Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 746

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 740←Archive 744Archive 745Archive 746Archive 747Archive 748→Archive 750

Different People/Same Name

This is my very first time asking a question and even though I have read a lot on the subject, it is still very confusing to me.

In short, I am a musician from South Louisiana with 4 all original albums released.

With each album release, my songs are distributed to various media outlets, such as iTunes and YouTube.

The only problem I’ve run into is there is another musician from Australia who happens to share the exact same name.

YouTube and iTunes pages are constantly mashing both of us together and misrepresenting our works for each other.

This also is a problem for royalty distribution.

I read an article today about how YouTube differentiates between two artists of the same name and one of the main things they look to is if each artist has a separate Wikipedia page.

I would love to just throw up an article about myself with maybe a tag to differentiate us, but after reading some of the basic rules of this site, it seems inappropriate.

So, I’m asking for any help on what I can do next to give each of us our own artistic space and freedom?

Thank you in advance,

Beau Young (the one from South Louisiana) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byremix (talk • contribs) 05:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You surprise me. I thought it was common practice in your profession since around 1800 to ensure your name is unique. Since sometime 20th century you have to to register your stage name. Check out https://www.equity.org.uk/about-us/join-us/how-can-i-join/your-professional-name/. Presumably the Musicians Union is a partner to this scheme or operates similar. Broichmore (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Broichmore: I agree about the practice of unique names. I was 16 and naive to everything when I released my first original works, so the problem still stands.
  • @Tigraan: Thank you for further clarifying and for the link. Precisely the internal help I was looking for before I went and did something outside the guidelines.

Thank you both for the response.Byremix (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Editing changes gone unsaved

Greetings all!

A couple of days ago, I spent at least five glorious hours adding sources, creating citations, links, etc., to a page in progress. When I went to close it down for the day and hit "publish changes," an error message popped up telling me in effect that not all changes could be saved. When I signed in, I had checked the "keep me logged in for 365 days." Ugh...

Two questions: What did I do wrong? How can I avoid that in the future?

Respectfully,

Jen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melinda E. Pittman (talk • contribs) 17:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Melinda E. Pittman. Welcome to the Teahouse - I really feel your pain. Obviously, the best way to avoid risking losing huge amounts of work is to save (i.e. Publish changes) much more frequently, say, every 15-30 minutes or so, just as you would with any other programme that plays up on you. Even a power failure can cause you to lose work, so it's really a good habit to get into. I have to admit, I've only ever experienced one issue with Wikipedia freezing up whilst editing, and that's when switching between the two different editing tools after having done a copy/move action. (But that's quite esoteric and the issue has been reported and was resolved a week ago). The only time I ever see a message saying that my edits can't be saved is when I click Publish changes after I've taken quite a long pause from editing. Like you, I can't quite remember the message, but, in effect, it says that my editing session has timed out. But all I have to do is hit Publish changes (or Alt+⇧ Shift+S) a second time and my edits are saved (i.e.published) and the page is updated. I wonder whether you tried clicking Publish changes a second time yourself, or did you do something else, like use the browser back button? But even then, I tend to think I've lost all my work, but usually find it's stored in the browser's cache and is still available.
On a different note, I don't know if you have read any of our guidance on writing articles about yourself? In general, this is best avoided for a range of reasons. Before you submit your article for review, you ought to put a note on your userpage to declare what we call a conflict of interest. The link I've just added will help you understand the process. And I'd also suggest you read Wikipedia:Autobiography. I hope this might have helped you a little - come back if you have any further questions. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelynam27 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

move a section

I am considering moving a section from one article into another article (as the same or similar name section). I don't see this action described or discussed in Help. How to? BrucePL (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@BrucePL: See WP:CWW. You need to make sure to provide attribution. See the page on how to do that. RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi BrucePL. You have to make two separate edits. I don't use VisualEditor and don't know how to do it there. In the source editor you just remove the whole section including the == Section heading code == and save. Then you add the text to the other article with attribution in the edit summary. If you mark the text first then maybe your browser can clip it with Ctrl+X and insert it elsewhere with Ctrl+V. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Trouble signing up for Wiki meet up

