Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 989

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 985

←

Archive 987

→

Adding author photos to Robert Payne page

I am Sheila Payne, widow of the author Robert Payne (author). I want to upload 2 of his photos on the Robert Payne page. I have to wait four days as I registered for an account only one hour ago. However, I would like to know if there are any specific pixel requirements for uploading photos to make sure I have the right size.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 7payne9 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, User:7payne9. Depending on the degree to which the article benefits from a given image, size is generally not a consideration. The most important consideration when uploading an image to Wikipedia is copyright, which is covered in the article Wikipedia:Uploading images. You will want to read it carefully.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 7payne9. The best image to add to that article would be a portrait photo of Robert Payne. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging 7payne9. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@7payne9: Did you use the account Payneslp in the past, as suggested by these edits [1] [2] ? If so, please confirm that you are no longer using that account. Wikipedia has strict rules on the use of multiple accounts by the same person. Thank you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Pages related to Indian history locked

hi,

i would like to know why are the pages related to indian history and politics being systematically locked for editing? i checked the Indus valley civilisation page and found it has been locked in order to protect it from vandalism while the very editors who have done this have already vandalised it by giving wrong history (the part of Saraswati river is not only wrong but speaks of a strong leftist bias). if pages are locked inthe name of vandalism by left writers then it defeats the entire purpose of having wikipedia which is supposed to be open source knowledge. knowledge cannot be allowed to be controlled by such political ideologies that won't allow views of others! or is Wikipedia is also turning into a puppet to be used by the leftists as per their whims in their attempts to control human minds?

Incidentally the Sengar rape-alleged murder case has also been locked (for no reason whatsoever except to keep people from editing to add the truth) with a reference to the Hindu newspaper, a proven left-wing mouthpiece that serves distorted propaganda in name of news!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indicview (talk • contribs) 03:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Indicview. Pages can only be "locked" by a Wikipedia administrator and this is only typically done as a last resort to prevent serious cases of disruptive editing. Some pages may be long-term protected because even the slightest change would have a huge impact on other pages (e.g. a widely-used template page) or otherwise considered to be highly contentious and subject to special review, but page protection only tends to be temporary and runs out after a certain amount of time has passed.

If you're trying to edit an article which has been protected, the first thing to try and figure out is why it's been protected and what kind of protection has been applied. This is usually indicated at the top of the "Edit" window and in some cases there might even be instructions provided as to what needs to be done for someone to edit the article. In most cases, the easiest thing to do would be to start a discussion on the article's talk page and explain why the edit needs to be made as explained in Wikipedia:Edit requests. Other editors will respond to the proposal and discussion about whether the proposed change is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines will take place. If a WP:CONSENSUS is established in favor of the change; if not, it won't.

If you do decide to start a discussion on the article's talk page, it's best to assume good faith and try word your proposal as neutrally as possible and focus on the content you want changed/added and not a certain editor or group of editors. Wikipedia is edited by all kinds of editors so labeling other editors as "propagandists" is not likely going to be received well and is very unlikely to lead to positive discussion. An important thing to understand is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is going to be applied and it's not really Wikipedia's purpose to right some great wrong or to set the record straight. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Page Creation and Redirecting to unrelated page

Hello,

I have a requested for creating a page on Wikipedia which is under review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Imd1

It shows one of the warning as follows:

Warning: The page Imd1 redirects to Bruton's tyrosine kinase. Please ensure it is not a copy or that this page is located to the correct title.

The page requested to be created has no relation with the page it is redirecting to. Please help on how can I remove the redirection.

Regards, Parin Thacker

Hi Parinthacker and welcome to the Teahouse. Don't worry about the redirect. This will be dealt with by the reviewer who will move your draft if it is approved. More importantly, your references are mainly publicity by the subject of the article, and Wikipedia is not interested in this. You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources (such as newspaper articles) in which the subject has been written about at length, and the Wikipedia article should be a summary of these independent sources. Do you have some connection with the subject? Dbfirs 07:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

One Question ,

I want create page Akhilendra Sahu But its show this - "This page has been protected so only administrators can create it" please help— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackypro (talk • contribs) 04:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jackypro. What has happened is that that paticular title has been WP:SALTED. This is something that is usually done when there are repeated attempts to create a Wikipedia article which has been previously WP:DELETED for some reason. Generally, the subject is not considered to be sufficiently Wikipedia notable for a stand-alone article and the repeated recreations have become too disruptive to ignore. So, an administrator "locks" the name so that no new article can be created without an administrator review. You can see from this that the page was "salted" by an administrator named Kudpung on July 28, 2019; so, you should discuss your reasons for wanting to create the article with Kudpung at User talk:Kudpung and see what he says. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The article Akhilendra Sahu has been salted and the IP creator of the new draft blocked for block evasion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Posting a Picture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clermont_Gaelic_Football_Club I was going to post a picture I found online of the jerseys and discovered I could not upload the picture so I went to get permission from the club to post it and they said sure on facebook. What do I do now? Svrangerchrista (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Svrangerchrista. Two things you need to consider here: the copyright of the jersey (and any team logos/badges) appearing in the photo, and the copyright of the photograph itself. If someone working for the club took the photo and the club is the copyright holder of the photo, then the club can give their WP:CONSENT to release the photo under a free license accepted by Wikipedia. If the photo, however, was taken by someone else (i.e. a fan) and it was posted by the club on their website or somewhere else online, then you would need the CONSENT from that person, not the club.

