Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 866

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 860

←

Archive 864

→

please help me to improve Draft:Tatsuo Yamada (karate)

Hi the Kickboxing has some wrong link and i find out that a person with the name Tatsuo Yamada is not the man who create kickboxing and want to correct the link, so create Draft:Tatsuo Yamada (karate) but i received "Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference." and it move to "Draft " space. please help me to improve and correct this. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaleel2007 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Jaleel2007. The source reference for your translation belongs on the Talk page of the article not in the article itself; I have moved it there. Articles in Wikipedia must be verifiable by references to reliable published sources. But since Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it is not regarded as a reliable source. Perhaps you can find references in the source article in Japanese Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 10:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks teb728 So can I copy Japanese reference directly? there are some book about topic not English but Japanese, "ISBN 4915906426 " for example.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaleel2007 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jaleel2007. Since you're attempting to create an article on English Wikipedia, you should try to use sources written in English as much as possible, but it's acceptable to use sources written in other languages as explained in WP:NOTENG. So, yes it might be possible to use all or some of the sources cited in the Japanese Wikipedia article about Yamada as long as these sources satisfy English Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source and they actually verify the relevant article content.

It's important to understand though that each Wikipedia project has it's own policies and guidelines and some projects enforce their policies and guidelines better than others. Since English Wikipedia has the most articles and the most editors, its policies and guidelines tend to be applied more rigorously than some other language Wikipedias; so, if you're able to read the Japanese sources cited in the Japanese Wikipedia article and can confirm they support the claims being made in the article, then you can probably use them.

Whenever you add any source to an article, you need to take into considereation that someone might come along someday and challenge it. A source written in English can often be easily verified by simply reading the source; a source written in a language other than English, on the other hand, might require some translating some part of it when requested to make it easier for others to understand. If you're unable to access the source yourself or unable to read it, you're probably going to have a hard time defending it. If that's the case here, you might want to ask for help from someone at WT:JAPAN before adding the source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Computer Tech Services of Overland Park, KS

I want to write a Wikipedia article about this company. I have reasonable sources that are up to date, and it is very close by to where I live. (it is literally in my neighborhood)

If you want, we can go check it out for ourselves. But, just in case, here is the address:

10010 W 91st St, Overland Park, KS 66212

And here are two sources I found:

http://places.singleplatform.com/computer-tech-services/menu?ref=google

https://www.overlandparkcomputerrepairs.org/About

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GranolaDaOne (talk • contribs) 2018-11-19T14:50:42 (UTC)

Hello, GranolaDaOne, and welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to help us improve the encyclopaedia. However, there are a couple of things I want to tell you. First, is that writing a new article isn't the only way, or necessarily the best way, to improve Wikipedia. We have many thousands of articles which are in desperate need of some work; and creating a new article that gets accepted is one of the harder tasks - I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months getting to know Wikipedia before they try it.

Secondly, it's great that you are thinking about sources straight away - that puts you head and shoulders above many would-be article creators, who start writing from what they know, instead of what the sources say. But unfortunately, neither of those sources is very useful. Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject says about themselves, whether on their own website, in a directory, or in a press release. An article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject - and if there is little or nothing published that meets that description, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article on them: the Wikipedia jargon for that is that the subject is not notable. Most small businesses, anywhere in the world, are not notable, in Wikipedia's terms, and we do not (or should not) have articles about them.

I suggest you read your first article, even if you take my advice and don't try to create one yet. If you want to find existing articles about your area that need attention, you could look through the articles in Category:Overland Park, Kansas; and you might want to join WP:WikiProject Kansas. --ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Citing sources: work/publisher wikilinks & archive services

Hi, I started wiki editing in January this year so I'm quite a newcomer but I like to think that I've made a good contribution, just under 4,000 edits. One thing I'm interested in is what I call "Ref. maintenance" which basically means checking that cited sources are sound, with working links, correct titles, and all other parameters defined as appropriate. A couple of things have come up that I'm not sure about. Please can you advise.

(1) What's the consensus on providing wikilinks for works/publishers in citations? For example, is it sufficient for the citation to include the term "work=The New York Times" or is it preferrable to put "work=[[The New York Times]]"? I think it's useful to provide the link because if the reader is unsure about the originator of the source, they can easily check the relevant article to learn a little about the company behind the source, if they are interested. I've recently met with some opposition to this, but I don't think there's anything wrong with providing the link where it's available, expecially for lesser known newspapers such as the Lewiston Morning Tribune or The Manchester Guardian (for example). In this second example, the link provides the reader with the opportunity to learn that The Manchester Guardian was a previous incarnation of The Guardian newspaper, which they might not otherwise have known or been able to easily find out without doing their own manual search. The guidance on this just says "may be wikilinked if relevant", which is a bit ambiguous, but at least it doesn't say "generally not wikilinked" so I'm assuming that it is preferable to provide the link whenever there's a related wiki article available.

