you can read here: WP:NORG. Has something suddenly changed to make you think its notability will be viewed any differently now? If so, you might stand a chance, but if not you will just find the article being proposed for deletion once again. I'm not able to see what the deleted article said, but if it contains substantially the same content it will probably be deleted again very quickly indeed. Sorry. (Oh, and the answer to your last question is "No", I'm, afraid.) Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello C.terenzi. Here is the discussion that led to deletion of the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revcontent. An earlier version of the article was deleted several years previously. Please be aware that my search for coverage in reliable sources revealed harsh criticism of your company for peddling salacious and misleading clickbait advertising. Please be aware that any future article must include well-referenced criticism and your company will have no right to remove it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Just so it is clear they are also talking about Draft:Revcontent (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Revcontent). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Dowery System in India

Why have you ReEdited the the wikipedia page "Dowery System in India" as it is particularly biased against the muslim Community at large as it shows the the Dowery System to be connected with ony Islam while the ground reality is completely different?43.231.59.221 (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess that you have some difficulty understanding English. The first two sentences of the paragraph which you were trying to edit (Dowry system in India#Religious factors) say "Dowry in India is not limited to any specific religion. It is widespread among Hindus and other religions.", so certainly not saying that it connected only with Islam. If you wish to find a Wikipedia in a language which you do understand, a list of Wikipedias is available at meta:List of Wikipedias. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Im trying to create a page on wikipedia for a park. It keeps getting rejected.

I have all the info, but Im not good with this sort of stuff.

All I want is for a factually correct page to exisit to replace one that is in a forgiegn language and has inforrect information.

Link to the page Im trying to create below.

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

Im also struggling with the format of editing wikipedia.

Can someone please help?

Thanks! Thedesignerguy (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thedesignerguy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have dived right in to article creation, which is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. New users who are most successful at creating articles got that way by first editing existing articles in areas that interest them, in order to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in articles. I might suggest that before continuing to edit your draft that you edit some existing articles, perhaps starting with small changes like spelling or grammar fixes, and working your way up to more substantive additions. Then when you at ready you can go back to article creation. You may also want to use The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial of sorts for using Wikipedia, as well as reading Your First Article.

Regarding the draft itself, it has been rejected mostly because you initially copied the content from elsewhere. I think then you did make some changes, but the content that is there now doesn't seem to have sufficient citations to warrant an article of its own. Content like "the park has become a favorite for locals" or "It's also well known for its purple Jacaranda Tre" needs to be cited from an independent reliable source like a news story, review, etc. It's that apparent lack of in depth coverage in sources that led to the more recent rejection, suggesting you simply add some information about this park to the existing article about the neighborhood/area it is located in. I would have to agree that the park seems too small to warrant a separate article. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that existence in one language Wikipedia does not guarantee inclusion here: English Wikipedia has different, and higher, standards for sourcing and notability than many other language projects. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please also see Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on how to make your references into proper in-text citations, so that it is clear which source supports each part of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cirque du Soleil (continuation of discussion)

[User Estebanpirazo is continuing the discussion at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 706#Volta (Cirque du Soleil) article issues.]

First, Estebanpirazo, please do not edit an archived discussion. The notice at the top of the archive says "Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page."

I'm sorry you are having a frustrating time. You are having an ongoing disagreement with Justlettersandnumbers, who has explained why they do not think the information you are adding is encyclopaedic. I disagree with them about reliability of the source (which was what you quoted me for (please realise that what you quoted was the informed opinion of one editor - me - and I'm a little concerned that you quoted it as though it were a pronouncement from authority), but I think Wikipedia articles about shows often have entirely too much trivial information about dates. IN any case, what you should do is attempt to reach a consensus with Justlettersandnumbers, and if you cannot, follow the steps in dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this, ColinFine. Estebanpirazo is clearly puzzled that other articles contain unreferenced lists of tour dates, and has made a real effort to engage in discussion (for which my thanks, Estebanpirazo!). As for the reliability of the source, no source for those dates has been cited, either at Volta (Cirque du Soleil) or at Crystal (Cirque du Soleil),so I'm a little puzzled to hear that ColinFine thinks it might be reliable. I'd really appreciate some wider input on this. I've repeatedly encouraged Estebanpirazo to ask for advice here, and he didn't receive much when he last brought it here. Oh, and if I'm wrong, do please feel free to say so. Thanks, everyone. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies ColinFine and Justlettersandnumbers; it looks like we are finally trying to understand the issue here. The factual data on the articles that has been deleted are show dates and Creative Team. My question has always been: why is it being deleted from the article?, I agree with ColinFine's initial reply that this is information that could not be obtained from any other source than the official webpage, and it should be allowed to be referenced from an official source. Also, the other question that arises from this issue is if this content is deleted, should it also be deleted from the articles of all of the other Cirque du Soleil's shows, plus several musical concerts, touring Broadway shows articles, etc? (usually, all of those articles contain show dates, and a creative team list). I haven't received a satisfactory reply that answers both of these questions. Estebanpirazo (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the articles, Justlettersandnumbers: I was just going on where Estebanpirazo said they came from. If no sources are cited, that is a different matter. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