The copyright of the logo/badge appearing on the jersey should really only be an issue if you're intending to somehow crop, blow up or otherwise alter the photo in a way the would make the logo/badge the main focus of the image. In such a case, you would need the CONSENT of the club (since they most likely hold the copyright on the teams branding) as well as the CONSENT for the photo to upload the file under a free license. If you just want to upload a photo of the players during game play or practice, etc. where the team logo/badge is not the focus of the picture then it's likely that de minimis would apply to anything appearing on the jersey.

Once you've figure out what is what, just follow the instructions given in c:Commons:OTRS and upload the file using c:Commons:Upload Wizard. It's generally better to upload files to Wikimedia Commons whenever possible because it makes it easier for all Wikimedia Foundations to use the file; uploading the file to English Wikipedia will limit the file's use to English Wikipedia.

One last thing to be sure about is the way the club has worded their response on Facebook; if you asked "Can I use this file on Wikipedia?" and they replied "Sure!", then that's not going to be sufficient. It would be much better for them to post a more formal statement similar to what's written in WP:CONSENT or designate a specific license as explained here so that the club's intention to release the photo under a free license is as clear as possible. Ideally, the club should do such a thing in the description of the photo itself where the photo can be seen online. If they don't wish or can't do that, they will need to send a CONSENT email to Wikimedia OTRS instead. Neither Wikipedia or Commons will accept any license which places any restrictions on commercial reuse or derivative use; so, the club needs agree to release the file as explained in c:Commons:Licensing. In other words, the club needs to basically agree to let anyone anywhere in the world download the photo at anytime and use for any purpose; any license which says "For non-commerical use only", "For Wikipedia use only", "For non-derivative use only", etc. is going to be too restrictive for Wikipedia or Commons purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Help with getting experienced editors to vet possible content

Hi, I’ve not used the Teahouse until now but I’m puzzled as to what is appropriate in this situation:

In compiling a list of (deceased) LGBTQ pioneers (for National LGBTQ Wall of Honor), I found one, Harry Hay, that has highly problematic content. Both, my feelings, very POV and poorly sourced both in the article and taking up a fourth of the lead.

I read every source I could find plus suggestions from the wp:NPOV board where I opened NAMBLA content on Harry Hay, which is just loaded with bad faith accusations.

I feel like it’s effectively turned everyone off bothering to read what the sources actually say.

Is there anywhere to get thoughtful editors who will read through at least the proposed content to see if it stands up to scrutiny? I’m puzzled how to keep the entire process from stalling out.

Or should I start over or do something else? I wouldn’t care except the Hay article currently is plainly misrepresenting the facts that are verified by reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi gleeanon409. Firstly, I recognised your name as you'd been making some great edits to an article I created. Thanks for your contributions!

Regarding this particular issue, I've (deliberately) not read through the whole thread on NPOV because I don't really think the Teahouse should be providing an outside view on who is 'right' in disputes elsewhere on Wikipedia. Instead I'll try to help by giving a response in general terms. Firstly, you've done the right thing by posting on the NPOV board, but unfortunately you've not had the response you wanted, and by now coming here and asking where you can find a more sympathetic ear, you are essentially forum shopping, which is frowned upon. It's also unlikely to work, as people who frequent the NPOV board are a fairly representative group of Wikipedians, and I'd be surprised if any other board would give you a markedly different response. You could try posting to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies in order to get some additional viewpoints, but I would suggest you only do so to point them to the discussion at the NPOV board, to keep everything in one place and avoid the appearance of Forum Shopping, and I don't necessarily think you'd get a different reaction from them. Wikipedia runs on consensus, and sometimes we might think that the consensus is 'wrong', but there it is. If you can't overturn the consensus by reasoned discussion, then sometimes you just need to take a step back and find a different battle to fight for a while. Hug^syrup 09:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

My edit was just undone, and told to start over. I’ll repost, please ignore this thread. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Help with getting experienced editors to vet possible content [retry]

[ reposted omitting swaying opinions material ]

Hi, I’ve not used the Teahouse until now but I’m puzzled as to what is appropriate in this situation:

In compiling a list of (deceased) LGBTQ pioneers (for National LGBTQ Wall of Honor), I found one, Harry Hay, that has, to me, highly problematic content.

I read every source I could find plus suggestions from the wp:NPOV board where I opened NAMBLA content on Harry Hay.