(2) Where do we stand with webcitation.org archives at the moment? I've always used the Wayback Machine for archiving purposes, but I've recently come across some articles that exclusively use webcitation for archiving everything, including newspaper articles, commercial websites, etc. I thought this was discouraged. I think webcitation can be unreliable and I'm currently unable to open any of the archives, I just keep getting a time-out error saying "This site can’t be reached" which is originating from the other end.

I'd really appreciate some input as I'm a bit flumoxed at the moment and the backbone of Wikipedia is the provision of clear/reliable sources. Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rodney Baggins. I'm glad to see someone taking care of references.

(1) From what I've seen putting wikilinks in citations is a matter of taste. Some editors always do it, others never, leading to issues. See the discussion here from back in July: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 45#Guideline on wikilinks within citations. When editing its best to go along with the existing style in the article.

(2) The variety of archiving services is covered at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations and Template:Webarchive. There is also Wikipedia:Using WebCite, and the talk page there shows that it is sometimes unavailable. I don't think you need to follow the "archiving" style of an article. In some cases it may be that the Wayback machine doesn't accept pages that other archiving sites do.

Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks StarryGrandma, that's useful information. I can appreciate that "to link or not to link" can be a matter of taste, but it would be good to have some concrete guidance on it in the MOS, for the sake of keeping things consistent. However, I definitely think there should be some consistency within any particular article – my case in point would be Walt Disney, where I quite innocently tried adding links for works and publishers yesterday, then someone immediately reverted my edits saying it was unnecessary, but they failed to notice that half of them are already linked anyway, hence the suite of references for that article is currently sitting in a woefully inconsistent state, which just messes with my head! This might be a small problem in the grand scheme of things, but I happen to think consistency is very important!

As for WebCite, I was under the impression that it wasn't supposed to be used for everything, and it has reliability issues. In fact, I haven't been able to access it at all today. Please can you confirm that WebCite is currently down or is it just me? This isn't very useful and I'd much prefer to use the Wayback Machine to grab snapshots of articles where you wouldn't normally want or need to access any non-archived sublinks anyway.

Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Article submission / banned editor

Hi there. I recently submitted the following entry to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Unit_Editions) but have discovered it was rejected. I am happy to re-edit the entry and fulfil the criteria. But I clicked on the name of the user (Frayae) who reviewed the entry and it appears they are banned and blocked indefinitely! The name above is apparently "a sock puppet of A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver... and it has been blocked indefinitely." As I say, I'm happy to edit the entry again, but how can the above user reject it when they are banned or suspended? Is there an appeal process in light of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSinclairUnit (talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Frayae rejected your submission on 14 Nov and was banned as sockpuppet on 15 Nov. You can resubmit, but I can tell you that your draft will be rejected again. None of the citations appear to be about Unit Editions in any significant way. A list of books published by Unit Editions has no place in the article. David notMD (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver is a long-term abuse and Frayae is one of their sock puppets. Frayae was blocked after they've review the submission. They cannot edit after being globally locked ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You have put a COI notice on your User page, but is your relationship with Unit_Editions actually one of being paid? Meaning are you an owner or employee? Paid consultant? If so, you need to change your declaration. David notMD (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Self-promotional autobiographical article

I stumbled onto this wiki article (W._Roy_Smythe) of an un-noteworthy person. He is a physician and businessman with no notable accomplishments. Not only that, but if you look at the page history, the article creator and most of the edits were done by a user named "Smythe3" who is most likely the subject of the article which is a clear conflict of interest. I'm inexperienced in wiki editing and don't know what the proper deletion procedure is (but he'll probably dispute any deletion attempt). I'll leave it to one of you to handle this. 24.16.20.197 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Good find! I don't have the time to investigate if the article should be deleted, so for now I've tagged the article with {{BLP sources}}, {{COI}} and {{notability}}. Someone else who has more experience with this kind of issues will probably come along soon. Our deletion policy is available at WP:DEL if you want to learn more. rchard2scout (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Persistent. Smythe3 has been editing W_Roy_Smythe since 2006, and that is the only article Smythe3 edits. David notMD (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion. Please feel free to comment and discuss here. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 20:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Help with an article

Hello,

I have an assignment to make a Wikipedia article for my International economics class and I've been declined twice. My topic chosen is on the Trade Facilitation Agreement 2014 and I was hoping for some advice on how to improve my article. I believe that I have successfully listed the important information about the agreement and I am struggling with how to word it in a way that it sounds more like an encyclopedia entry.

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anrussell2 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This must be about Draft:Trade Facilitation Agreement 2014. It doesn't start by explaining what it's about. The first sentence refers to "our economy", leaving the reader to guess who "we" are. It cites no sources, though it does list some. One of the things you need to do is to read Help:Referencing for beginners, and then follow as many statements as practicable by citations of sources that confirm them. Maproom (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Anrussell2. I recommend these resources as well: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students Here is the one on adding citations: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students/sources and here is the one on evaluating sources etc: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students/evaluating-articles Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 18:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if the subject of the draft is the same as the trade agreement discussed in the article Bali Package. Maproom (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Another problem with the draft, Anrussell2, is that (as the reviewer said) it reads like an essay. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources have said about the subject, no more. It must not contain original research - which means it must not contain any argumentation, discussion or analysis beyond what is in the individual sources, or conclusions that aren't in one of the sources. It can say "this source says X, while that source says Y", but it should not attempt to reconcile or choose between them.

