Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 677

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

Archive 670

←

Archive 675

Issues with Submitting Wiki on fictional novel

We have tried multiple times to submit an article referencing a book our publishing company is about to shelf. We have researched other articles posted on books that are present on Wikipedia but ours is constantly getting rejected. Can someone please explain to me how you are suppose to go about posting information about your book?

Thanks Ki55m011y (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

In short, you are not. Additionally, if you are being paid to edit, you must disclose that. Finally, you should really read our policy on conflicts of interest before you continue any further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If there are best examples of how to get this out there please show links. I just need to get this posted because the reasons for rejection haven't been helpful or informative.

Ki55m011y (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ki55m011y: Read the note on your talk page regarding the lack of reliable sources cited in your draft article. Read WP:REFB for help on this. Wikipedia is not for promoting your book, and you should also read the guidance regarding Conflict of Interest. RudolfRed (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Also how is there any conflict of interest? That makes no sense at all...its a wiki page about a book. There aren't two sides to the argument. Its straight info pulled from the book. I, however, will disclose my status on writing the article but claiming there's a "conflict of interest" on a fictional novel makes no sense.

Ki55m011y (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Ki55m011y I'm afraid that, like many others, you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent sources say about a subject. You would need to provide detailed references showing the subject has received significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You have a conflict of interest because you are working for the publisher. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is not something that requires "two sides", but if framing it that way helps you understand it, consider it this way: You say the book is notable enough that we should have an article on it. I say it's not notable enough. Now that there's two sides, which side is more likely to be using unbiased, objective reasoning? The guy who has never heard of your book, or the person who works for the company that makes money off that book? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Or think of it this way - AFTER it has been reviewed by the New York Review of Books, the New York Times book review, optioned for a movie, short-listed for Booker and Pulitzer, and after all this, remaindered, then and only then will the book have become notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I am new

Help me create a new article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee R. Johnson (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:YFA is the place to start. However, creating an article is not an easy thing to do. I recommend starting by improving existing articles instead. RudolfRed (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lee R. Johnson: If you leave me a note on my talk page, User talk:Deor, explaining what you want to do and what sort of help you want, I'll try to help you. If I think that your proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia, however, I'll say so. Deor (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

When do new editors get access?

I am teaching a class on Women in Music and have 50 students who are upgrading articles on popular women in music under my supervision. A few student who have registered as editors have told me that they were able to edit (e.g., could see the "Edit" prompt) on the first day, but not since then. Will the editing privileges be available a few days after they first register? Thanks!! Dr. Belle Sunnr (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Belle Sunnr: New editors may edit articles immediately, except for a few articles that are under protection. Which articles are your students unable to edit? RudolfRed (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Belle Sunnr, can you please tell us why your class assignment is not registered with WP:Education program? You would have avoided many problems if you had. My suggestion is to re-evaluate your decision on this and postpone it until you are better prepared. John from Idegon (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry Dr. Belle Sunnr, this may sound harsh. You may be wonderfully competent teacher in general, you may write wonderfully and so forth, but based on your edits, you are incompetent to shepherd a class in editing Wikipedia, since the bulk of edits you are making now have been, or need to be reverted and are not helpful. References sections are for listing sources that have actually been used to verify information in articles. They are not places to simply list sources that are about the topic, nor do we combined references and bibliographies under one heading like that, nor do we have bibliography sections at all in the manner you are adding them. I suggest becoming much more familiar with Wikipedia before embarking on such a project.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What does violate NPOV mean?

I edited a page, all edits were reverted with this comment: (Undid revision) this edit appeared to violate NPOV by and is too reliant on primary sources) . What does this mean? Thank youGiraffe46 (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Giraffe46. "NPOV" is a reference to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a core Wikipedia policy. For "primary sources", see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. In general, an encyclopedia summarizes what reliable, secondary sources have written about the topic, in synthesizing primary sources, and giving due weight to the prominence of each viewpoint in those published, reliable sources (as opposed to synthesizing primary sources ourselves). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

HI Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you, this is very helpful. Take careGiraffe46 (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

dyslexia in action: just uploaded a file and misspelled the title!