I feel like it’s too long so is stalling without constructive opinions on new proposed content.

Is there anywhere to get thoughtful editors who will read through at least the proposed content to see if it stands up to scrutiny? I’m puzzled how to keep the entire process from stalling out.

Or should I start over or do something else? Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

How to center an image in the infobox?

I have added an image to an infobox on a wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Al-Salem), but the image is not centered in the infobox and instead is shifted to the right. How can I center the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anya.alsalem (talk • contribs)

Hi. You included a thumbnail frame of the image. However this field of infobox only expects the name of an image (technically, you insert the name of a variable argument of a bigger block, you are not inserting an image into the page). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I made the edit, and was going to ask you to review what I did. The rest of the explanation I intended to share is already provided in TheDJ's answer above. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 12:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Where to report the misuse of rollback?

I've searched around for quite a while and don't know where to go for this. I would like to report what I consider to be a misuse of rollback. How do I proceed? VdSV9•♫ 04:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, VdSV9. Your first two steps are to discuss the matter with the editor who performed the rollback, and also on the talk page of the article in question. If that does not result in a satisfactory outcome, there are a variety of forms of dispute resolution available, depending on the specific circumstances. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Cullen328. As for the first two steps, I tried those, and was completely ignored. I made a change which I felt, and still feel like, was an improvement to a page a few days after suggesting it on the article's talk page, explained the reason for the change in my edit summary and got rolled back. I left a couple messages on the user's talk page, one right after I saw the rollback, the other one on the following day, after seeing they had made some edits but not responded. It has been about three weeks, now. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to go with WP:ANI? I don't really care about the content change so much, but I would like to report the misuse of rollback. VdSV9•♫ 10:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

VdSV9, if I'm not mistaken, Oshwah also seems to have some experience with their use of rollback; perhaps discuss it with him first (or at least one other editor who's also posted on that talkpage about the same issue)? Perhaps it can be resolved with Oswah's help alone (he is an experienced user and an admin as well). I can see that there are a fair few concerns raised on the talk page about rollback/reverts, that have gone unanswered. So, I don't think they'll fault you at ANI either. But you'll have to collect a lot of diffs to support the accusation that the problem of irresponsible rollbacking is both sustained and ongoing, that you've tried other things to resolve it, and are only there as a last resort. In any case, seeking a third opinion is the preferred middle step between a dispute between two editors and an ANI case, which brings me back again to Oswah, if he has the time. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 12:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to contact Oswah in a bit. Thanks for your help, folks! VdSV9•♫ 12:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Spiceheads

I am very new to this and struggling due to learning dificulties. I have beeen trying to get this approved for a few day and have kept changing it as requested. I have had help from somone yesterday, but I am stuck again with the new citations. Please can somone help me and connect the corectly, so that it may finally meet the standards required?

Many thanks Howard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor4567 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this page "Spiceheads, the Facebook page" is ever going to fly as a WP article. You'd need to show notability of the Facebook page and while that does happen for some big viral or campaign pages, I think it's unlikely here.

I don't think "Spiceheads" (the social problem) is going to work either. Now maybe it ought to (it is a real problem), but WP has its biases set against this. Sourcing via Facebook and The Sun will not be seen as acceptable (see WP:RS).

I think you might get this as a new section on the Spice page itself at synthetic cannabinoids. Something like §Social effects. It wouldn't need to show WP:Notability there as the whole page is already clearly notable. Such a section is desperately needed on that article and it needs a section on use in prisons too. You might even get Spiceheads in there as a sub-section, but you're going to need some sourcing, such as The Times or The Telegraph. Once that section grows to a decent size, you could then split it off. Social effects of Spice in the UK would be a very good topic for an article. The prisons and the stree spiceheads aspects would be two big, and sourceable, sections within that. Coverage purely of FB though? Still don't think that would happen.

It would, BTW, be easier to create much of this article as a section, then split it, rather than starting from nothing. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please also read what you were told at #Spiceheads ~~above~~. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Need to create Wikipedia page For Rupali Suri

Hi, Need to create Wikipedia page for, Rupali Suri. Can you let me know whether the citations for the given coverage is okay.