ColinFine, I remember I added a reference to their original website for the Creative Team list, and I don't remember if I added the same for the show dates schedule... but back to my question: will the show dates and Creative Team members be deleted from all of the other shows by Cirque du Soleil, due to this? (such as Luzia, Toruk, Kurios, Amaluna, Totem, Ovo, Koozå, Delirium, Corteo, Varekai, Dralion, Quidam... and many others?), and will it be done also to other touring shows in general? Estebanpirazo (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea, Estebanpirazo. This is a volunteer project, and people work on what interests them. There certainly are editors who value consistency enough that they will go back and make changes to bring existing article into line with newer consensus; but there are others who are more interested in finding new things to do. If Justlettersandnumbers, or another editor, feels that a consensus has been reached that they should be removed, then they might go and remove them; but they might not. As to your earlier question: I have expressed my view that things like dates are the kind of information that could come from non-independent sources: and I have said that in my opinion, many articles about shows contain too much detail about productions and dates. But I haven't expressed any opinion about these particular articles: I haven't looked at the articles. --ColinFine (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How to i put an editorial question on an article to the general membership of WP?

On the article Mexico National Football Team there is use of the phrase Mexican national football team as the title instead of the approved translation from the original of Mexico national football team. I would like for others at WP to weigh in on the importance of maintaining the integrity of what is translated and put into use at WP in order that it does not appear that English users are imposing their grammar on the Spanish language users. How do i do this?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I see that you are already discussing the matter at Talk:Mexico national football team, which is the proper place for the discussion. If that discussion does not come to a satisfactory conclusion, then there are various forms of dispute resolution available. I have no opinion on the specific dispute. You may well be right. However, as a general principle, the English Wikipedia will render translations the same way that the preponderance of reliable English language sources do. We reflect published English language sources instead of trying to correct or improve them. We do not "impose" on Spanish language speakers because there is an entire Spanish language Wikipedia for speakers of that language, written and administrated by Spanish speakers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You asked your question in the right place, at Talk:Mexico national football team. Interested editors will reply there. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that is interesting because not only did I ask the question but then was rebiuffed and insulted for my English language skills and basically asked to go edit the Spanish WP? Now the person has me up for a warring advisory discussion. Is this what WP is all all about. If you feel challenged you start to go after people?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cullen--you do impose on Spanish language WP users because if you say something is so in English then the English use world thinks that it is so. That is tantamount to WP endorsing it. The fact of the matter remains that the original title of the Mexico National Football Team was grammatically incorrectly translated probably based on some wrong assumption by an English speaking person. Now we have a situation where someone continues to use the old style and incorrect title translation. And for questioning that then i am called on the carpet for warring? beciae some English use senior editor here is being obstinate possibly about being challeneged? Again, this is the WP way?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if you repeatedly revert other editors' contributions to a talk page discussion (other than in the circumstances permitted by WP:TPO) you are likely to be warned about it and then reported to WP:AN3 if you continue. That is the WP way. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to English language usage, we reflect what the preponderance of published English language sources say. In exactly the same way, the Spanish Wikipedia reflects Spanish language usage based on the preponderance of Spanish language sources. We call Germany "Germany" here as English language sources do, not "Deutschland" as the Germans do. To state the obvious, the German language Wikipedia describes American and British and Australian topics using common German words and phrases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes but we don't then turn around and say the German national football team we say Germany national football team. Now you have someone saying that it is perfectly presentable to vary a title from what has been established by article title name of Mexic and change it to Mexican? Your Deuthcland did not help your position very much. At least i know amongst the English WP users i am welcomed at the Spanish language WP?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Was there something about "I have no opinion on the specific dispute. You may well be right." that you did not understand, or are you deliberately ignoring what I wrote above? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I really cannot understand how some of you WP people function. So now you are going to fault me for your faulty example? You may think that Mexico and Mexican are interchangeable but they are not especially in a situation where the translation is literal. Mexico in Spanish is Mexico and Mexican in Spanish is Mexicano/a. The host country title for the Mexico National Football Team is not Mexicano/a but Mexico. If anyone outside the US just dilly fdally changed the names of our institutions we would probably think they ignorant or insulting. Why should we treat other countries the same way i WP is to reach its full internation impact? So it seams to me that WP is more concerned about authority being followed than publishing in the correct manner? Especially if i am being welcomed to go elsewhere such as the Spanish language WP to edit. That certainly makes me feel welcomed.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It is tedious to have to repeat "I have no opinion on the specific dispute. You may well be right." for a third time, but you have forced me to do so. Please drop your tendentious editing. It is unhelpful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not about translation. We all understand what the subject of the article is: the national football team that plays for Mexico. The issue (if you think there is an issue) is what name is usually used for it in English-language publications. Maproom (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Education section on Lytton Springs, Texas