Just uploaded an article "Frederika Foster." It should be "Fredericka Foster." Ck not just k. I can't change it, could an editor? Yikes. (Any suggestions you may have would be appreciated too.) Thank you.Ogmany (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ogmany, welcome to the Teahouse. You are an editor and your account is able to move pages. See Help:How to move a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I never realized I was an editor. Get overwhelmed by Wiki instructions quite frankly. On that note an editor did take the page down, which I appreciate, however they said it was an advertisement for that person. I try to write about local artists I admire who aren't that well known or who's contributions may not be noticed. Guess I have to review guidelines.Ogmany (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a sound plan, Ogmany! Please try to remember this: On Wikipedia, we do not write about a given subject. Instead, we write about what is written about a given subject in reliable sources. If you always remember that, you shouldn't have any more trouble with creating articles that end up getting deleted. John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency around 'notability'

I have read several biographies on wikipedia, and am happy to name them, where the individuals are clearly not 'notable' according to Wikipedia's own standards. In one instance, the article is merely there as a personal favour from a Wikipedia editor, and is covered by only 1 small local newspaper (and he demonstrates this on youtube i.e. public domain). Another example is a biography of an individual with zero external references.

I believe the biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yizhong_Chan is notable, particularly to the Australian community given that a) the company was one of Australia's largest ethical fund managers b) the number of investors the company had i.e. reach, is substantial and c) this is confirmed by a legitimate news source Bloomberg.

Could you please share your opinion? Could you please also explain the inconsistencies on Wikipedia? I understand some wikipedia editors request money to approve biographies that are not notable.

2ksupport (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:BASIC. Also, no-one should be requesting money to accept biographies.-KH-1 (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

If other articles aren't up to standard for notability, either help bring them up to standard, list them where others can help to bring them up to standard or nominate them for deletion (Only if you can't find information to bring them up to standard for notability). No one should be taking money to do pages and it is frown upon for users to do so. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 04:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 2ksupport. Since we have five and a half million freely edited articles, it is unrealistic to expect that all will comply with our policies and guidelines. We work continuously to either improve or delete poor quality articles. Although paid editing is not against policy, it is strictly regulated and scrutinized closely. Any editor who asks for money to approve a biography of a non-notable person should be blocked or banned. Among the attributes of a good Wikipedia editor are boldness and transparency. I encourage you to name the articles where you have evidence of misconduct. Otherwise, it is just a rumor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

My article edit was undone by another user

I edited the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracie_family. I added two family members from the first generation that I knew existed. They do not have wikipedia articles, so I added red links. I also included two citations, one for each of the new family members.

Someone removed my addition. They gave as a reason "Bad refs, no article". This is the first wikipedia edit I have ever made, so I am not sure exactly what I should do or where I went wrong. I do not think the references are bad, but maybe they don't meet wikipedia's reference criteria? Also, I thought that adding red links was generally a good thing, since it encourages the expansion of the document.

Thanks for the help. Solid365 (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Solid365: the list at Gracie family is headed "Notable members of the Brazilian Gracie family ...". In this context, "notable" means "having a Wikipedia article about them". Therefore the two names you added do not qualify. It is not meant to be a list of all members of the Gracie family, just of those members with Wikipedia articles. Maproom (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, there doesn't necessarily need to be an article, Maproom and Solid365. If the a person meets our notability criteria (see Wikipedia:Notability (people)) but does not yet have an article about them, then they can be listed. References would be needed to demonstrate that notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Am I being trolled?

A user has left a comment on my draft article, [Human information interaction]:

"Comment: What we need and what is an instant qualifier is relevant sourcing showing there's been sufficient coverage about it in any published content. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)"