https://www.cinetalkers.com/rupali-suri/ http://www.stylingstars.com/bollywood-actress-rupali-suris-fashion/ https://www.theprevalentindia.com/bollywood-actress-rupali-suri-signs-ram-gopal-vermas-south-film-lakshmis-ntr/ http://womenpla.net/105-shoes-no-giving-up-actress-rupali-suri/ https://www.newsbugz.com/rupali-suri/ http://www.planetbollywood.com/displayArticle.php?id=s092716073549 http://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/hindi/2018/jun/04/rupali-suri-bags-role-in-inside-edge-2-1823520.html https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/bollywood-actress-rupali-suri-signs-ram-gopal-vermas-south-film-lakshmis-ntr-1942708 http://www.5dariyanews.com/news/267518-Working-with-Zeenat-Aman-a-dream-come-true-Rupali-Suri https://monvoyage.in/index.php/2016/09/21/cut-will-find-blood-pani-puri-says-foodie-rupali-suri/ https://eventaa.com/surirupali07-1449308476-3611 http://www.televisionsworld.com/exclusive-no-exercise-or-diet-are-expensive-actress-rupali-suri/ https://www.bollywooddhamaka.in/postname/rupali-suri https://www.ap7am.com/lv-301495-rupali-suri-signs-rgvs-film-lakshmis-ntr.html http://www.ritzmagazine.in/tag/rupali-suri/ https://www.dailyhawker.com/entertainment/rupali-suri-in-ram-gopal-vermas-lakshmis-ntr/ https://www.forevernews.in/rupali-suri-takes-up-kickboxing-lessons-for-inside-edge-2-119720 https://archive.siasat.com/news/rupali-suri-bags-role-inside-edge-2-1364434/

Hi Akshaysharma7583 and welcome back to the Teahouse. No-one can "need" to create and article "for" someone, but if the person satisfies the notability criteria (see WP:Notability), then you can create an article about them. I suggest you start writing the article in WP:Draft space or in your sandbox, where you can work on it without it being deleted. The article should summarise in your own words what the independent sources say. Do you have some connection with the subject? Dbfirs 14:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

How can I edit the page name?

I accidentally have a lowercase letter that needs to be uppercase, but in edit mode, it's greyed-out and won't let me edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdetroy (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sdetroy: Pages are renamed by moving them. You can request the move/rename at WP:RM. RudolfRed (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Making a subsection into its own article

So I’m trying to take a subsection of Camp Becket’s Wikipedia page and make it into its own page. The subsection is the girls camp which is connected to the boys camp (becket) but the two camps run independently. The girls camp should not be subsidiary to the boys one it should be it’s own entirely separate page. I was wondering if someone could help me accomplish this? Thank you so much.

Also, there is a further discussion of why there should be two separate pages on the talk section of Camp Becket’s page

--Jmansfield2021 (talk) 9:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jmansfield2021 take a good look at the guide for splitting an article. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

URL in citation contains malware now

Hello everyone,

I found an old citation in one article, where the url leads to a site, which contains malware. I did look this url up in the webarchive and there was a clean version (So the site had the wanted content once), which I added as archiveurl. But the contaminated link is still there as "archived from original (link)". For now, I left a note warning people from using this original. My questions are: 1. How should I handle this link in the actual case? 2. What should I do, if there is no safe archive or replacement available? Gehenna1510 (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gehenna1510.You deserve this cup of tea barnstar, not only for your fascinating question, but also for your innumerable contributions that have fixed bad references. So many, in fact, that I couldnt find the problematic article youre referring to. I shall be interested to see if anyone can point to formal guidance for such a situation. as I'm not aware of anything. My own approach would be just to use the archive url as the main url, leaving a clear edit summary as to why I'd done so. On this rare occasion I might even use CAPS to highlight that the original url has been omitted because of malware. Be aware that some legitimate websites occasionally get hacked and have malicious content inserted, but that within a few days it might get resolved. (You could even help them by contacting their websdmin address and informing them of your concerns over that particular url.) Does this help? Keep up the good work! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links - "If the web page now leads to a completely different website, set |dead-url=usurped to hide the original website link in the citation." -- Begoon 05:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: and @Begoon: Thank you for your answers, which solved the problem at hand. Sadly it would not work in the hypothetical second case though, as the |deadurl= Parameter needs an |archive-url=.

Anyway, thanks for the help again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gehenna1510 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Gehenna1510, in your hypothetical second case, as a last resort, the citation may have to be removed. From the same page I linked above:

"6. Remove hopelessly lost web-only sources: If the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the web page (be sure to wait ~24 months), and if you cannot find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed and the material it supports should be regarded as unverified if there is no other supporting citation. If it is material that is specifically required by policy to have an inline citation, then please consider tagging it with {{citation needed}}. It may be appropriate for you to move the citation to the talk page with an explanation, and notify the editor who added the now-dead link."

Obviously you'd want to try every possible avenue for saving the citation first though. In your case where the url is now actively harmful, I would personally take the additional step in the interim of immediately removing it as a link and replacing it, in the citation, with a text-only, unlinked description of the original source website/location, and a brief warning like "site now usurped by malware". -- Begoon 21:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Begoon It's most likely the only way. Anything which keeps the article in the maintenance categories may just end being fixed. Hopefully there are not too many of such cases around. Gehenna1510 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