I'm afraid that this suggests that either you have misunderstood what your teacher asked you to do, or your teacher has misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Have they (and you) looked at WP:Education program? --ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:ColinFine, User:Anrussell2 - Unfortunately, these misunderstandings are often by the teacher. It is common for instructors to give assignments involving Wikipedia that are inconsistent with our policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Anrussell2. I added a welcome template to your talk page for new student editors (I just discovered it) that might point you to more resources. I also marked your draft article's talk page to indicate that this is part of an educational assignment. You might want to send this information to your professor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Student_assignments#Advice_for_instructors As it might help them help you and to communicate with the Wikipedia Education representatives if they are having multiple people in your course edit pages. This may help your edits, and your class's edits, be more successful. Let us know if you have any questions or any further help. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 22:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

How to remove lead color boxes that "biography does not include references" and "needs more links to other articles"

To the Reader, HELP!,

The wiki page is amazingly complex, not intuitive, and gives "aid" in the form of very, very detailed suggestions that clearly must be understandable only to the cognesitti who wrote them. Take pity on the computer knuckle walkers who do word, illustration programs, email, etc., but have a problem with wiki with such concepts as the seemingly "nested" "{{ }}" comments. What is "{{ }},", etc.?

Wiki should be no more difficult than a Word program!

1) What I want to do for "ed landing wiki" is have my several internet references counted now after several weeks. Stating that my page has "no references" is incorrect! The "references" are right under the references.

2) There are a number of "links to other articles" already, but the wiki banner at the top of the page asks for "more." My wiki page has more "links" (about 6) than many other wiki pages,so what is missing?

3) It is also completely unclear to me from any of the lengthy, detailed, prolix assistance pages, how one makes a "link"!

4) How do I get rid of the colored banners at the top of "ed landing wiki" that I DO have references and that there are INDEED links.

I would appreciate help with a "clean looking" "wiki ed landing page."

Best, and all help appreciated. Please read my page, all I have is simple straight information given by a living person (me).

Dr. Ed Landing, New York State Paleontologist, emeritus, New York State Museum, Albany, NY 12203 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.115.164 (talk • contribs)

Note: The above refers to the article Ed Landing. Deor (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: Left {{uw-coi}} on IP's talk page. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I started to do some general article clean up, and started a discussion on the talk page Talk:Ed_Landing#Article_repair,_pinging_admin_for_expertise, where I pinged admin DGG, for his BLP expertise. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Another user, Elanding, also extensively edited this article. That user also claims to be the article's subject. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi there Ed. (67.248.115.164, and possibly also Elanding) Welcome to the Teahouse. As a retired museum curator myself, I'd be happy to help you understand the basics of Wikipedia editing, assuming, that is, that you're genuinely interested in sharing you palaentological expertise across other articles here, rather than simply trying to edit the one page about yourself. We call that a Conflict of Interest, and we ask editors of articles to declare any connection according to the policy I've just linked to, and supply any relevant information and to make an 'edit request' (see WP:EDITREQ on the article's Talk Page for a non-involved editor to add. (I recently 'adopted' another retired professional geologist - BrucePL - who, rather brilliantly, now wants to share his expertise with others here, and who similarly found some of our methods a little more akin to editing in Wordstar than MS Word, and has also had to change his approach from writing primary scientific publications, to encyclopaedia-writing which generally ignores primary sources and prefers to base content upon published secondary sources.) If other hosts here haven't yet addressed all your above questions (and some have already started work to improve the page), I'll attempt to do so in a follow-up reply below (but am on a mobile, so replying is slow work). It would also be preferable for you to sign in with one registered user account, rather than under one or more anonymous IP addresses, as comments and support can be more usefully given on that page. I will leave my replies on both user pages. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

OK Ed, so, as promised earlier, a few replies to your numbered questions/frustrations above:

Whilst you - or someone undoubtedly added references, they were not only inserted in the wrong place, but they did not support the 'factual' statements in the article, so it would be quite appropriate to flag the article for a lack of sources. We don't work on presence or absence of references - we seek inline citations to support each and every statement. We don't care what a subject happens to know or say about itself on some LinkedIn or ResearchGate page, though we accept upon biographies on University websites, even if they have been written by the staff member in question, as we assume these have editorial oversight. (Whilst I'm not suggesting at all that you've made anything up about yourself, other people do, and some do it quite shamelessly. So for that reason we treat everything that a subject says about itself as unacceptable, and we ignore self-published blogs and social networks). The references provided do not evidence statements about your education or career, or the list of awards, although I finally managed to find a correct reference for your entry on ResearchGate, which I will add to 'External links'. It's important to understand that once an inline citation is properly inserted, it automatically appears in the 'References' section - so please don't try to type it in there yourself, as you might expect to do with a paper drafted in MS Word. To learn how to insert inline citations correctly, I'd suggest you read and follow advice given in Help:Referencing for beginners, or even this easy-to-follow tutorial.
The template asking for more links should be pretty self-explanatory I'm sorry it wasn't. We expect the first use of key words in articles to be linked internally to other articles, thus allowing people who don't know what a geologist or palaeontologist is, or which country the University of Wisconsin is in, or to find out more about the U. S. Geological Survey. As for the "U-Pb geochronology of the oldest metazoans, the biostratigraphy of the Early Paleozoic", what terms do you suggest we should link to?
You add internal links to other key articles in one of two ways, depending on which of our two editing tools you have chosen to use. In our more complex-looking source editor, you simply type two square brackets either side of the word about which you want to link to. Obviously it has to exist as an article already e.g. [[bracket]]s was how I created the link you've just read. Alternatively, in Visual Editor, simply highlight the term you want to link to, then click the 'link' icon in the editing toolbar and click to select the appropriate target name, or start typing the page name you want, and it will autofill with suggestions for you to choose from.
You asked how you remove the templates from the top of the article. Put simply, you don't. Or, at least, one only does that once the issues flagged up have been addressed, and they clearly haven't yet. However, I will do a bit of more tweaking, which Timtempleton has helpfully started.

Finally, you ended your post here by saying "all I have is simple straight information given by a living person (me).". Although I would love to help you to contribute effectively to any number of geological articles here (and to do so by helping you citing reliable secondary sources), I would ask you not to edit the article about yourself, and never to add any content to any article without it being supported by a citation - especially one about yourself. As already mentioned, put an 'edit request' on the talk page and wait until another editors acts upon your request. You might like to read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to help you understand more. Should you want to contact me for practical support on editing articles linked to your area of skills, feel free to contact me via my User Talk Page - just click 'Add Topic' and leave me a note, or suggest additions you would like to see made. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Should the accused killer's age be listed?

I was pondering about an edit dispute from several months ago that I walked away from, but it's been at the back of my head since. In this scenario, say an alleged shooter—between the ages of 19 to 23—assassinates someone very notable in his 50s or older, someone who is an ideological peer, rival and/or opponent. Should the accused killer's age be listed? I, approaching everything from the perspective of a reader, think it does. I would certainly want to know that tidbit of information when reading the article; to me it's no different than any other noteworthy point about a person's background, because it provides a level of context (into the mentality of the perpetrator) to the reader.

Certainly, this would be backed up with citation. But what do you do when someone is adamant in opposing it by comparing it to other 'trivial' details such as height and whatnot (which I find to be a false equivalence). Or by claiming that it's a detail that needs to be extensively discussed in books—which I presume it isn't, but that doesn't mean no book mentions the age, and who says books are the only source? (books are just one form of POV, but I was attempting to use a New York Times article reporting of the day of the incident). Sticking with DUEWEIGHT, even its mention would be a mere span of three or four words and not an entire paragraph or more, so it falls under DUE and NYT is certainly a RS in itself barring someone can prove the article is factually incorrect.

What are your thoughts on something like this? DA1 (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello DA1, and welcome to the Teahouse. Interesting question, and one that probably has to be answered in the context of the article and the proposed edits. It took some searching, but you're clearly referring to this edit you made on the page about Malcolm X and relating to his murder in 1965. I see from that page's archive that you did engage in a good discussion. Personally, I think knowing the age of someone's assassin is often relevant to their article, and it seems not unreasonable to include that, assuming it's well cited. This is especially true as the article does expand on their subsequent lives/roles. But I do think you tried to include too much trivial information in your edit, in what is already a long and detailed article, so it doesn't surprise me that it was twice rejected. Sometimes walking away for a good while does help give clarity and a chance to cool down, so you did the right thing. But I see no reason why you shouldn't go back to the talk page, ping the involved editors, and mention that you'd simply like to include the ages of his killers at that time, and supply the citation, and see what support you get. I'd suggest you quote the actual text you'd like to use so that editors know that you aren't going to repeat the insertion of too much information. Bear in mind this is a personal view, and that consensus from involved editors on the appropriate page is what's important here. Does this help? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

how?