My short article has already referenced two academic textbooks and a highly respected academic journal. What more legitimate sourcing could one hope for? The user, SwisterTwister, has contributed to frivolous articles such as 'Waacking' about an alleged LGBT dance move from the seventies! If it even exists, it hardly seems notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. In comparison, my article topic is a serious academic subject and I get the impression that this user is pranking/trolling me. Please help. Leo Cullen-Loerch (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Leo Cullen-Loerch: Hello and welcome. SwisterTwister is a longtime, experienced user, so I highly doubt you are being "trolled". Note that one person's "frivolous" subject is another person's very important subject. Wikipedia covers pretty much any and all subjects that are shown to be notable in independent reliable sources. For a more specific answer, I would suggest asking SwisterTwister directly what their concerns are, but looking at your draft, you seem to have sources describing what the concept of Human information interaction is, but not how it is notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. "Emerging field" is a tipoff that it is likely too soon for an article about this field; in order to have an article here, it must already be notable or "emerged". 331dot (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't usually require sources to explain why a subject is notable, do we, 331dot? Rather, significant coverage in sources demonstrates that notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I apologize for my poor wording. Thanks 331dot (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Leo Cullen-Loerch: To get to the heart of the matter: What is being asked for here is a source which is independent of HII, talking about HII as a whole. Emerging fields in science often quickly get such coverage when they have great promise and appeal to a broad audience, but lack such coverage when they don't seem likely to produce new paradigms or are of interest only to a niche group. So look for things like articles in Discover magazine, or Popular Science, both of whom have broad readership and work in the role of science popularization. Alternatively, an more serious letter published in a peer-reviewed journal, discussing HII as a whole would do quite well. Basically, you're being asked to prove that this field is notable by our defined standards. No-one is questioning the accuracy of the sources you used; instead, SisterTwister is asking you for sources that show that this subject is well-documented enough to deserve an article. Even if it's not, it may still be possible to add information about HII to a different article, so long as the sourcing is good.

Also one bit of advice: Assuming good faith is a policy here. In the future, if someone leaves you a message, even if it seems ridiculous, you are expected to assume they are acting in good faith, and not accuse them of trolling you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Review of my article not in line with other similar articles

Hi there, I'm writing an article called Win the Future about a new political organization. It's been rejected three times now for three totally different reasons.

The first two seemed valid, but the third one did not. I was told that aims, goals, ethos, objectives are not valid things to write about in the article. But every single political organization on wikipedia writes extensively about these things -- and they seem crucial in the context of politics. What can you say about a political organization with talking about their aims or their mission or their goals.

Examples:

Our Revolution Stand Up America The Tea Party

Is there a way to challenge a review?

Thanks. Jdog 99 (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jdog 99, challenging the review by GreenMeansGo won't change the fact that the article doesn't meet the requirements for Wikipedia in that this political organization Draft:Win the Future maybe WP:TOOSOON to have its own article. Also please read WP:WHATABOUTX, just because other pages have it or are on Wikipedia isn't an argument for a new article to have the same. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 04:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Something to understand, Jdog 99, is that Wikipedia is not interested - not even a little bit - in what any subject (person, company, organisation, band ... ) says about themselves. It is only' interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them. Those organisations you refer to have not written about themselves on Wikipedia (or if they have, they shouldn't have): the articles should be based exclusively on what people unconnected with them have published about them. If your organisation is new, it is likely that there has not been sufficient material published about it to ground an article - see the "TOOSOON" link in the previous reply. But even when there is enough material that the subject becomes notable, it should not be anybody connected with it that writes an article about it: see WP:COI. --ColinFine (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for these responses.

Notability and "too soon" aren't issues with the editor -- as this organization has been covered extensively by NYT, Vox, Vanity Fair, Forbes, Fast Company, Huffpo, and more.

The latest feedback says that the article should not discuss mission, aims, objectives, ethos, etc. But it seems impossible to do that in a way that results in an informative article and I have no idea how to rewrite it to meet this objective.

Can someone point me at something that says that an organization's mission, aims, objectives etc. are not valid content for an article, or comment on this specific issue?

Thanks,

Jeremy

Jdog 99 (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jdog 99. What you're looking for is something along the lines of Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements. The issue is that mission statements, values and goals are nice for filling up space, but they're often ultimately meaningless platitudes that don't add any actual information for readers, since any company can pretty much claim anything as their mission. So for example, we wouldn't care terribly much about something like Company X aims to feed many poor people.^{[company website]}, but we would care very much about something like Company X has distributed food to 1.5 million people over the course of three years.^{[The New York Times]} The former is just words, but the latter adds actual information coming from an independent published source. Hopefully this clarifies some. GMG ^talk 10:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks -- I'll do my best. Trying to accurately describe what the organization does without citing their website, or their objectives as described by the media is very difficult. Jdog 99 (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Jdog 99, as other have suggested above, this is often an indication that the subject may not yet meet our standards for notability. Being such a new organisation, it would not be surprising if they do not have very much in-depth coverage about what they've actually done, because they've not had very much time to do things, or for people to take notice of what they have accomplished so far. Wikipedia tends to be a lagging indicator of notability, and generally does not cover topics until well after they have become "existentially notable", and those who write about related topics have themselves had time to take notice, and cover the topic in-depth over a sustained period of time. GMG ^talk 14:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

But what I'm telling you, again, is that this organization has been covered in detail by leading publications. These include the NYT, Vox, Vanity Fair, Forbes, Fast Company, HuffPo, and many more. I've cited many of these in the article, and can cite more if necessary.