EDITING OR CREATING NEW ARTICLE

On articles based on songs is putting in the lyrics of the song with the article not allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GodQ (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GodQ. No, please don't include lyrics as these will be copyright and you do not have the rights to make them publicly available (even if they are freely visible on innumerable other websites). No need to type subject headings in capital letters, either. It's seen as 'SHOUTING'. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You'll find some advice at WP:Lyrics and poetry. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GodQ. Please be aware that Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. A very large majority of song lyrics published since 1923 are covered by copyright. For very old songs, you can quote the lyrics extensively for an encylopedic purpose, but cutting and pasting lyrics into Wikipedia in an indiscriminate way is not good for the encylopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at the Featured Article about the 1965 Bob Dylan song Like a Rolling Stone. That article includes limited quotations in the context of critical commentary about the specific parts of the lyrics, and also includes a link to the complete lyrics on Dylan's official website, for anyone who wants to read them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Article review taking a longer period

Hi,

I had created an article in May 2019 and submitted the same during the period. The review is pending it for almost more than 10 weeks and I am not sure how to resubmit it or update the page so that it will get some reviewer attention. As the review is pending for almost 10 weeks, it has gotten into the 'AfC pending submissions by age/Very old' category where there are almost other articles currently present along with the article which I have submitted. I would like to how how can I get it approved or reviewed. Any sort of help in this regard would be highly appreciated.

Thanking you in Advance, RAHUL— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul R Wiki (talk • contribs) 01:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Raul R Wiki. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Rajesh Babu. Your draft has three references but none of them discuss Rajesh Babu. Your draft cannot possibly by approved in its current form. What is needed are references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to Rajesh Babu. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Reviewed and declined. David notMD (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft

Help getting a draft published onto main site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azz619 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Bao Tieu has no references, so it would be pointless to submit it for AFC review. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

How to delete sandbox/draft

I have created a page but it was not met the wikipedia policy. How to delete my sandbox and draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivarajan29 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

If it is in your own userspace, then simply paste {{Db-userreq}} at the top of the page. If it is in the draft space (i.e. the name is draft:something) then paste {{Db-author}} at the top of the page, and an administrator will delete the page for you. Hug^syrup 12:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You can also just blank your sandbox, if you think you might write something else there in the future. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion is better than blanking. If you just blank your sandbox any subsequent draft that you start there ends up with all the now irrelevant edit history of whatever was in the sandbox before. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Page was declined due to ARTSPAM

Hey! I've tried to rewrite Endel ( company) article, regarding submission comments about ARTSPAM, but I don't understand, how should I rewrite page, to make it more clear to user's view. Can I get some help from experts? Where exactly it seems, that there is my point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch3rn1k (talk • contribs)

Hi Ch3rn1k. Looking at the draft, there are probably three main issues you might need to address:

Firstly, what is your relationship with this company? If you have a conflict of interest, and in particular if you work for the company, are being paid by them, or work for an agency working for them, this is WP:PAID editing and you must comply with the guidelines. apologies, I see that you have made a declaration.
Secondly, regardless of how the article is written, there is a general concern about notability. Has the company been given substantial coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources? It looks as if Endel may have been, so there is a decent chance this requirement is filled.
Thirdly, once the above two requirements are dealt with, how is the article written? Is it factual, using only balanced, unbiased statements that are supported by the sources? This is where the current article seems to have issues, as in many places it uses the sort of flowery, promotional descriptions you might expect to see in an advert or press release, not an encyclopedia. E.g. "Endel focuses on the impact that sound has on one’s physiological and psychological well-being." and "Endel is a company and a that create technology with personalized sound environments to reduce stress, increase focus and improve sleep". Just look at the first line of Apple Inc.. Despite its success and all it has achieved, the description is very straightforward and matter-of-fact. That is the sort of language we would want to see here.

I hope this helps a bit. Hug^syrup 10:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Article transtlation of the LitRes company

Hello! Please, can you help me to understand what's wrong about article that we translated to English from Russian? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_LitRes_company Will apriciate any help!

Honestly I think the notices at the top of that page do a pretty good job of explaining the issue, and they also include several links to a lot of guidelines that will explain it further, in far more detail than you will get from us here. Have you read all of those pages? If so, and you still do not understand something about why the article was rejected, then feel free to come back with some more specific questions. Hug^syrup 10:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Question of how to get recognition by Wiki community

Dear everyone,

I am an intern (paid) and I am working on editing and creating some pages related to energy topic. My purpose is bringing the newest information on renewable energy to those pages so they can be updated. I have made my contribution to these pages:

1. List of power stations in Vietnam: In this page, I have made another list of power stations (U can see in the page): List of solar power plants in Vietnam, List of coal-fired power plants in Vietnam, List of gas power plants in Vietnam (in EN and VN version)

2. Energy in Vietnam and Renewable energy in Vietnam: I currently keep updating those pages.

My question is: I wanna get those pages recognized by the Wiki community so they can be good pages for reference, for reading, for researching... Whenever anyone wanna edit they should send a request so when it's accepted they can edit it.

How can I have those pages get recognized??