How can I find the text I was working on in a draft publication (Trumpism) when an editor came over and hastily deleted the entire page and an hour worth of work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhempseed (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The place to make this request is WP:RFU. However based on this thread User talk:Writ Keeper#Why did you delete Trumpism? Did you read the talk page? Or my contest against speedy deletion? Writ Keeper has given you good reasons why it won't be restored. Please see several of the items at WP:NOT. MarnetteD|Talk 16:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I happened to see your draft before it was deleted, and it was basically an unsourced WP:ATTACKPAGE. I would not expect any administrator to restore it. There are already articles about Donald Trump and the veracity of statements by Donald Trump which you are welcome to improve, as long as your can edit from a neutral point of view. shoy (reactions) 16:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to make me a better editor! I don't need it restored, I just don't want to be banned for working on it as Writ Keeper threatened he/she/it would do. Where can I "restore" the page for ten seconds, without being banned, where I can work on making it more neutral? Where should I be having this conversation? Seanhempseed (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I would start over. Start by reading Your First Article, and follow the advice there. Any page you create must be neutrally worded and include references to reliable sources. I would also point out that by nature, politics is a contentious area to be editing in, and if your only purpose here is having an axe to grind, then Wikipedia might not be the right place for you. shoy (reactions) 19:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As an administrator, I can and did read your deleted draft, Seanhempseed, and I agree 100% with its deletion. Please read and study the neutral point of view which is a core content policy. As that policy says, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Your draft was most definitely not neutral and was a strident advocacy piece. Personally, I am opposed to Trump and express my opinions about him openly on social media platforms but not on Wikipedia. Please also read What Wikipedia is not, which says "Wikipedia is not for advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." Your draft most certainly was political advocacy and that simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia. The bottom line is that this content is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia and will not be allowed on this website. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

thank you one and all. I will begin again in my sandbox. I am not trying to advocate, I am trying to build a quality article. I will work to be neutral. 2601:199:880:14C5:756B:3FC8:1FFC:1EF2 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Tom Munro restoration request

Hello,

I'm a new editor, and I've been attempting to build an entry for a well known fashion photographer called Tom Munro, I've made three attempts so far without success becuase my references have been weak. I've now obtained better references but my draft has been deleted though I haven't updated it for six months.

I found my entry in my History and have made the changes.

Please could you restore the the Draft:Tom Munro to my Sandbox so that I can resubmit it?

With thanks, Jaz Kilmister — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaz Kilmister (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

--Jaz Kilmister (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The draft seems to be still there at Draft:Tom Munro. There's no need to move it back to a sandbox unless you are planning to ignore it for another six months. Dbfirs 17:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It had been deleted, but the OP asked for the draft to be restored, and it was restored yesterday. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I wondered if that was what had happened, but there is no record of that in the history. Dbfirs 07:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Easily missed. The history has a link to the logs. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, found it now. The article was restored the day before the above request. Dbfirs 10:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia report of external links?

Is there a way to get a report from Wikipedia of all outbound links going to a certain URL? For instance, I'd like to know all articles that link to a URL with the format: arcweb.sos.state.or.us We moved to a new URL structure and this is the old, legacy site so any links need updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaSno (talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello EmmaSno and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, we do have a tool that searches for external links. According to Special:LinkSearch, there are 232 pages that link to arcweb.sos.state.or.us. That's quite a few pages, so if you think they need to be changed it should be done with an automated tool. You can ask for help with that at WP:BOTREQ. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! That is exactly what I was looking for. (@AntiCompositeNumber:)

@AntiCompositeNumber: Thank you for that helpful answer. I wasn't aware of that tool myself, so it's always good to learn something new here. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Code

What is the == == code meaning? 125.160.114.139 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It's the header for different sections. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

More specifically, a level 2 header. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 06:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The code will change the text to display the way the title of this section of this page is. For example, the big bolded word "Code" is produced by writing "== Code ==". For more information here is a reference page: Help:Cheatsheet. You can also learn more by reading this help page about Wikitext: Help:Wikitext Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 00:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Please direct me..

I am a teacher at St Martin Secondary who is trying to update our page, to follow other similar schools in our board.

I am not sure how I am in conflict of interest, nor do I wish to be revoked rights to update.

Could you please give me guidelines of how I can properly update our page?

My apologies for not doing this correctly. I am new to this process.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolandanavas (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yolandanavas, your editing was promoting the school. You were quite correctly told to stop that, and if you do so again, you will be blocked. Editors with a conflict of interest are expected to refrain from directly editing articles for which they have a COI, and instead to only suggest edits on the talk page, using {{request edit}} to bring attention to them. However, material such as "Our..." (articles are always written in third person), "program is designed for students that have a passion for sports", "Some of our students are high level athletes, but the majority are students that merely have a passion for sports. In either case, all of these students are afforded the opportunity to explore the world of sports through various roles and responsibilities which our student are exposed to in the community." That's brochure junk, and the rest of your edits go on that same way. Wikipedia strictly forbids any kind of advertising or marketing material, including any kind of "talking up". Also, please note that the article is not yours, nor the school's. Wikipedia is not social media on which you may write or maintain a "profile". It belongs to the community of Wikipedia and to the general public, and the school has no special right to control or dictate what it says. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Yolandanavas. All of the above is true, however, I regret that they are rebuking you so strongly as you're someone who doesn't have experience on Wikipedia. Especially considering that the commonplace talk header guidelines include to be polite, welcoming to new users, and to assume good faith. Unfortunately this website can be full of a lot of angry macho posturing through pedantic references to ~~bureacratic rules~~ guidelines. I'm a bit appalled that this is the tone in the Teahouse of all places. But why should I be surprised about Wikipedia's ugly side?.