Hello! In the article of Lytton Springs, Texas, I want to add to the education section of that article information about a school that was opened there recently. This is what I want to add to the section:

"In fall 2016, a new elementary school, Alma Brewer Strawn Elementary School, was opened in Lytton Springs. It was named for a respected staff member named Alma Brewer Strawn, who was a teacher in the district. It is the first campus to be built outside of the Lockhart, Texas city limits. It teaches grades PK-5. After it opened, a student attendance zone map was created, and the four elementary schools in Lockhart teach grades K-5."

I will not add this info to the article until I find sources to cite them. I cannot find the sources for them. Can someone please find the news reports showing this info? I will be looking at other articles to find out how to properly cite news reports. Thank you for taking the time to read this message, and I can't wait to hear from someone. Thanks! Colman2000 (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Colman2000. I find it odd that you know what you want to say, but don't know where to find the source to support you saying it. This seems the total opposite of how anyone should be creating content. That said, put your search words between double quotes in a Google search. viz. "Alma Brewer Strawn". That yields the school website url which you could put in External links, plus this press release from a manufacturer of playground equipment, and this about zone maps. Personally, I'd keep your first two sentences and cut the rest as possibly being too detailed. For referencing news sources, you can use the dropdown template selector to access the Cite News template in either editor. I often switch over to using VisualEditor when adding books or news sources as it does a fair job in automatically creating them from the url, with just a quick check to see if its worth adding anything else manually. Hoping this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you! I just added this info to the article, and after a few tweaks with it, I finally fixed it. Cheers! Kind regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Page

How to make a page for a personality whose page is still not there on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname479 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:FIRST, if you have further questions, ask here. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

maintenance template

I would like to remove the maintenance template on the article Hal Blumenfeld but I am not sure if the article has been reviewed again since my edits. How can I confirm it has been reviewed again? Should I just remove the maintenance template? Thanks!Rortiz246 (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rortiz246, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no formal review process for the flagged problems at Hal Blumenfeld. As the link in the template Learn how and when to remove this template message explains, you can remove the template yourself if you think that you or someone else has fixed the problem. Though in this case, I would say that the problem appears unresolved; there are huge sections of unsourced material in this biography of a living person where citing a reliable source for everything that is stated would be the reasonable thing to do. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :The Hal Blumenfeld article still has two major unsourced sections, Biography and Awards, and several unsourced claims - I have added a few extra tags to highlight the most important points that need to be addressed. - Arjayay (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Note, I've removed the paragraphs that were tagged with inline citation needed templates. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"Blumenfeld was born in California" - prove it. Show me a reference to a reliable source, Otherwise, remove that.