Thank you in advance --Tống Minh Quân (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: You should declare on your User page that you are doing paid editing and list all the articles. See WP:PAID. There is additional advice you will receive on your Talk page. As to your question, articles in Wikipedia are identified when people search Google or other search engines on topics. There is nothing additional to do to make there articles "recognized."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The articles that you create will never be under your control. Others will be able to add or delete or change the content whenever they wish. Requested edits can be made on the talk page of each article, but this process is required only for those who have a WP:Conflict of interest. Dbfirs 15:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The content (largely unsourced) you have added to Renewable energy in Vietnam is inappropriate in tone, Wikipedia articles need to be written in a dry neutral manner. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Theroadislong, David notMD , Dbfirs I think I have made some mistakes when explaining my problem. I'm not paid for editing, this is for volunteering. Sorry for making confusing. Also, what I mean "recognized" here is that I want those pages to be recognized as good articles (the green (or any color) plus on the right top ?? kinda, I don't know much about it). So what should I do besides writing in a dry neutral manner?? Beside, it seems like article with list is hard to be recognized as good article right? So how can I improve it? --Tống Minh Quân (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Tống Minh Quân, You can consult the Wikipedia:Content assessment page, assess for yourself which class your article might belong to, and decide what needs to be done to take it into the next class. You can consult the Wikipedia:Good article criteria to see if your article might be ready for the green plus. For a list, shoot for the Wikipedia:Featured lists status, by satisfying the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 04:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

From your initial post: "I am an intern (paid) and I am working on editing and creating some pages related to energy topic." Are you in any way working as an intern in the energy industry? If so, your posting on energy topics is at a minimum a conflict of interest WP:COI and even if not specifically asked to edit Wikipedia, probably a paid situation. You should create content on your User page explaining your status. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Protecting Wikipedia page

I have been working on a wikipedia page for a member of my family, and today I discovered that most of what I had written was deleted. I would like to protect the page from being edited by other people, and I would appreciate it if someone could let me know how I can do this. Here is a link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Al-Salem. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anya.alsalem (talk • contribs)

Hi Anya.alsalem. Firstly, as a general rule it is better not to create pages for members of your own family as you have a clear conflict of interest and this is frowned upon. However, if you do choose to do so, you must accept that you do not own the page, and anyone can edit it. If they feel that the content is not appropriate, and in particular if it is not backed up by plenty of reliable sources, people will remove content. They may also add content and improve the page, which is one of the great things about Wikipedia. If you want a page online about a member of your family that only you can edit, then you should start a blog or use social media. Hug^syrup 12:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Anya.alsalem and welcome to the Teahouse. Excess detail and unreferenced content have been removed by several editors for good reasons. You need to understand that every article here belongs to the Wikipedia community, so you will never be able to stop other editors from improving the article. Protection is given only in cases of extreme vandalism. If other editors improve the article and you do not agree with the improvement, then please discuss the changes on the talk page of the article. It seems that you have a WP:Conflict of interest. What is your connection with Caroldn? Dbfirs 13:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Removed a bit more unneeded content from Gabriel Al-Salem. Started a Talk page discussion. David notMD (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Query on article being published

Hi There

I sent in the draft for this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Keith_Bothongo over 2 months ago. I was told it should take 2 months no longer. Just checking what the delay is on approving this article please?

Thank you.

Falconfw (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC) @Falconfw

Hi Falconfw and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft is still waiting for review because there is a big backlog. Wikipedia cannot guarantee review within two months because there is a shortage of reviewers. While you are waiting, you might like to add references to some of the many unreferenced statements in the article. Dbfirs 13:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Dbfirs - Is it actually submitted for review though? I don't know a lot about how AFC works but it doesn't look as if the article has been submitted by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page? Hug^syrup 13:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I assumed that the message at the bottom meant that it was waiting review. Dbfirs 13:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You're probably right. Whenever I've seen pages going through the AFC process before they've had a notice at the top, but it's not really my area so I could be completely wrong. Hug^syrup 13:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This article was submitted for approval using the visual editor tool and that message came up when it was submitted. Falconfw (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC) @Falconfw

Re-submission of article

My first article in Wikipedia is rejected, citing the reason, 'not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia'. Can I make necessary edits and add more reliable sources and re-submit the same article for a review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stylus123 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stylus123. This page Draft:Insight_Consultants? Then the short answer is 'yes' - as it remains a draft, you can edit it and resubmit. If it is a different page that has been deleted, then you will need to approach the admin who deleted it and ask them if they would be willing to restore it to a draft for you to work on, which they may or may not be willing to do depending on whether they think it has potential. Hug^syrup 10:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

In principle, yes, Stylus123. But your first priority has to be finding the independent reliable sources necssary to establish that the company is notable. Remember that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything said by the company or its associates: it is only interested in what people wholly unconnected by the company have chosen to publish about it.