Hello, I know this isn't a strictly editing question but I was interested in registering for the Wikipedia:Meetup/Albany-Capital Region/ArtAndFeminism 2018 in about a weeks time and I was having difficulty registering. Whenever I click on the "register" link, irregardless of the browser I am using or the computer I am on it reads "url not found". Any suggestions? Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: I tried the "Register" link myself and confirmed that it is broken. I saw that TrudiJ created the page, so I left a message on her talk page. Hopefully she will see it soon and have a look. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Inter&anthro: I am sorry for the trouble. I am having difficulty getting the link to work with the Register tag after the URL. The link is working now, but isn't nicely formatted, I am afraid. Here is the direct link to the form --TrudiJ (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Drm310: @TrudiJ: I have registered now, thank you very much for your help! Inter&anthro (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggested improvement of WP:USCITIES

Hello. I would like to suggest an improvement towards WP:USCITIES. I disagree with this statement in the Geography section of the guidelines: "If a coordinate (latitude and longitude) is included in the infobox, if there is any, remove any existing article coordinate from this section." I disagree with this statement because this is shown on many articles of incorporated municipalities in the United States. Here are some articles as examples for my disagreement: Johnstown, Colorado, Manchester, Ohio, Lockhart, Texas, Arvada, Colorado, and Aurora, Colorado. Here is a featured article with this as another example of my disagreement: Hillsboro, Oregon. I wanted to ask my question here at the Teahouse. Comments welcome, please! 2601:1C0:6800:72C1:6940:1387:90CC:AAAD (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The place for suggesting changes to WP:USCITIES is the project's talk page: WT:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I just did. Thanks. 2601:1C0:6800:72C1:6940:1387:90CC:AAAD (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, not-very-anonymous IP user. I recognise those questions and issues because they remind me of a nice young man who a while back disgraced himself quite badly one time and got themselves permanently blocked from editing. They came back with a new account and immediately got blocked again, and my advice to them at the time was to accept that block and not attempt to edit Wikipedia for at least a year. The problem with evading blocks is that when a person is ready to return to constructive editing their past activities at evasion will be held against them and prevent them from being formally unblocked. If you are who I think you are, I am saddened and disappointed to see you here, asking questions in this way. I know that person is well-meaning and immensely keen to edit, but I feel it would be best all round if they ceased editing until they had, at least, got through their school/college education and learned to settle down a bit more. Best regards, as always, from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the comment 2601:1C0:6800:72C1:6940:1387:90CC:AAAD posted at WT:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline per WP:BLOCKEVASION BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Mojo WorKings

Hi, I tried to creat a new article about a famous Hungarian blues band, but several times it was declined. I'm a new editor here in Wikipedia and really don't understand the real reason of declination. The reason stated: no reliable sources, but I corrected my article several times, always got back: declined. Sometimes promptly, it seems to me, it wasn't enough time to read my correction at this short time..... Please somebody help me and explain, what can I do? Karcsúbey (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Karcsúbey, and welcome to the Teahouse. Since the previous decline on 7 December 2017, you added one word to the text, and one general reference to the draft ( http://www.bluesvan.hu/index.php?q=mojo+workings&s=keres%E9s) which was not used to support any specific statement in the draft. this diff shows the very limited extant of your edits to the draft since the previous decline. Evaluating these changes as not sufficient to fix the previous problem need take only a few seconds. There are many statement sin the draft not currently supported by inline citations. You need to support at least some of these, and cite additional published independent reliable sources that discuss this band in some depth, say several paragraphs each or more, for the draft to be accepted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to write about the Mondosol company

How can I write a page of an existing educational company called Mondsool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elio Mondello Anza (talk • contribs)

Hi Elio Mondello Anza. The first thing is to make sure you get the name correct. Mondsool or Mondosol? You've already tried to write about Mondosol, and that article has been put up for deletion on the grounds that it is does not meet our notability criteria, and was pure advertising. For your information that page has now been deleted about six minutes ago. If your subject doesn't meet these criteria, quite simply, it won't ever be able to have an article about it here. You need to find reliable sources that are independent of the subject (ie not connected) and which talk about it in-depth. This demonstrates that others have found that organisation worth talking about - and that's the essence of notability. I see that you are the CEO of that company, so you would need to declare your connection with any article you do write. You so clearly have a conflict of interest that I find it hard to imagine you are ever likely to be able to write about your company in a neutral, non-promotional way. Just remember we are an encyclopaedia of notable things - we're not here to help your or other people advertise their businesses. So my advice is not to try - let someone else write about Mondosol once they think it has met our notability threshold. Does that make any sense, or is there something more specific you need help with? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Update: This user now blocked by Oshwah as a spam/advertising only account. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding a picture on userpage

Hi. I am new on wikipedia. I would like to know how can i add a picture on my userpage?