Thank you for trying to contribute to Wikipedia (albeit in violation of the rules) and thank you for educating the world's children. I hope that you have a great day and better future experiences on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me)

PS. I left a notice on your talk page that will provide you with even more constructive feedback so that you understand the policies everyone has been referencing. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 00:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm still fuming over this, Yolandanavas. I wanted to point out for the benefit of everyone else reading that the Teahouse was purportedly created "... as a pilot project on English Wikipedia, with a goal of learning whether a social approach to new editor support could retain more new editors there." Additionally, "Although the project will welcome all good faith new users, women are a particular target population. By creating a social-learning experience that helps integrate women into the community and support them in getting past barriers to participation, we hope to impact the gender gap."

If I can make any assumptions about your gender based on your username and profession, Ms. Navas, it's that you're a woman. And if I can make any assumptions about whether you're attempting to make good faith edits based on both the tone and phrasing of your initial question, it's that they're in good faith. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 01:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing and Advertisement Tone

Hello Teahouse,

I took the plunge found a topic and wrote my first article here on Wikipedia. Thus, far I have learned quite a bit thus far. Oddly, I take joy in my first article being declined as it pushes me to learn more. So, I write seeking pointers on how to improve my submissions. Again, thank you for the warm welcome. CryptoWriter (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, CryptoWriter. I am a new editor too, but I at least can point you in the right direction.

It looks like the main reason that your submission was declined was that it "reads like an [advertisement]". I recommend reviewing this page which is a guide to creating your first article: Wikipedia:Your first article. I also want to encourage you to look through these fantastic user-friendly tutorials created by the Wikipedia Education project. They are intended for students in a classroom, but I (as a new editor like you) find them more accessible than the ordinary explanatory pages: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students Third, I am going to add what's called a friendly search suggestion template to your draft article's talk page. It will generate a list of searches that you can click on based on the title of your article that might point you to more sources to include on your page. Fourth, I think that you might find this page helpful as well: Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#The_basics_of_contributing.

Writing can be very challenging (especially this type of writing) and it can be very frustrating to have your initial attempts at an article creation be unsuccessful, however, I think that you should persevere. If you get frustrated with this initial article creation you could do other forms of editing on pages that you are interested in (for example, I frequently will read through sources already provided on pages to verify their authority, that they are secondary sources, and that the text that they justify accurately reflects the information within). However, you should copy and paste the code of your page into your own notes in case the draft gets deleted after inactivity in case you want to try again. Initially it's very common to have your good faith edits reverted, however, it is all just part of the process of learning what content is acceptable.

If you have more specific questions, please feel free to ask. Other editors will be better at giving you feedback on your article creation than me, but I am good at some forms of constructive feedback related to sources, technical issues (like the syntax of the wikitext code), among other things. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 04:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oliveboard (November 17)

Wikipedia URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oliveboard

Please help me to improve this article. As this my first article, How can I submit this? The given comments have doubts.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was: References are all brief mentions, general announcements, or from unreliable sources. I find the same with a search of Google News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekkramesh (talk • contribs) 09:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Abhishekkramesh. As the reviewer told you, in order to qualify for an article in Wikipedia, a subject needs references to significant coverage in reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for a guideline. Are you saying you can't find such coverage? If it does not exist, then Oliveboard would not yet be notable enough for an article. —teb728 t c 11:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Abhishekkramesh, please read the essay No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi TEb728, The company is very famous in India. The issue I found that, reference was placed with wrong text contents. Thanks for the info..--Abhishekkramesh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Abhishekkramesh. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your edits. I think that you might find constructive feedback in a related conversation with another editor here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#please_help_me_to_improve_Draft:Tatsuo_Yamada_(karate) One of the Teahouse hosts gave feedback for an editor who is using sources in Japanese. You might want to work on the article on another language version of Wikipedia: https://www.wikipedia.org/ You can change the language version from there and there are many other languages to choose if you click "Read Wikipedia in your language". However, in the conversation that I linked to you will also see guidelines (with strong warnings) about how to use non-English sources on English Wikipedia (and the increased likelihood that the content may be challenged and lack someone to defend it if you are not around to provide a translation for an editor who challenges you). Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 04:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hey everyone. I have just gone into early retirement after a career in the sciences and emigrated to Spain in a bid to Brexit proof myself. A friend recommended I give Wikipedia a try but introduce myself here first. So here I am. Does anyone have any easy science pages they want editing by any chance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex pat pete (talk • contribs) 10:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ex pat pete: Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. We hope you enjoy your time here. I left you some useful links for beginners on your talk page. If you want to help out in specific areas, we have "WikiProjects" to coordinate such efforts with like-minded editors. Depending on the science in question, you can find an appropriate project at Wikipedia:SCIENCE#Parentage and related WikiProjects. Most such projects have lists of tasks that need doing and also list of editors who are active in this field and happy to help you with any questions. Regards So Why 10:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will check them out and get stuck in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex pat pete (talk • contribs) 10:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sign your comments here and on the Talk pages of articles by typing four of ~.