I note that Theroadislong did not decline the draft, but rejected it on the grounds of notability. This suggests to me that Theroadislong is pretty certain that the company does not meet the criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Notability of "Cat-A-Lac"

I would like to ask whether "Cat-A-Lac" would qualify as a notable topic for inclusion in Wikipedia? It is mentioned in a picture Thermal_radiation#/media/File:ThermalPaint.png but apparently not defined on Wikipedia. It's an old brand for a specific type of black paint, and articles/discussions around it can be found on the net with searches such a "cat-a-lac" and "463-3-8". Xkr47 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Xkr47. Its notabililty depends entirely on whether several people, wholly unconnected with the brand, have chosen to publish at some length about it in reliable sources (which don't have to be online). Are there any articles and discussions which are not 1) written or published by the manufacturers (including anything based on interviews or press releases from them); 2) anything in a non-edited site such as a blog, wiki, or forum; 3) anything that is a sales site; 4) anything that just mentions the brand in passing, or as one of a list of items? If there are some substantial articles remaining when you have eliminated all these, then the brand may well be notable, and an article about it - based entirely on those articles - is possible. --ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Article has wrong title

The article on Williard Mosher Wallace is titled William M. Wallace. There is no mention of him going by William in his obituary. His books as on GoodReads also have Williard Wallace. How does one go about changing the title of the article? Thanks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Where do you get "Williard" from? Isn't it "Willard", with only one i? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I've moved it to Williard M. Wallace (before seeing David Biddulph's response). I would normally check the correct spelling in the sources cited; but there aren't any. Maproom (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Is my subject notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia?

Hi, I submitted an article for inclusion in Wikipedia a few years ago now, which was rejected because the editors deemed the subject not noteworthy enough. Full disclaimer, the subject of the article was my own business, so there's a clear conflict of interest - however, my submission wasn't rejected because it was biased, it was due to my references not being substantial enough. I wondered if my subject has since garnered enough noteworthy and reliable referencing for it to be deemed noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia? Here is a sample of some recent references:

Interviews with me about my business - https://www.eca.ed.ac.uk/about/alumni/graduate-profiles/graduate-profile-niall-mccallum https://www.applied-acoustics.com/head-2-head/niall-mccallum/ https://www.music-jobs.com/uk/article/interview/interview-niall-mccallum-co-founder-of-modeaudio

Reviews of products my business has made - https://www.musictech.net/reviews/loops/mode-audio-rift/ [product received the MusicTech Mag 'Choice' Award] https://www.musictech.net/reviews/modeaudio-spray-review/ [product received the MusicTech Mag 'Innovation' Award] https://www.emusician.com/gear/review-modeaudio-disintegrate https://ask.audio/articles/review-modeaudio-dark-mass-ambient-drone-samples https://bedroomproducersblog.com/2016/01/31/modeaudio-string-theory-review/

Products my business has made for notable companies - https://www.native-instruments.com/en/products/komplete/expansions/opaline-drift/ https://www.ableton.com/en/packs/synthwave/ https://www.elektron.se/soundpacks/sprockets/

Sorry for the long post and looking forward to any and all feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouken (talk • contribs) 11:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Not the interviews and not the product descriptions (opaline-drift, synthwave, sprockets). David notMD (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so are just the reviews enough to merit notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouken (talk • contribs) 12:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion - iffy. I searched on the company name, finding not the necessary articles about the company, but only product reviews and product descriptions. David notMD (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the feedback - can you give me any examples of the "necessary articles" you mention please?

Hi, Rouken. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia is basically uninterested in what you or anybody else associated with it, say about the company, whether in your own publications, or in interviews or press releases. We need places where people wholly unconnected with the company have chosen to publish substantial material about it, and been published in reliable places. Reviews are often the right sort of thing, but they will generally be about the product not the company (so enough of them might establish that a product is notable, but that will not necessary do it for the company). --ColinFine (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for all the feedback, most helpful and much appreciated! Should I delete this post now or what is the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouken (talk • contribs) 14:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No, don't delete the thread. It will be archived in due course. And please remember to sign your messages on discussion pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Articale page

sir how i create my articale page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.8.101.86 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed users can only make pages directly. As an IP, you can make an article using the Article wizard, then submit it to WP:AFC. Read Wikipedia:Your first article to avoid common mistakes. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 16:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Teddy Bear Dogs

Hi,

I noticed you don't have a page on teddy bear dogs.

I am a enthausiast and wanted to know if I could contribute a page?