The organization's launch itself was notable, even controversial, and elicited significant in-depth media coverage from the third-party sources above including commentary from other political organizations.

I've read the notability requirements, and nothing that is in there indicates that this organization's launch and activities are non-notable. It seems highly notable, actually.

WITH ALL OF THAT SAID -- the editorial feedback you provided, and the question I wrote here, is not about notability. It was about encyclopedic tone -- you said that I could not talk about the organization's purpose and objectives.

What I'm looking for is specific feedback on how to correct the article to match the feedback you provided. I'm hoping for more specific feedback.

Thanks,

Jeremy

Jdog 99 (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jdog 99. Being rejected for different successive reasons is often a sign that a draft has issues with all of those areas simultaneously, since the reviewing software does not allow a reviewer to decline for multiple reasons at the same time, other than in additional comments. As a general rule, Wikipedia articles should be written like a "neutral editorial robot", who fundamentally doesn't understand colorful language, or... human emotion generally, and just gives the cold hard facts in the most boring matter-of-fact way possible. If you would like examples of stellar articles on business, you should probably review our featured articles. Of about 5,000 features articles, six of them are on companies: BAE Systems, Cracker Barrel, London Necropolis Company, Odwalla, Oliver Typewriter Company, and Panavision. These are the gold standard. They are heavy on facts, light on commentary, and are written in a tone that is indifferent to the company itself. GMG ^talk 15:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks, this helps a lot -- especially examples. I'll take another crack. Jdog 99 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

hey! can someone help me with my article, I am new to wikipedia

Can someone help me fix up this article, thank you so much

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Notorious_CHRIS )

Jesspeulen (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jesspeulen. What you need to remember is that Wikipedia is not interested, not even a little bit, in what Chris says about himself (whether on his own site, or in an interview) or what his friends or associates say. It is not even interested in what he has done or issued, except as reported by independent third parties. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with him have chosen to publish in reliable sources. The only one of the references currently in your draft that even might meet this criterion is the Daily Mercury - but I don't think it does, because after the first few lines it is quoting him, so it has ben written from an interview or press release. You need to find some truly independent sources which have been written about him - and given how new his work is, it is quite possible that such sources do not yet exist, and the article cannot at present be published in any form: see WP:TOOSOON. If they do exist, you will then need to forget everything you know about him, and write an article paraphrasing what the indpendent sources say only. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Internal Citations

Hello,

I have my references added to my article, and now I am going back to internally cite. I have been using this, <ref>freetext</ref>, but it just creates a new reference. How can I internally cite using the references I already have?

Thanks Lolaredpr (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lolaredpr: As shown in Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Same_reference_used_more_than_once you can give the ref a name like <ref name="Example">Example</ref> or you can use {{r|example}} as another way of doing it but you still need to give the reference a name. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is some text been highlighted and seperated from the original format submitted - specifically in the "solo shows"

Roland Petersen Wikipedia page - Why is some text been highlighted and separated from the original format submitted - specifically in the "solo show" section?

Thank you for your help and input, Cevenson (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cevenson, that happens when a new line of text starts with a space, so just remove the spaces. Another problem is that we never write in ALL CAPS, not even in section headings. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

seek review of article revision

I am significantly revising and expanding an article, want some feedback. Where should I post it? GeeBee60 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

WE WILL FIND YOU. On a more helpful level, as you make changes, provide comments explaining the changes. Also a good idea to start a new section in Talk of that article, explaining intent, and asking people to discuss in Talk before reverting your changes. David notMD (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Smith Optics

Hi I have been having trouble publishing an article (Smith Optics) due to notability not being adequately shown. Could you help as I have cited my sources and most of the info comes directly from the website of the subject I have written about? I was referred here by Drewmutt. SMITHGuyTy (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SMITHGuyTy. Basically, that is exactly your problem. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what any subject (whether a company or anything else) says about themselves. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it - which is why the definition of notability involves independent sources. It may be acceptable to source a small amount of uncontroversial factual information from the company's own website, but most of the article must come from people unconnected with it (and that excludes anything based on interviews or press releases). If such material is not available (I haven't looked) then the company is by definition not currently notable, and no article will be accepted however it is written.