Repeat. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How to start

I want to write for a person who us not there on Wikipedia, how do i create or startSuthar Vidhi (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone else can advise you on that but i assume that by your name you might be writing about Asia? I enjoy very much reading about non-European places since we get so much inundation about that part of the world to begin with.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Suthar Vidhi wants to write about Dr. Shailesh Thaker. I haven't properly investigated whether this person is notable in the Wikipedia sense but Google finds only self-published sources for me. There is guidance at WP:Biographies of living persons. Dbfirs 08:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Think? why speculate looking into something if that is not what she intends? Just who do you want to write about?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

We are not speculating. We have been told at User talk:Suthar Vidhi/sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:FIRST 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Page

How to make a page for a personality whose page is still not there on Wikipedia? Noname479 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Noname479. You may want to start by reading through out tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. You should also please note that in the vast majority of cases, you cannot upload images to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that are taken from online, as you have done repeatedly, as this constitutes a copyright violation. GMG ^talk 21:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Social Justice Topic

Hello,

My name is Katie Neu and I am in the Master's of Higher Education program at Central Michigan University. I am editing as a part of my Social Justice class and was wondering if there were any topics that are understudied that would be under the umbrella of social justice umbrella. I am not married to any sort of topic, but would like to do research on one that is understudied.

Thank you for your assistance!

Katie (Katieneu0929 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Starting a new article from scratch is probably the single most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia, so I'd recommend finding an existing article that needs improvement rather than trying to write a new one. I would suggest looking through Category:Social inequality and its subcategories (click the little blue triangles to expand them) and reading the articles there until you find one that you feel should be improved and on which you're able to find appropriate sources to improve it. ‑ Iridescent 22:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't add to this answer, but may I ask a question which might help the poster, and which I don't know the answer to: Is there a way to combine a search of pages that match two or more categories. e.g. a search for all articles in Category:Social inequality which also match those flagged for, say, Category:All stub articles. All I can find is an exciting proposal here: WP:Category intersection, but no answers. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There is PetScan. https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ Mduvekot (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, Mduvekot -that's the best new thing I've learnt on Wikipedia this year! Thank you. So, searching on the category of 'Social inequality' and the (normally) hidden category of 'All stub articles' we get five articles well worth addressing by someone interested in that topic: Distinction (sociology); Horizontal inequality; Equality of autonomy; Equality of autonomy; A Guerra não Declarada na Visão de um Favelado and Research in Social Stratification and Mobility. Looks like it might need a careful read the documentation to use to best effect, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I know. PetScan is incredibly useful. I love it. Mduvekot (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Katieneu0929, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'd like to add something to the valuable replies from Nick Moyes and Mduvekot. I see that you are a new editor, and I wanted to point out a pitfall that academics sometimes hit when they edit Wikipedia: writing a Wikipedia article is not like most academic writing. It is most like the "literature review" section of a dissertation, where the major sources are discussed and summarised. But a Wikipedia article must not go beyond that: it should not contain any argumentation or conclusions of its own (though of course it can summarise the argument or conclusions of a single source, as long as it clearly attributes them. It should not contain any evaluation, either of the subject or of the sources: if the sources disagree, it may report their different stance, but should not attempt to resolve them. And it should not bring together material from different sources to present a conclusion or argument which is not in any of the sources. Please see WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS for more information on these topics. I apologise if I'm stating the obvious. --ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a very useful observation - thanks.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Perspective

It seems like Wikipedia is intending well with its interactive TWA, but to me, unless I am going nuts, feel undertones of deception, just as they are distracting you, to blindly follow you through jumping through hops of code writing, for whatever reason, to lower copyright issues, pursued by individuals discredited for creation of original information. Which I get it that's cool if we're all ready to become a collective, lets share completely not hold hidden agendas, I guess can someone give me a little hint, stuck in the coincidentally mischief of a perhaps misfortunate mind. Is there a question, not directly, but don't be overly critical of style, you get my drift, anyone want to help my nerves, and perhaps productive impact. -FerventtboundzFerventtboundz (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What is "TWA"? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:TWA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ferventtboundz. Doing The Wikipedia Adventure is a good way for some people to learn the basics of editing in small chunks, and in an interactive manner. But it's not for everyone. I'm really sorry, but I'm afraid I did not "get your drift", and am very unclear what you are trying to say. At the end of TWA there is a feedback opportunity to tell the team who run it what you thought. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No Ferventtboundz, I'm afraid I don't get your drift. I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say. --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Fervent, never mind the establishment. Click 'edit' and go for it. Ignore the 'code' (there's really not that much of it...Help:Cheatsheet) but yeah... If you have any problems, ask for help.86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Article removal