Thanks Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon J Trainer (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure that anyone else has thought of creating an article on that topic. You need to find WP:Reliable sources that discuss the topic, and the Wikipedia article should be a summary in your own words of what these sources say. You might like to read WP:Your first article and WP:Referencing for beginners, and WP:Articles for creation before you start. Dbfirs 13:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The article already exists on Wikipedia. However, the name "teddy bear dog", being unofficial, does not appear in the article.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft Review

Hello, can you please review my draft on Kingsteps. Thanks. ThePacificMan (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

ThePacificMan, I have submitted the draft for review, in your name. Someone who's dedicated to reviewing drafts will get to reviewing it, in time. As I'm sure you'll understand, we can't give preferential treatment to users who make the request here. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ThePacificMan (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Citing to website requiring a subscription

Hi! I recently gained access to Proquest which has a lot of journals and newspaper and magazine articles archived. Because it requires a subscription, what is the best way to illustrate this when citing such material? I've come across two options:

Add {{subscription required}} immediately after the citation template
Use |url-access=subscription in {{cite web}}, for "subscription normally required"

Is one of these methods preferred over the other, or should both be used? I wanted to check before changing dozens/hundreds of citations. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Reidgreg I use the second one because it only shows as a small lock. The template of the first one says it will show as (subscription required) which I find both more informative and more obtrusive. It's down to personal preference, I think. Just be consistent over the whole article. More information at Template:Subscription required. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Edits published unintentionally

Using a Talk page to propose edits, I somehow published the edits (I pressed Show Changes and not Publish Changes).

I had intended to only publish changes if there is consensus (or no objection) from Wikipedian reviewers. I wanted to be respectful and follow guidelines and policies.

What now? Can we revert to the previous version and retain all changes on the Talk page? If not, I could propose them again (I made a copy.)

Background: The proposed changes were made to the entry on "Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems."

I'm inexperienced with Wikipedia and will appreciate your help and recommendations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleve51 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bleve51. There is no Wikipedia article called "Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems." Would you please tell us which article you edited?--Quisqualis (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There is Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems. I just don't see anything in the contribution history remotely resembling what's been descibed. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither the article nor its Talk page has been edited recently.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Creating Page after Deletion

What is the best process for creating page after deletion? I have read everything on why the original page was deleted, and will be posting a new page without making the same mistakes. Thank you! User:E.kashgary

@E.kashgary: Follow the steps at WP:YFA. There is a wizard there to help you create a draft, which you can then submit for review when ready. RudolfRed (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What Now?

Using a Talk page to propose edits, I somehow published the edits (I pressed Show Changes and not Publish Changes).

I had intended to allow 10 days or so before publishing the changes if there is consensus (or no objection) from Wikipedian reviewers. I wanted to be respectful and follow guidelines and policies.

What should I do now?

Background: The proposed changes were made to the entry on "Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems."

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.72.86.106 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

See answer above. Please provide a link to the article. RudolfRed (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Needed a link.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I was wrong; apologies. My Talk page changes were not accidentally published. Here they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Consumer_Assessment_of_Healthcare_Providers_and_Systems&action=submit

Original article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Assessment_of_Healthcare_Providers_and_Systems

Sorry about the mistaken information. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleve51 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Musical year

Can anyone help fill in Highest-grossing musical films by year chartFanoflionking 15:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The Teahouse exists to discuss the process of editing Wikipedia. You might want to leave messages on the Talk pages of other editors who appear to have expertise in the subject covered by your article in progress.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fanoflionking: Try asking at one of the project pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre. The article is part of both projects, so you should be able to find editors there that can help you. RudolfRed (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

How to create an edit tag

Hi community, we would like to apply to create a new manuel tag for Special:Tags. But I seen to not found related place to make the application. Can anyone point me to the right venue to submit the application?

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T226459

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#WikiLoop_and_WikiLoop_Battlefield

Xinbenlv(t) ^{please notify me with {{ping}}} 21:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

questions - lost and confussed

I have 2 common stock papers for Worldwide oil and gas company. How can I find out they are good - and if there is worth doing something with. Patricia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.97.58 (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is not a general question asking board. This is the Teahouse, a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia. We cannot give you financial or legal advice. You may wish to consult with a financial professional or attorney. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Declined article.

hey, I submitted and article for review and it got declined because it didn't seem to be written in an encyclopedic format. Can someone help me with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingwonder (talk • contribs) 00:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Vikingwonder, the message that said that your article was declined has the important words in blue. Click on those blue words and read the pages that open carefully. There is a lot of helpful information there. For example, the page that opens when you click the word "peacock" on the message even gives you examples of words that should be avoided. After you've read all those pages, perhaps you'll have more specific questions to ask, so we can give more specific answers. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Usually, when I see "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article", the article is written in marketing-speak, but that is not the case with your draft, Draft:Shoplifter / Hrafnhildur Arnardóttir. There is no "peacock" wording, nor any promotion. I'm not at all sure what the editor who declined it meant.

At the bottom of the pink box appearing on your draft page, there is a heading, "Editor resources". Under the heading is "Declined by Lapablo -- hours ago. Last edited by Lapablo -- hours ago. Reviewer: Inform author." You can click on "Inform author" to leave a message for that editor, asking for clarification.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm! Interesting! One thing I noticed is the word "Shoplifter" could probably be replaced with the relevant pronoun in some places. Liberal repetition of subject's name is considered a hallmark of advertising language by some editors. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 20:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)