On another subject, your username may be read as suggesting that you are connected with the company. If that is the case, it is important that you read the advice for editors with as conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine thanks for the breakdown. I was instructed by another that I need to add the mandatory disclosure for commissioned articles. Another administrator helped me input those disclosures. I cited independent sources for notability. Thanks again for your insight on this. SMITHGuyTy (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Can get no answer for this question. Please Help.

When I went to the editing basics tutorial, I put in my signature at the end of the statement. However, it did not put in my username. Instead, it put in my real name. Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong?Penny Castillo 17:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@MsLane9: It seems you may have given your real name as your signature. What you should do is, at the top right of your screen, click on the link "Preferences", the scroll down to the section "Signature". Take the check out of the box that says "Treat the above as wiki markup." if there is a check in the box, and then erase whatever is in the text box and type in your username. Then, at the bottom left of the page, click the "Save" button. Alternatively, you can leave the check in (or add it in if it's not there) and replace the contents of the text box with [[User:MsLane9|MsLane9]]([[User talk:MsLane9|talk]]), and then click the save button. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That was driving me crazy. MsLane9 18:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to cause you more bother, MsLane9, but to comply with WP:SIGLINK, your signature must link to at least one of your user page, user talk page or contributions page. If you follow MPants's instructions above in full, it should include links to your user page and user talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this correct?MsLane9(talk) 18:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That's better. Thanks, MsLane9. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

One additional point, MsLane9; you may wish to add   at the very beginning of your signature to force a blank space between it and your comment, as people such as myself are often driven into a mindless rage when we see signatures immediately following the final character of a sentence. (I'm joking, of course) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: That is very, very evil, although it does not invoke quite the level of mewling-in-the-corner, fetal-position-despair that misuse of "wiki" rightfully causes in so many otherwise brave Wikipedia drones.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

<curls into the fetal position and mewls in despair at the mere mention of the word "wiki"> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that also. MsLane9(talk) 01:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I finally got it!! MsLane9(talk) 01:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Someone keeps undoing my edits! What should I do?

What that says above. Jtarvin (talk) (🖋) 19:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Please be a bit more specific. Which edits are you talking about? A first step would be to ask the editor on their talk page...... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I had a look at your recent contributions, Jtarvin, and I saw two problems. First, you removed other users' comments from Talk:Female Autobots, which it is almost never appropriate to do (and best handled by an administrator when deleting a talk page comment is appropriate). Second, you added content to Female Autobots which was in one instance not sourced at all and in the other instance referenced to a YouTube video. YT videos are virtually never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia, largely because so many such videos constitute copyright infringement. It's also an issue that you used the word "stolen" when the accidentally-matching names were almost certainly only coincidentally the same; that kind of phrasing violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

In general, to find out who has undone your edits, click the History tab at the top of the article in question. You can then see which user or users undid your edit(s), and ping the user(s) on the article talk page so that they're informed you want a dialogue about the edits in question. To ping another user, use the format {{U|Jtarvin}} — just replace your own username with the name of the user you want to ping. I hope this answers your question; either way, feel free to return to the Teahouse with any future questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 12:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Why was Wikipedia down for the last hour?

Hi! I noticed that, between approximately 17:50 and 18:50 UTC, I found Wikipedia to be unusable, as did various others. Although I am once again able to use Wikipedia, I am curious as to why Wikipedia was down for an hour there. If anyone can let me know why this occurred, that would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 19:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It may have been a problem with the CDN (I think WP uses a CDN), or it may have been unrelated to WP, as I've been making some rather minor edits all day with no noticable downtime. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I had nine edits in that time frame, and don;t recall any problems.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure

When i do the wikipedia adventure, and click the edit button to edit, after i am done editing, and save it, i have to manually go to the next mission. Is this normal? Ilovemathtothe6power (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Help with issue on notability