Hello. Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, specifically How to place an image. You can also look at my user page for an example. Let me know if you have any difficulties. --kewlgrapes (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
By the way, if you would like to upload an image to Wikipedia, then please take a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images. --kewlgrapes (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please Help - Our Page Has Been Hijacked - "MeWe"

Hi Everyone,

Where do we register this important complaint? Thanks for your help.

We are a valid company called MeWe, with a trademark (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:68limh.2.6) on the brand name "MeWe" (https://mewe.com), and our page has been hijacked! Please restore our page. Even the inventor of the Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, is a MeWe advisor and tweeted about us last week: https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/976553383564840962

Please help, thank you!

Mark Weinstein, CEO— Preceding unsigned comment added by MeWe Editor (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mark. The page has not been hijacked, but it is being considered for deletion, in a discussion which will determine whether there is sufficient sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources (usually things like newspapers, magazines and books) in order to justify a Wikipedia article. If the discussion determines there is not, then it will be deleted, because it is not your article, and you do not own it. GMGtalk 14:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
User has been blocked for promotion. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
BTW, if anyone doesn't already have the gadget enabled that strikes-through the names of blocked accounts, you definitely should. It's super useful. GMGtalk 15:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo:, where does one find more about said gadget? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
It's mentioned in Special:Gadgets. If you're wondering how to enable it, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and check the box "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" in the "Appearance" section. --kewlgrapes (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Help Repeating Citations

I can't seem to get using the "named references" correctly. This is what comes up for me every time I do it:

Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "Pragmatism" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

Or I get this:

Cite warning: ref tag with name Contrarian cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all.

I have tried going to all the help pages but no matter what I do I cant seem to fix it.

Any help/advice for a newbie would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12A23B34C (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey 12A23B34C. The problem is you have more than one instance of <ref name="Pragmatism">CONTENT</ref> in the article on Marc Elrich. Only one instance in the article with that name can have content in it. Every other instance should simply be the name with a "/" like this <ref name="Pragmatism"/>.
The preview "error" just means that the software can't preview the reference because it's defined elsewhere other than that section. Once you hit save, it should sill work normally; it just doesn't work in the preview. GMGtalk 17:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I am very carefully inserting the <ref name="Pragmatism"/> for all the citations. However, there are two entries that say Pragmatism in the drop down menu of named references. Perhaps I need to get rid of the second one? But I cant seem to do that. I am thinking my best bet is to delete all the citations for that source and then re-enter them? I think I have already done that once, should I try it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12A23B34C (talk • contribs) 17:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@12A23B34C: Hi. It's very easy for me to see where you went wrong, so I've fixed it for you. Let me know if it looks OK now. I did this by opening source editor and doing a word search for "Pragmatism". I scrolled down each of the eight uses of that word in turn and found you had used two identical full references, and given them the same name, when you only needed to create the full reference once, and then call up the reference, as shown below:
  • <ref name="Pragmatism">{{cite web|last1=Steve|first1=Hendrix|title=Marc Elrich's pragmatism belies his radical reputation|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/11/AR2010101105583.html|website=The Washington Post|accessdate=29 March 2018|date=12 October 2010}}</ref>
  • <ref name="Pragmatism"/>
The system got confused because you've added two identical citations with identical names and content, and it only expects to see one example per ref name = Hence the red warning notice in the References section. So all I did was simply replace the second use of the full reference with the shorter one (ending in a forward slash) to call it up again. The system now only had one option to choose from, and was happy. Of course, had you given the same reference name to two completely different websites or sources, all you would then have needed to have done in that situation would have been to have changed the name of one of the references to, say, "Pragmatism2", and then work through your document and change <ref name="Pragmatism"/> to <ref name="Pragmatism2"/> as appropriate. But the solution was simpler than that. Does that make sense? If not, try this guidance paragraph: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for putting me out of my misery and fixing it and explaining how you did it. I am very appreciative.12A23B34C (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

1672 in Brazil

I was thinking of making an article at 1672 in Brazil. This would be the entirety of it: 

{{Year in Brazil|1672}}

Events from the year '''1672 in [[Brazil]]'''

== Establishments ==

* Construction of the [[Basilica of the Good Lord Jesus, Tremembé]] was completed.
* The city of [[Itaboraí]] was founded.