Hello! How can I remove the articles of Cronin, Texas and Greens Bluff, Texas? I can't find any information on these communities in the Handbook of Texas and I feel like they don't belong. How can I request them to be deleted or removed? Thanks for reading, and I can't wait to hear from someone! Colman2000 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines on notability of places are at Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). The 2 articles to which you refer have references to the U.S. Geological Survey, which is rather more authoritative on geographical matters than the Handbook of Texas. If you wanted to nominate the articles for deletion, the 3 possible processes are at Wikipedia:Deletion process, but I wouldn't expect any such proposal to be successful as they have each been defined by USGS as a "Populated Place". --David Biddulph (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Colman2000. I agree with David Biddulph. I consider it highly unlikely that any attempt to delete an article about a populated place referenced to the Geographic Names Information System would be successful. I suggest that you either ignore these articles or try to improve them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I can understand your concern about these two articles in particular. Their suitability to have published WP articles is based more on the source credibility than the significance to the locality, state, country, etc. The real question is at what point does something warrant a separate article instead of being part of another larger overall article that until a sufficient amount of information about it calls for it to be published separately. It almost seems to beg the question of why do we have a standard for living persons or a company so that the publicity aspect of articles is not abused? But if the powers that be say that it should not be a concern then so let it be and have someone go through the source and establish a batch of articles that had best be started as a topic article instead of a specific locale with very little available to substantiate it. The only way for some of these "communities" to have their wordage increased is to look at primary sources which is not the intent of WP. And that information that may be collected and published about localities may be so unsourced as to make it as useless as it not ever having existed. What is the difference of lisitng and explaningthe local communities of a large r area in one article than estavblishing countless articles that really amount to nothing except WP announcing to the world that they exist?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. I suggest that you read the Five Pillars, which describes the foundational principles of Wikipedia. Please note that Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer, as described in the very first sentence. That is a somewhat archaic term for a comprehensive geographical directory, which ought to include every single verifiable current or past occupied place. And the Geographic Names Information System is the "gold standard" for geographic place names in the United States. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):IP, the answer to that is simple. When Wikipedia was established, one of its goals was to serve as a gazetteer. Having an article on every community that is or ever was fits that goal. Another one of the foundation principles is WP:NOT. We are not here to promote anything. A virtually non-existent community has nothing to promote (and if an article on one contains material promoting some portion of the community, like a non-notable business, that should be removed). NOT is why we have much higher standards for articles on people and organizations than for places on a map. John from Idegon (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether you endorse it or not and the very manner that WP has developed show that it is not carved in stone including its founding principles otherwise it would have died long ago trapped within its own skin. What has to be recognized that even publications can be sources of politicization--those that have the power to include and champion for it can have its significance enhanced or made-up. If you are excluded from the process then so can be your significance in the world.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

IP user: you are right that the policies and practices of Wikipedia do vary a little over time. It works on consensus, and anybody may suggest changes and try to change the consensus. If you wish to do so, the place dedicated to this kind of activity is the Village pump, rather than the Teahouse. --ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the input! I will not remove these articles, but I will try to find information to expand those articles. Cheers to all of you! Colman2000 (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That got a bit wordy there (understatement), but the take-home is that individual editors cannot remove articles. There are various processes for nominating an article for removal, but unlikely any would work for a location such as those itty-bitty towns. And some advice - you are working on articles about low pop Texas towns that get only a handful of visits per month (the articles, not the towns). Why not work on articles about larger communities? David notMD (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Module programming

Is a page here or on phabricator where to ask or discuss modules programming. I'm am interested on getting from a template the protection status of a page--Pierpao (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, Pierpao, welcome to the Teahouse, but after a couple of days it looks like we don't have an answer for you. The next place to try is probably WP:VPT. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

Someone copied and pasted a Wikipedia article on their user talk. Is that allowed? can i get rid of it? (But i think they changed up the article on their talk page)Thegooduser talk 02:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

When you copy Wikipedia content within Wikipedia or to an outside site, attribution is required.

If someone else makes a copy without attribution you can supply the attribution for them, if you can discern where they copy came from. Just do a dummy edit (add a space?) and make the edit summary say something like content from Wikipedia page XXXXX was copied here - you can just do a wikilink or, if you know the specific revision, a link to the diff.

Generally, we don't remove content from another user's talk page unless they've asked for help or there's a more serious violation (such as a copyright violation that can't simply be patched up with an attribution).