Hello. I submitted an article for review in WP:AfC. Draft:Alec_Oxenford There are a mix of reliable sources primarily or substantially about the subject, and sources where the subject of the article is of secondary importance. The reviewing editor declined the submission because he said the sources were based on "announcements and notices." This is just not the case, although the confusion is understandable because only 6 of 16 sources fall into the bucket of conferring notability. I have written a comment on Draft:Alec_Oxenford that separates out these six sources. I wonder if other editors would take a look and weigh in so a consensus can be achieved. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your comments at the top of Draft:Alec Oxenford seem to say that the references numbered 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 attest notability. 1, 2 and 4 are all based on interviews with the subject, and so do not qualify as they are not independent – Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject has said about himself, only in what others have said about him. I think 3 is also based on an interview, but I know very little Spanish, so I can't be sure. 5 and 6 are lists of "most successful entrepreneurs", each with a paragraph about him – these may help. 7 has just one sentence about him, not the "in-depth discussion" that would help establish notability. Maproom (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Could some other editors please weight in? Source #1, the interview in Artsy, is a full length profile of the subject. He in interviewed as part of the profile, but it is not a Q&A; #2, the story in Fortune Magazine, is a major feature article about both the subject and his company. Again, he is interviewed, but that will always be the case in a profile; #3, which, if you don't read Spanish, you can read on Chrome using its translate feature, is from one of the best known newspapers in South America. It's about 600 word profile, followed by a Q&A; #4 has about a 300 word profile followed by a Q&A; #5 and #6 are as you describe them. Please note that all of these sources state that he is one of the best known entrepreneurs in South America.I don't have a 7th source listed in the comment, so I'm not sure which you are referring to there. There are also 10 other sources cited in which the subject is part of the article but of secondary importance. I could include many others, which you can confirm with a Google search. Taken together, they also contribute toward conferring notability: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." WP:BIO. BC1278 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)BC1278

I've expanded the article from 16 sources to 43 sources, and I could keep going and make it a couple hundred or more sources. The subject has had a two decade career, co-founding and serving as CEO of the largest classified advertising business in the world. He's one of the best known entrepreneurs in the world, and among the top five in South America. All sourced in the article. I perhaps did not do a good enough job documenting this in previous drafts.BC1278 (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)BC1278

Talk tab won't lead to discussion

I am trying to open a discussion or join a discussion for the article "Sunshine pop". The tab is colored blue. When I click on the tab, it brings me to my own personal discussion page, not to any page specific to the article. I want to lay my complaints about the article before the entire community of its readers, but I can't figure out how to access the discussion. 24.136.149.31 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC) 24.136.149.31 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question has been answered at the Help Desk. Please don't post a question in more than one place. The talk page you are looking for is here: Talk:Sunshine_pop RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

How to delete a page?

Can anyone tell me how to delete a Wikipedia page which I’ve created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahir M (talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

For an article to which you have been the only substantial contributor, it can be deleted under the speedy deletion criterion G7, but this is not applicable once other editors have contributed to the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

SPA/SPI issue

The pages Alberto Broggi & VisLab have clearly been created by a close contributor, however when examining the edit history it appears the article have been built especially to look correct but are not.

Alberto Broggi has a long reference list, but all the sources are offline primary sources published by the subject, or sources that do not backup any information in the article.

Both articles have been edited by several accounts who only edited these articles, and a set of IP's, it is failry obvious this is the same person creating an edit history artificially.

please check this out. Dysklyver 22:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised that a self-proclaimed "Constable of the WikiPolice" would ask others to undertake this (and do so in the Teahouse) rather than proceeding with their own investigation or referring it to an appropriate Admin noticeboard :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.210.199 (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Lol. Fair point though. I will post this on ANI. Dysklyver 09:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

TITLE OF PAGE IS INCORRECTLY TITLED - CAN I CHANGE IT, & HOW?

Hi, I'm contributing to a page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variations_on_a_Theme_(play), and I've just realised the title of the play is actually Variation on a Theme, not Variations on a Theme. Is it possible to alter the title of the existing page, and how would I go about it?

Thanks, Beryl reid fan (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Beryl reid fan. Titles are changed by moving the page. See Help:How to move a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter Beryl reid fan (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Colour boxes

Can anyone explain me how to make colour boxes like this: Dhaka Dynamites ?