[[Category:1672 in Brazil| ]]

Would said article be so short that it would be deleted? --Bringback2ndpersonverbs (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bringback2ndpersonverbs - welcome to our friendly Teahouse. What an interesting question. I don't really know how to answer you, except to say that my gut feeling is that whilst it does seem very short, I doubt it would ever be deleted unless the date and events can't be proven to be linked. Do you know enough to be able to comment whether it is likely to be subsequently expanded with more historical information? To try to answer you I searched on similar styles of titles. I found the following: 1670s, 1670s in archaeology, 1672 in literature, 1672 in science and so on. I also found 1817 in Brazil which is incredibly short, along with many others. Plus there's List of years in Brazil and Category:Years of the 17th century in Brazil. I think I would go for it, though if you wished you could always ask for views at the talk page of WikiProject Brazil. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Note that on the page Category:Years of the 17th century in Brazil we have a link to (amongst others) the page Category:1672 in Brazil, which has the single subcategory page Category:1672 establishments in Brazil, whose sole entry is a link to Itaboraí. Those italicised pages will not Wikilink for me in the usual manner, for reasons I don't understand, but you can follow the trail from one to the next, starting at the one Nick Moyes successfully linked.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
To wikilink to a category page, you need to prefix the page name by a colon. Without the colon it tries to put this Teahouse page into the spwcified category. See WP:Manual of Style/Linking#Links to Wikipedia's categories. Hence, try this:
Note that on the page Category:Years of the 17th century in Brazil we have a link to (amongst others) the page Category:1672 in Brazil, which has the single subcategory page Category:1672 establishments in Brazil, whose sole entry is a link to Itaboraí.
--David Biddulph (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Creating a User Page for myself

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I keep trying to create one but for some reason the page won't let me. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 25songa (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I went ahead and created the page for you. Here is a link: User:25songa. Interesting that you couldn't create the page yourself... Were there any error messages that hinted at the reason for the problem?
By the way, it is a good idea to sign your posts on talk pages. --kewlgrapes (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I did receive something about having to have the consensus of the community before creating the page, though I might have done something wrong in creation. -Adam Song 23:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, 25songa. That sounds like the message display when an editor attempts to create a page which has been protected against creation, usually because a page by that name has been deleted multiple times in the past. Is it possible that you inadvertently clicked on a different link to such a page? Or perhaps you were logged out, perhaps because your log-in had expired? Editors who are not logged in cannot create pages in the user namespace, i believe. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Does editing software have a bug?

I have just made one small edit to the article G. Gordon Liddy. The Diff page is a scrambled mess, running from the Infobox to Categories. I cannot see my specific change highlighted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quisqualis (talk • contribs)

That diff is between your version and one from 2005. Try this link. Rojomoke (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Quisqualis: How did you reach that diff link? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of asking that very question. At worst, I may have edited from the preceding version of the page, since I watch it. But I would have seen the error message on the preview screen. How I travelled to 2005 is unknown to me.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I publish an article titled "GoingOut"?

Hi there,

I am conducting independent research for a local business based out of Providence Rhode Island. They currently do not have a Wikipedia page and would like to have one. Consequently, I am inquiring on their behalf if publishing their background and who they are as an organization is feasible? I have read that Wikipedia is very strict when it comes to publishing content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerrowley (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Tylerrowley. The real question is whether the subject meets our standards for notability, which ultimately decides whether it is appropriate for an article. This generally requires that a subject has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, usually things like newspapers, magazines and books, and excluding things like press release, or official websites. If the subject has received this type of coverage, then it may be appropriate. If it has not, then it is probably too soon for it to have its own article. GMGtalk 16:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The article title is irrelevant. What matters are notability and reliable, published second-party or third-party sources. Reviews, blogs, the entity's own website and similar subjective material do not count. Wikipedia is definitely not social media, a business directory or a set of "profiles." "Having a Wikipedia page" is not the same as joining Linked In. If your industry is not writing about you in its journals, if newpapers are not reporting on your business's product, if your business is not going down in future history books, then it does not justify a Wikipedia article. Just because WP has had articles about non-noteworthy subjects in the past, our standards have tightened, and are unlikely to loosen in your lifetime.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello, Tylerrowley, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. In general, all articles must be about topics which are considered Notable in the special sense that Wikipedia uses that term. Please read our guideline on the notability of corporations and businesses. Note that in general a business is not considered notable unless there are multiple independent professionally published reliable sources which cover the business in some detail - at least several paragraphs in each source. Passing mentions or routine coverage is not normally sufficient, nor are directory entries or the like. If all of the coverage is purely local, that also weighs against notability -- at least some of it should be regional or national coverage.
Also, you say that you are conducting independent research for a local business. This strongly suggests that you have a conflict of interest. You should declare that conflict as described in the linked guideline. If you are being, or expect to be, paid for your work for the business, you must declare that in accordance with our policy on paid editing. Undeclared paid editing is grounds for a block from all further editing. Are you in fact being paid for this work? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Questionable talk page comment from non-registered user