It's generally a good idea to leave a message for the user on their talk page when you see this kind of problem. You can point them to the policy at WP:COPYWITHIN as a reminder of what's required. It would also not be out-of-line to post a message telling them that posting an entire article on their talk page is against talk page guidelines. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

My company Wiki page entry keeps getting declined

Hi there. My company UiPath is a global company with 550 customers in Robotic Process Automation. We have tried for nearly a year to get a UiPath wiki page up. As you can imagine, we have inquires that ask why we do not have a page. I understand that accuracy and non-advertising style is critical. But, even a basic page with just our office and a few facts gets turn down. Can someone please help. Thanks, Bobby T patrick VA (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. The reasons for declining the submissions have been given in the pink boxes at the top of Draft:UiPath, and on your user talk page. In each case the words in blue are wikilinks to further information. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It is also worth looking at the deletion log (deleted 4 times) at UiPath, and in that context you also ought to look at WP:Articles for deletion/UiPath. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

T patrick VA, your company will never succeed in your attempt to "get a UiPath wiki page up". What you think you are attempting is not possible. A total attitude adjustment is required. No company "has" a "wiki page". We are not social media, we are an encyclopedia. We have "articles" about NOTABLE topics. Topics are notable when they have been written about in detail in multiple reliable (by our definition, not yours) sources, totally independent (again, our definition) of the subject. Your company's need for publicity is not our concern. If your company someday becomes notable, it may have an article on Wikipedia. But even then, it still isn't yours. It will never be here to serve your company's purposes. If one of your robots malfunctions and kills employees in a plant it's installed in, that will be in here. If there are financial irregularities, that will be in here. If a sales meeting gets weird and child prostitutes and kangaroos are involved, that will be in here. Your company will never have a page in Wikipedia, because we are not a web hosting, social media or a business directory. If there is ever an article here about your company, it isn't up to your company what is on it. John from Idegon (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are editing Wikipedia to promote "Robotic Process Automation", you will not have a happy time. You will get nasty warnings, accusations, and possibly blocked.

If you want to add to this encyclopaedia of everything - with referenced information about any topic at all, then you'll have lots of fun.

I could link you to hundreds of rules, but I doubt that would help.

Wikipedia is NOT for promotion; if the company is well-known (or becomes well-known), somebody will write about it. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Help

What can I do to help?Eric Backer (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, welcome.

If you look in Category:All_pages_needing_cleanup, you will find about 20,000 articles that can quite easily be improved with plain editing.

If that's not the type of thing you want to do, then just say what is! 86.20.193.222 (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) whoops, looks like someone else answered while I was typing...

I see that User:NeilN has put a welcome message on your talk page with a bunch of useful links. One of those links is to the community portal where you will find a list of editing tasks just asking to be done by relatively new editors such as yourself. Pick one that looks interesting to you and see if you can make the requested improvement. Take the tutorial or read the information at your first article or referencing for beginners to get some pointers on how to do things. Editing Wikipedia requires just a few technical skills, but your understanding of the goals of the project and the most important policies may take some time. But be BOLD and try things, make mistakes, ask questions. The Teahouse is here to help! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Eric Backer. There are over 5,000,000 Wikipedia articles and many of them are in need of some kind of improvement, so there are lots of things you can do to help. Is there a particular subject matter or genre of article which you are interested in? If there is, then perhaps there's a WikiProject where you can find others who share your interests. Do you just want to be a sort of a free-spirit who moves from random article to random article looking for things to improve? If so, then may you'd like Wikipedia:Random page patrol. Do you want to be an Wiki-elf, Wiki-gnome, or Wiki-fairy? Then, maybe try Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors or Wikipedia:Task Center. There's so many ways to contribute; so, as long as you always try to be Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, you should never run out of things to do and run into trouble with others. If, however, you decide to become a Wiki-troll, a Wiki-vandal or even an Wiki-angry mastadon, then you'll probably find other editors to be much less helpful and understanding, and your sailing not so smooth. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

if the sources are reliable

Hello! :) I need an advice of more experienced editors whether next sources are enough reliable:

1)https://www.hinckleytimes.net/news/local-news/past-times-history-aston-flamville-11731297

2)http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/flamville-sir-william-1325-1396