Greetings, Mahir M, and welcome to the Teahouse. The template you linked merely selects a previously uploaded SVG file, in this case File:ঢাকা ডায়নামাইটসের রং.svg (

). There are several applications and online services that can create SVG files. A tool like Photoshop could easily change the colors of the box that you have linked, and then you could upload the new file for a different team. I hope this helps!
Also, it is much appreciated if you sign your contributions to the Teahouse, talk pages, or other discussions by using four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post, like this: CThomas³ (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mahir M, you can find the template of flags for all teams in the Bangladesh Premier League at Template:Cr-BPL. Don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Mark the train^Discuss 17:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Since I don’t have a photoshopping tool/app due to me editing on my iPad, it would be great in you make one for Sylhet Sixers, a Hew team in BPL. You can find the colour scheme in their official logo (~~~~). Mahir M^talk 7:05 2, Oct 2017 (BST/GMT +06:00)

No help offered by the Italian Wikipedia...

Hi everyone who's got a moment free to help me. I am a bit frustrated today. For days I try to contact someone on the Italian Wikipedia to ask for help. I would like to add an article I have written to the Italian Wikipedia. My Italian is not good enough to translate my own article. I wanted to ask if someone there could translate the article. So far I asked three sources. The ones who welcomed me - no answer! On the help page - no answer! and today on the page of someone who says she can translate three languages. I am so surprised that no one over there seems to care about my request. When I write something here in the Teahouse or on the German Wikipedia, not even an hour goes by and I get help. What do you suggest I have to do? Best Laramie1960 (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Two of the editors at Category:Translators en-it appear still to be active here, so it may be worth asking one or other of them. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi David. Thanks a lot for your help. I will do as you suggest and try my luck over there. Have a nice day Laramie1960 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

HOW TO EDIT TEMPLATE AT FOOT OF PAGE

Hi, I've just moved a page to a new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variation_on_a_Theme_(play), to correct its title ("Variations on a Theme" to "Variation on a Theme"), but I can't seem to alter the title of the play in the template "Works by Terence Rattigan," at the bottom of the page. I have been into it and edited it, but my changes don't seem to have registered, and aren't visible on the page. Any help appreciated. Thank you.

Beryl reid fan (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You've taken care of things with this edit ~. Good job :-) One request though - please do not use all caps when typing a section header. It is seen by some (most?) as shouting and is not needed. Best regards. BTW I think Beryl Reid was a joy. MarnetteD|Talk 15:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't she just! Thanks MarnetteD, I'll remember that. Beryl reid fan (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Beryl reid fan: You made the right edit before posting here so I guess you posted because you didn't see the result on the article. I have now purged Variation on a Theme (play) to render it with the updated template. The former link in the template is now black text to indicate a selflink. All pages using the template will eventually be updated automatically but it sometimes takes a long time. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, :@PrimeHunter: that's great. Beryl reid fan (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Creating test templates

Is it ok to create a test template by creating a user page with a name other than sandbox2,3,4 etc. Can I make a page such as user:myname/mytemplate ? Edaham (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Edaham, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, it's okay. As long as its in your userspace, and you use it for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, there is no problem. Entitling it "sandbox" is entirely optional. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks very much. If I may ask further, would naming the page user:username/template:something have any effect? Edaham (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Edaham: It wouldn't have any effect related to special features for the template namespace. It would just be an oddly named userspace page which could be transcluded using the full name like other pages: {{user:username/template:something}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

many thanks Edaham (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding Photos

I have a question about how to add photos from books. Because I tried and then it wanted me to defend it and why I couldn't use a free resource. The book was published in 2001. ELL 16:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ell804. A book published in 2001 is almost certainly covered by copyright, and therefore the photos cannot be used in Wikipedia. We take copyright violations very seriously. Your best option is to use photos that are available under an acceptable free license, and millions can be found at Wikimedia Commons. Another option is using photos whose copyright has expired. In the United States, this applies to all books published before 1923. A third option is photos created by employees of the U.S. federal government, which are free of copyright. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

If a book is under copyright, we can use a picture of its cover in the article about it, but it has to be uploaded straight to Wikipedia and not Wikimedia Commons. It's also considered a fair use file. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Uniqlo article - excessive detail, and editors keep adding the company itself as a source

I would appreciate advice about Uniqlo#Notable_stores. Specifically, whether (and if so, how) to:

better achieve encyclopaedic tone and coverage without excessive detail (cf. WP:TMI and WP:VNOTSUFF);
prevent users linking to the website of the article subject (or that of its parent company, Fast Retailing) in probable breach of WP:REFSPAM/WP:PRIMARY;
better address WP:GOODFAITH editors who nevertheless insert such links. (For instance, can you suggest any improvements to the way I responded to this editor who added such links, apparently in good faith: are there any policies I might have linked to in order to make my replies more concise or better-sourced? Alternatively, was I wrong to revert and was that user correct to revert my reversion?)