Many scientists start by looking at topics they know from their own education and career. As for where work is needed - everywhere! However, if you click on Talk for individual articles, the top banner should show a relative quality ranking: Stub, Start, C-Class, B-Class, Good Article, Featured Article. Stubs and Starts are good places to see where lots of improvement is needed. By the way, improvement can include removing content that is wrong or not relevant. I hope you find topics that interest you. David notMD (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I’ve been dying to learn the answer to Talk:Saline_water#Boiling_temperature. MBG02 (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Should victims be listed in articles on tragedies?

Hi all,

I saw that a previously unknown victim of the UpStairs Lounge arson attack had been likely identified, so I went to add that info to the wiki article. I saw there wasn't a list of the victims, but I added the finding to the section regarding the three unidentified victims. I then checked around similar tragedies, and saw that some have a list of those who died (for example, the Ghostship fire) and some don't.

Are there any guidelines pertaining to this? One potential issue is that the UpStairs Lounge fire was not well covered at the time, so when looking around, I had a hard time finding reliable sources of a full list of the dead. In this case, would a photo of the official memorial with the names (like here) be an acceptable source?

Thanks!

EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

EponineBunnyKickQueen, whether or not to include a full list of victims is up to the consensus of editors at individual articles. To my knowledge, the consensus has been to do so in some cases and to not do so in others. So far as memorials, those are tricky in terms of copyright status. If the memorial is subject to copyright, any image of it would be considered nonfree, which would mean usage would be substantially restricted if not disallowed entirely. If the memorial is not copyrightable or has fallen into the public domain, I think a photo of it would often be relevant to the article about the incident the memorial is for. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, as an aside, on "wiki article". "Wiki" is a generic term for any site that uses software allowing users to edit it. This site is Wikipedia, not "wiki". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think EponineBunnyKickQueen was thinking of uploading the image, Seraphimblade; rather they were asking if the image they linked to could be used as a source. It seems to me that the answer is Yes, provided the site where the image is hosted is regarded as a reliable source, that image is not itself a copyright violation, and there is enough information on the site (either in the image iteself, or in surrounding text) to establish that this is indeed a source for the information being added. --ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I see. If I misunderstood and that's what you were asking, I entirely agree with ColinFine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine, that is what I meant: taking the names from the memorial, not adding a photo of the memorial. Thanks, also, Seraphimblade. EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi EponineBunnyKickQueen the {{cite sign}} template provides an easy way to reference a memorial inscription. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi EponineBunnyKickQueen, another response to your original question, for what it's worth. I've done a lot of work on aviation accidents and we generally only list victims in general terms; individual victims are not normally mentioned unless they are notable, which usually means they have their own wiki article (so a wikilink can be provided). Therefore we tend to provide a table listing numbers of victims by nationality, then only name specific individuals in the text if they are notable. Hope this helps. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia

How do you reference? Iam2yearsold (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor and given them some advice on their talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Can i somehow notify the comment maker that the articles were referenced from independent sources but mistakenly attributed to the author?

I had wrongly attributed all the references to the author instead of the news agencies and this resulted in the rejection of the below article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sushrut_Ashok_Badhe with the comment "every single reference is something written by the subject. Please see WP:BIO for what we're looking for in the way of independent sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)"

The author is a record holder and has set records for rewriting ancient scriptures into english rhymes and this has been covered in independent and prestigious journals/newspapers.

I rectified the references with proper attribution but there has been no progress in the article. How do i solve this issue now?

Can i somehow notify the comment maker that the articles were referenced from independent sources but mistakenly attributed to the author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushrut Badhe (talk • contribs) 07:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sushrut Badhe: Judging by your user name, it appears that you are writing an autobiography, or are associated with the subject about whom you are writing. That being said, there do appear to be a number of mentions of the subject of the article in various sources. These possibly confer notability. I suggest you compile a list of sources, make a skeleton of the draft you are trying to create, add proper categories to it and submit the article title at Wikipedia's section on Articles for Creation. When you visit that page, be sure to read everything at the top. In particular it says: "If you have a conflict of interest with the topic you are writing about, you should disclose it on the article talk page; see WP:DISCLOSE."

Lastly, and this is very important, please have a look at our username policy at this link and carefully consider the information therein. Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

About categories in a draft, see WP:DRAFTNOCAT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I didn’t know that. How about wiki projects? Is it ok to add those on a draft article, using rater for example? Sounds like a novice question i know, but I’ve not had a lot of experience working with drafts - other than moving articles to draftspace during the review process. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Edaham, sorry, no idea. Don't think I ever added a wikiproject to anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Would someone look over this draft please

I have tried to clean up this Draft:John Ferrar (Virginia settler). I believe that I cleaned up the "peacock" language, I have added additional information and references. I think that the opening paragraph is important because it explains what would otherwise be ambiguity, but not sure. I would like to resubmit it, but will only do so when it is ready. I would appreciate any suggestions. @Robert McClenon:Alvanhholmes (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: Hi. Because your Teahouse request was next to mine. I read your draft, agree with the concerns that reject your current version. First, I'm a pretty good WP editor but I am NOT a WP Administrator. These are some unofficial thoughts. Following them does not guarantee acceptance, but I'll guess it will improve your odds.