Hello, I'm looking for some guidance regarding a questionable comment left on a talk page that effectively amounts to gossip and unfounded accusations which also maligns the person the article is about, along with their family. Is this something that has to remain in place? I know that it could be archived, but it strikes me as problematic enough that there's room to argue for it's deletion. What's the best approach for kicking it out of immediate public view or am I off-base in thinking it should be removed? Thanks! --Dnllnd (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Dnllnd. I collapsed the majority of it and responded with the correct course of action if they feel the subject is non-notable (although it's a pretty old comment). It's certainly not the worst I've seen, especially given that it's basically obvious personal opinion, but in future cases, when it comes to talk pages comments about living people, you can collapse, remove, or request WP:REVDEL in that order depending on the severity. If you feel uncomfortable with it, you are still free to remove the portion I collapsed, and I don't think anyone will take issue with it. GMGtalk 19:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd support selected deletion I have revisited, reconsidered and have now deleted some content from the talk page, despite GMG's collapsing of the text. All of those comments are wholly unsubstantiated and quite accusative about a person who wasn't even the subject of the article. But as GMG says, it is a matter of opinion and not the worst we sometimes see here. I don't think they necessarily need to be REVDELed, but you could request this if you so wish. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

posting the bio of a visual artist

Hi, What is the article I am trying to post rejected? Thanks, by Zlanaya

Hello @Zlanaya:, Wikipedia is not showing any other pages edited by this account. Did you create the bio under another account, or while not logged-in, or has it been deleted? Can you provide us a link to the article you are talking about?
And as a general rule, the page WP:Notability (artists) helps explain what an artist bio must have to be accepted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Zlanaya: If you are referring to Draft:Amelia Jimenez, the draft was deleted as abandoned. Drafts may be considered abandoned and deleted if they have not been edited for six months. However, this isn't permanent; you may request that the draft be restored at requests for undeletion. Before you do, there will be a few things to consider. Many of the references in the article did not mention Jimenez at all, and those that did were just a name drop. To demonstrate notability, you'll need multiple sources that qualify as reliable and independent that cover her in reasonable depth, not just mention or name drop her. The fourth paragraph is also heavily promotional, and would need to be either toned down or removed, since articles must be neutral in tone and content. If sources about her as described above exist, make sure you use those in the article and stick only to facts they verify. If such sources don't exist at all, she's not an appropriate subject for an article and it would be better worth your time to find another topic to work on. Whether you work on that article or another, do remember that we don't use euphemisms, so it would be "death", not "passing", and for a person, we should refer to them by full name on the first mention and last name only thereafter to maintain a formal tone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

My edits keep getting removed

Hi,

I have been tasked by the Director of my company to edit the wikipedia page for one of our programs and most of my edits keep getting deleted. He asked me to copy and paste information straight from our website and I did that and was citing the website when my edits were removed (this happened twice!). How do I go about making the changes without things being deleted?? The page is for the Student Spaceflight Experiments Program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmweimer (talk • contribs) 20:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Kmweimer. Welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The short answer is, you don't. You have a conflict of interest, and ideally should not be editing the article on the subject at all. Certainly not to copy and paste copyrighted text, which is not just not allowed, it's actually illegal. You are however, welcome to contribute in areas where you do not have a financial or other conflict. You may want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight, which has lots of articles you may be interested in helping to improve. GMGtalk 20:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

how do edits get made to pages that have old info on them? I am new to editing in Wikipedia and we just want to be sure that the page about our program reflects the most up-to-date info. Thank you for your help. Kmweimer (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)kmweimer

Generally, editors with no personal connection with the subject will update them, Kmweimer, but sometimes out-of-date material needs to be pointed out to them. You can do this by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ. Please disclose details of your employer when making the request, as is required by Wikipedia's terms of use (see WP:PAID). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

biography pages

Hi.

I'm writing a bio page about an 89-year-old artist who lived in Palestine during WWII and now lives in America.