Best regards, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) ♥ —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Both are fine. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hello, Lidiia Kondratieva welcome to our friendly Teahouse, and thank you for your question. Both the websites you have given links to look pretty reliable. But context is everything. They would be totally unreliable if you were trying to cite evidence that water has been found on the moon. One is written by a 'popular historian' in a local newspaper, but I would be quite happy using that as supporting evidence for most statements. It just depends what they are. The more contentious the claim, the more reliable the sources need to be to support it. I'm sorry if this answer seems a little vague, but I couldn't determine from your edit history which article you might be wanting to edit. If you have concerns, you could always place a note in an article's talk page, stating what information you'd like to add, and the citations you'd like to use to support it, and seek the views of other editors who have interest in working on that article. In summary: be bold and use them! Does this assist? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for help Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I get the Canada Day page to reflect that fact that Canada Day will be on July 2nd in 2018?

Hi. I am very new to trying to edit Wikipedia, but I have enjoyed it very much as a reference for many years.

Someone edited my change, but then corrected it after I reached out to them on their talk page, after I had undone it? This was fixed, and now someone has edited it again! Also, I started to reference the Federal Holidays Act, and then realized that it had already been referenced, and now I have left a citation error on the page.

I am sorry to be a pest, but I have been fighting the legislation that has Canada Day fall on July 2nd if July 1st is a Sunday since 2012, and I would very much like Wikipedia to reflect the truth. Thank you. CanadaDayShouldBeOnJuly1st (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You can cite the legislation like this:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-5/page-1.html#h-2 |title=Holidays Act |publisher=[[Government of Canada]] |date=1985 |accessdate=2018-01-18}}</ref>

However it sounds like you aren't a disinterested third party with this topic, and potentially have a conflict of interest. Editors may rightly question whether you are capable of writing from the required neutral point of view. I would advise you to use the talk page and leave {{request edit}} tag there explaining what changes you want and why, then let a uninvolved editor review the request. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@CanadaDayShouldBeOnJuly1st: You do not need to get the article to reflect that because it's not true.

Canada Day will be celebrated on July 1 this year just as it is every year.

Because the date falls on a non-work day, governments have moved the day off to the following work day. It will not be observed on July 2. No public parades will happen that day. No publicly sponsored concerts. No publicly sponsored fireworks. Individuals or groups are free to celebrate it on any day.

This is exactly like when either Christmas or Boxing Day fall on a non-working day. Stop muddling things up and WP:FORUMSHOPping. Discuss your changes on the article's talk page as you were asked to do in your talk page, after your first incorrect introduction of this information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it okay that I have been accused of vandalism and conning this site?

I am sorry that people do not understand what I am saying, but Canada Day will be on July 2nd this year. I agree, all the festivities will be on July 1st, which is why it is a situation that needs to be changed. The only way this can happen is for people to acknowledge that the situation exists. The Retail Business Holidays Act for Ontario states that Canada Day is a statutory holiday and that all non-excluded stores must close. The stores will all be told to close on Monday, July 2nd. The retail workers will be paid regular wages while they miss out on celebrating with their family and friends. I am not being frivolous, and I am not wrong. Please stop changing this site to be incorrect. I will not undo or revert the page, I give up. I will not be pulled into a "war" with people who do not do the research, but feel free to accuse and criticize me. I expected better of Wikipedia, I don't know why. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FE2B:C3B:161E:A5D7:47B3 (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello IPv6 anonymous user and welcome back to the Teahouse.

Users who come to Wikipedia bringing incorrect ideas about how to behave and beating a drum for a particular thing to be done are more likely to be blocked than to successfully carry the day with their idea. Insisting that multiple other editors are "wrong" while being unwilling to do the work of convincing them of your point of view with proper evidence is considered rude. Either work in a collaborative way or face the consequences of being blocked or banned. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User:CanadaDayShouldBeOnJuly1st (talk · contribs) asked the same quesions just a few days ago, was that you? Perhaps you forgot to log in? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The correct link is to CanadaDayShouldBeOnJuly1st (talk · contribs). --David Biddulph (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, really? In the UK, if a statutory holiday falls on a weekend, there is normally a holiday the following Monday instead. So if New Year's Day is on a Sunday, Monday will be the New Year's Day holiday. New year is still Jan 1. Is that what's going on here? Guy (Help!) 08:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup.

Canada day is, was, and will always be 1st July.

It happens that in 2018, that's a Sunday, so the Monday is the day-off-work.

That's all there is to it. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)