Read and compare some of the accounts of these men's contemporaries, including of the brother Nicholas Ferrar. How do these accepted articles read compared to your draft articles? Unfortunately, your article has careless punctuation errors, uses language that is archaic, and includes numerous phrases that are more apologetic and/or pretentious than informative.

Genealogy is very hard back this far, but try. The account of Nicholas identifies parents and home in considerable detail, and some of that information (if sourced) you could include. What else distinguishes these men? When and/or where and/or with whom did each JF live, even if you can only state circa or florit. How do you know that these men are cousins, and not uncle and nephew, father and son, etc.? Might their stories be better as two sections in one article?

Good luck ... GeeBee60 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

{{reply to|@GeeBee60: Thank you for your suggestions. I take them to heart and will follow best I can. But I have a follow up question. The comment about archaic language is valid, it was mentioned by @Robert McClenon: whom I think is the one who moved and renamed my article into draft. I assume you are referring to the article John Ferrar (Virginia Settler)that is the one title I wish changed to John Ferrar (Deputy Treasurer, Virgina Company), as it confuses me every time I see it. That aside, the "archaic language" you note is, I think, the same that Robert McClenon notes, but it is actuallly a quotation encapsulated in "...", and the reference to it is at the end of the paragraph I quoted.

As regards their stories being better in one section than two. I quite agree, my original idea was to publish it as a single article with the title A Tale of two John Ferrars. However I was advised not to do that, because it becomes a narrative, and if published Google might not pick it up.

Question: Is it inappropriate or "illegal" to quote (partial) from a book? Or is it because the language is archaic? On the other hand, because of my age and background I tend to write in using "archaic" words and phrases, such as ..she was with child, rather than she was pregnant (which sounds crude, at least to me). Your other suggestions are quite valid and valuable and I will set about trying to incorporate them. Alvanhholmes (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: I have never published in WP with the goal of being picked up by Google. WP is not a journal shortcut with less vetting. If you want to go that route, find a publisher. You might be able to have "A tale of two John Ferrars" as a section, but your WP title and your writing needs to be as clear and concise as possible. If you quote, attribute, and if you don't quote, rewrite. Try this:

Farrar family (Virginia Company).

Two men named ‘’’John Ferrar’’’ (Farrar) played importants roles in the Virginia Company; they were cousins. Most commonly they are distinguished by their different roles.

The elder of the two cousins was born circa …

I suggest this conversation be continued on your draft / talk pages. GeeBee60 (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@GeeBee60: I certainly will move the conversation to draft. But for the record. It was not my intention to publish something for wiki. It was another user who mentioned to me that I should split the article into two that google will pick it up. There is no need to write a book (and too old for that, and I have been asked to write much more interesting books..no interest in that either, and no time, I'm already 6 months past my expiration date..truth.Alvanhholmes (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments on John Ferrar and John Ferrar

I suggested that User:Alvanhholmes bring this discussion here. I will add that it is preferred to keep discussion in one section in talk and help forums rather than to have multiple sections (although I have responded in both sections here). First, I agree that it is hard to tell what John Ferrar the elder is notable for. I tried to ask that, but perhaps my question was too subtle. At a minimum, both of the drafts need good clear lede sentences explaining what the subject is notable for, and I don't really have a clue about the elder John Ferrar. I have generally thought, as a personal opinion, that if there is a good written record about someone from the nineteenth or earlier centuries, the subject is probably notable. However, in this case, I am not sure. Why is Ferrar the elder important? I understand about the younger.

Second, I did ask in my initial review whether the article or articles were copied from another source, because they appeared to be written in an archaic style. There appears to be a two-part explanation about that. First, the submitter writes in an archaic style (but often one that needs heavy copy-edit). Second, portions were indeed copied, and the submitter was evidently trying to provide proper attribution, but it is very hard to tell what parts of the two drafts are being quoted. That is, the submitter is unfortunately not satisfying the most basic rule of copying-quoting, which is to make it clear what is being copied or quoted.

Third, I am confused and distressed by the comments about Google. I don't know what the submitter means, but if they mean what I think, which is that they are submitting these drafts to Wikipedia in order so that Google searches will find them, that isn't the intended purpose or role of Wikipedia, which is a stand-alone encyclopedia, a treasure-room of knowledge that can be entered through its own gate, not simply a hidden room behind the gate of Google. If the submitter is thinking primarily about Google, then they should start thinking primarily about Wikipedia itself (or publish somewhere else).

Fourth, as I mention below, when I reviewed the two drafts in sandboxes, I tried to guess what would be the most appropriate titles if they were accepted into article space. A clear title goes hand in hand with a good lede sentence.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)