My question is, how do I write a Wikipedia bio on someone who has very little recorded past? I have information about the various places she's lived, her family relations, the colleges she attended, and her current art exhibits, but I cannot confirm any of her early experiences because there is no verification that she was even there. For instance, when she was 11, she was in Palestine at a time when a passenger ship sank in the harbor of her town. The event is verifiable online, but there is no record confirming that she was there and she cannot be verifiably tied to the event, so I cannot mention the sinking - is that correct? I'm running into this issue often with this particular individual.

She wrote an autobiography and it was published by one of those pay-to-publish book businesses. Can I use that as a source?

Please advise.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by George David NH (talk • contribs)

When there's nothing you can usefully say (as when a ship sank in the town harbor but there's no evidence she was in the town), you should say nothing. You can cite an autobiography for uncontentious things, but it's not an independent source, so you shouldn't site it for anything contentious, and it won't help to espablish that she's notable. Maproom (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Hello, George David NH. Welcome to our Teahouse. From what you've told us I rather fear that you have very little chance indeed of creating an article on an artist that would meet Wikipedia's standards of notability, based on reliable sources. What this means is that, unless there are some independent sources that you can find which have written about Judith Weinshall Liberman, then she will fail our criteria for acceptance. You can prove that she exists (verifiability), for sure, but if you can't prove that she was noetworthy (notable) by Wikipedia's standards, you will have hit a brick wall. That's not that you should stop looking - but it's only fair to warn you. You might like to read this short set of criteria for artists. I note that your draft says she was a playwright. Wouldn't that be likely to yield something if she produced plays that were performed and of note? I'm sorry I can't be more positive. regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Follow-up: You could use her autobiography to help you chase up some independent sources about her, but I'm afraid we don't accept autobiographies as reliable sources on which to base an article because we regard them as 'primary sources' which are produced by the subject themselves. You should see what I've written in my own autobiography. Boy, would it make a great article about me, though not much of it would be provable or even true! Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk)
Hello, George David NH. Just to clarify the above, while specific non-controversial facts can be cited to an autobiography, we can't have an article about a person at all unless that person is notable, a term which is used in a special sense on Wikipedia. To establish notability, multiple independent professionally published reliable sources which discuss the person in some detail are usually needed. Until such sources are available, there is no point is citing anything to an autobiography. If there are published reviews or critical comments on her artwork, more than mere passing mentions, those could be the basis of a Wikipedia article, and some background could then be sourced to the autobiography. See WP:BIO and WP:NARTIST for relevant guidelines on the notability of such a subject. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Are online newspaper articles good to use as references? TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, TheRealWeatherMan, and welcome back to the Teahouse. Yes, in general, such sources are good ones. Note that some newspapers do not have a good reputation for accuracy and reliability, and articles from those papers are not usually good sources. That is true whether the article is online or in print. Note that purely local coverage is usually of limited value in establishing notability of a topic, although it can be fine for supporting specific facts. Not also that a brief passing mention or purely routine coverage of an event such as a launch or merger is again of very little if any value in establishing the notability of a topic, although again, such coverage is fine for supporting specific facts. In general, if a printed newspaper article would be a good source, an online version would also be. When citing an online news source, please provide the title of the article and the name of the newspaper or publication, not just the URL. Whenever possible, provide the name of the author of the article, the date of publication, and the page of the print publication if there was one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Note also, TheRealWeatherMan, that blogs run by a single person are not considered the same as newspapers, nor are fan sites. Neither are normally considered reliable sources. Do read our guideline on finding reliable sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

How to address a long overdue dispute that I did not initiate?

Trying to remove from the article Apache OpenOffice a commentary, as far as I know, not neutral, I have found myself in a previous dispute that I did not initiate. Several users have reversed my edits. Like added problem, I'm not a native English speaker. What can I do about it? --Entalpia2 (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Entalpia2: Answered at the Help Desk. Please don't post the same question in multiple places. RudolfRed (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

printing

For years I have used the 'print version' tab to create clean page for printing. This no longer works. In fact I get message saying 'Internet Explorer has stopped working' etc. neither can I select a paragraph or two from main text to print. What do you think has happened. I have overcome it by copying and pasting the text to a blank Word doc and then printing.

B — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brindloon (talk • contribs) 07:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you are having trouble. I can only speculate what the problem could be. I took a quick look in the recently opened bugs against Wikipedia, but didn't see anything related to printing. You would probably be better off contacting Microsoft support about this issue instead of looking for an answer here. --kewlgrapes (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like you are using a very old version of Internet Explorer. google suggests that if the browser crashes when you want to print, that possibly you have a problem with one of the addons. I also note that you don't need to press the "Print version" link, you can just go to File->Print or press ctrl-P. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Brindloon. Are you aware that you can print pages or create printable PDFs direct from within Wikipedia? If you look on the left hand side of any article page you'll see a load of useful links. There you'll find a section labelled 'Print/export'. I find the 'Download as PDF' option the best. You can preview the whole document and select which pages to print. I hope you find this a useful way to print out nicely laid out documents. Perhaps you could pop back and tell us how you get on, and maybe which browser you currently are using that has caused you these problems? Regards from all here at the Teahouse. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place to respond but here goes. The reason I have approached Wikipedia re my printing problem is that on any other web page on the internet I have no problem printing all or a selected part of their text (and photos) be it airline schedules or health issues. I shall update my browser one day but in meantime I shall continue to 'copy, paste and print'. I was thinking it was a virus but you have discounted that. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brindloon (talk • contribs) 07:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Insights Success

Hello Wikipedians,

We wrote the content about Insights Success on 29th Mar 2018. After sometime we found content wasn't approved. Kindly elaborate our pitfalls, so not to happen same mistakes in the future.

Thank You!

Manishbansal2018 (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Manishbansal2018. That article about a business magazine was deleted because there were no references to independent reliable sources devoting significant coverage to this magazine. Accordingly, there was no evidence in the deleted article that this topic is notable, as defined by Wikipedia. Please read and study Your first article.
When you use the word "we", that raises concerns. Wikipedia does not allow shared accounts or group accounts. An account should be used by only one person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Manishbansal2018. The above is not quite correct. The article Insights Success was deleted for two separate reasons. First, because it not only failed to include source citations establishing its notability, but it failed event to indicate clearly how the topic was significant. Secondly and more importantly, because it was blatantly promotional. Wikipedia articles must not express judgements, positive or negative, although they can report judgemenjts made by cited sourcs, and must not be used to advertise or promote anything.
Note that an earlier version was moved to Draft:Insights Success, where it now exists and can be improved until it is ready for the main article space.
Cullen is absolutely correct about shared accounts. Please explain what you meant by We above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Music notability and Album Notes

Hello! I have been working on an creating an article for A notable record producer. He is quoted a lot in other artists wikipedia and I do feel he has enough notability for his own article. When I originally made the article (its been reviewed and not accepted twice) I used disogs as a source which I realize now it is not a reliable source but, I wanted to show he had composing, writing and producing credits for a lot of notable pop and r&B hits, including many top ten hits. My question is how would I go about adding the credits from the cd and album booklets? I have resubmitted my article without the disog cites but, I want to keep improving it. Thanks in advance!Ashlee444 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ashlee444, and welcome to the Teahouse. A track listing from the publisher of the CD or album would be a sufficient source for the credits. So would a listing from Billboard, which should list credits for items that charted. Many of these would be available online. Album reviews often include credits as well. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Ashlee444. In all honesty, you are putting the cart before the horse. The draft in question is Draft:Johnny Douglas ( Record Producer). Your most important task by far is to demonstrate that this person is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) carefully. You need to provide references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to Johnny Douglas as a person. Such sources would discuss his life and career in detail and in a biographical fashion. Your draft article has 90 references and none of them meet that standard. In addition, your draft contains an unreferenced section called "Early Life and Career" which contains lots of unreferenced personal details indicating that you may possibly have a close personal relationship with Douglas, which is a Conflict of interest. Your draft also contains lots of external links in the body of the article, which are not permitted. Much of the language in your draft violates the neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. In summary, your draft is very far away from being acceptable for the encyclopedia, and the issue of notability is the biggest challenge that you face. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Cullen328 Hi! Thank you for your quick reply. I am fairly new to editing and very much appreciate the help. I had looked at notability and stumbled upon WP:MUSICBIO and under the sections for Musicians and also for composers I thought based on his works he does qualify for notability. For example, he has won a major music award with George Michael for writing a charted hit. He is the composer and producer for these pieces of music. When I look at the article for Reliable sources, disogs site which is basically an online music database for album but, it takes user submissions unfortunately so it was listed as not a reliable source. So, i have looked for reliable sources such as Billboard magazine articles to show he was a producer or composer on these songs. However, what I am in encountering is that what I thought would be considered the most reliable source the credits of his work on the album I can’t use because its not properly published on-line. Is there not a way to credit work that doesn't exist online? Like for example, how do editors properly credit movies? Would the work itself not be the best source? The external links I have used mostly link lead back to artists he’s worked with wikipedia pages. Are we allowed to link back to wikipedia? Can you make an article simply about a persons work, like for example a discography instead of a biography? As for conflict of interest, I do see what you are saying, however, I don't know have a close relationship with him or know him personally. Because of the research I have been doing for the article I now follow him on social media which is where I got the more personal info but, that's about it. I love music and have for many many years and get a little geeky with my music knowledge and research. I had seen his name mentioned a lot in the credited in the music I listened to as well as in other wiki articles and thought he qualified for one of his own because I couldn't find anything on Wikipedia directly about him. I have zero problem removing parts of and cleaning up the article especially that I can’t properly source or that are more personal and I very much appreciate your honesty. I tried to write in professional matter but, again thank you for pointing that out that it is coming off biased. Mostly, I am really wanting to be a wikipedia editor and started off writing about things I enjoy. I was trying my hand at writing an article but, it is proving very frustrating. I tend to be research a lot about things I'm interested in and I think in doing my research, I put myself between a rock and hard place. I do believe he is notable but, I don’t know how to accurately show it without using the album credits.Ashlee444 (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, Ashlee444. WP:MUSICBIO does not apply because he is not a musical performer. He is a producer, a person who schedules and manages the recording sessions and manages the mixing and the final presentation of the recorded music. Yes, producers can be notable but only if they themselves are the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. We do not have discographies of non-notable producers.
As for the album credits, sources do not need to be online. But an album credit is not significant coverage of a person. It is the opposite of significant coverage, or what we call a passing mention. He could have a thousand album credits but unless the significant coverage in reliable independent sources is available, he is not considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 Thank you again for your clarification and help! I have been doing some research on notability and record producers and found that this was discussed about a year ago on a wikipedia talk page. They were discussing wether producers are notable and the general consensus is unless there is a lot of reliable media coverage they don't meet wikipedia standards, even if they have won multiple awards, the song charted and the producer has co-wrting credits. I'm not exactly sure how many reliable sources one needs and what that actually would look like. For example I used billboard magazine articles as a source where he is mentioned by name and his works is talked about but, even that doesn't seem to hold up to the standards of notability. It all very confusing and disappointing but, it is what is I suppose. Like I said, your help has been very much appreciated!Ashlee444 (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Ashlee444 I should have looked at the draft itself before replying previously. Cullen was absolutely correct above. As to establishing notability, it depends on the length and reliability of the sources. A single book-length biography of a person can be sufficient, but the usual standard is to have multiple independent published reliable sources, each of which discusses the subject in some depth. There is no hard rule about how many or how much coverage in each, but my usual advice is to have at least three separate sources, each of which devotes at least several paragraphs to discussion of the subject. Directories, album credits, and brief mentions will be of little value. Blog and fan posts will not be considered reliable in most cases. Interviews and press releases will not be considered independent. Newspaper, magazine and book coverage (online or in print) is usually good, if the publication has a reputation for accuracy, and is more than merely local. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Starting my second article and want to do this in Sandbox

Hi, I want to begin my second article in Wikipedia Sandbox, and keep it separate from my first article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Tanner

I am having trouble getting started so that it appears in Sandbox so I can begin the editing process. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you,

Barryraphael (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted User:Barryraphael/sandbox. There shouldn't've been a redirect left behind. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Schools

How do I properly write a school article? TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, TheRealWeatherMan. As with any other article, find sources to establish the notability of the topic, then write based on those sources. As always, i advise starting with a draft.


  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of organizations. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Coding help

Hi. I was just wondering how to add an image on an article page, using the Wikipedia code, such as the image of Persephone on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persephone

I would really appreciate it if someone could get back on that with instructions for how to do this.

Thanks, 

       Galaxywing01 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Galaxywing01
Hello Galaxywing01 There is a tutorial at Help:Pictures Good luck, Vexations (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand this

I don't get what it means that your account needs to be autoconfirmed. It says this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_a_page in a green box.

I would appreciate it if someone could explain what it is and how to do it.

Thanks Galaxywing01 (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Galaxywing01

In that box the word "autoconfimed" is in blue, indicating that it is a wikilink, in this case to WP:AUTOCONFIRM. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_746&oldid=834146252"