Please WP:PING me in your reply. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Zazpot. I am afraid that I must disagree with you about the specific issue of using the website of the parent company for an objective fact such as the number of stores that the company operates under the Uniqlo brand name. Verifiability is a core content policy, which includes a subsection on self published sources, which says:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

2 it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

The number of stores that a large retail chain operates is not trivia and not "too much detail". If an independent source was available which discussed the number of stores in 2017, that would be great to add. Lacking such a source, I consider the parent company website to be perfectly acceptable for this purpose. I will edit the article accordingly.

There are other parts of the article that present problems. For example, I recommend trimming the external links to those in English. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Zazpot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, thanks for your reply. Your view about links to companies' own websites is at odds with John Broughton's as expressed at Talk:Uniqlo#Sources_and_accuracy. (I'm sorry for not linking to John's comment in my original query above.) This leaves me feeling that there is no consensus on what is and isn't a suitable source for the article :(

On a different front, thank you for your efforts to improve the article in other respects. A quick note about that, though: the rationale behind the edit in which I introduced the "handful" comment and the Notable Stores section was that previously, editors had been writing about stores regardless of whether or not those stores had been mentioned in any depth by WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS, and effectively turning the Wikipedia article into a directory of Uniqlo stores: a quasi-mirror of Uniqlo's/Fast's websites. I wanted to create a lede for the section that helped readers and editors alike to understand why only some stores were mentioned in that section, i.e. that it was not a directory. By removing that sentence and that section name, albeit with the best intentions, I fear you might have inadvertently opened the floodgates to a return of low-quality edits about non-notable stores. Perhaps you would be willing to undo those removals, or to replace them with something that will have a similar effect but that is otherwise more satisfactory to you? Thanks again!

Please WP:PING me if you reply. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, zazpot. John Broughton was incorrect, in my opinion, when he wrote seven years ago that a company website is not reliable. I suspect that he was oversimplifying. I quoted core content policy above, which overrides the 2010 opinion of one editor. It is clear that a company website is not an independent source, that much of the content is likely to be promotional, and that the website content does nothing to establish notabilty. However, corporate websites are reliable sources for basic facts such as the company's headquarters location, current CEO, date of founding and (as in this case) how many retail outlets they operate.

I will not restore the language about only a "handful" of stores being notable unless you can furnish a source using the word "handful" about this matter. I consider that comment to be original research otherwise. Simply delete poorly referenced additions by enthusiasts. A good model might be to mention the first store in each country, and then describe their further expansion in that market. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks for the further explanations. Your point about the acceptable uses of company websites is a bit surprising to me. I'm still digesting it. Please don't think I'm ungrateful: if you're correct about it, then it might be very useful for an article about a different organisation that I was editing recently. See Talk:Soroptimist_International#Formation_of_Federations_and_of_Soroptimist_International.

About the list of Uniqlo stores: Uniqlo operates in dozens of countries. Is it really appropriate for Wikipedia to have a subsection about every one of those countries, mentioning at least one store in each case? I feel that not only is that excessive, but also that pruning it as you describe would lead to a much higher maintenance overhead than has been the case since I made the "handful" and "Notable Stores" edits :( I think that if you feel strongly about this, and leave your edits in place, then I will simply have to "unwatch" the article, as I can't bear to see it disintegrate as I fear it will, nor can I afford the time required to maintain it the way you describe :(

Please WP:PING me if you reply. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

zazpot, I am only one editor and have no interest in "imposing my will" on this article. I never heard of this retailer until you asked your question. So edit that article as you see fit, as long as you do not introduce original research into the article. I suggested a possible method of structuring coverage of their international operations. If you disagree, then structure it a different way. I will leave my edits in place but you have every right to change them, as long as you comply with our policies and guidelines. You care about Uniqlo and I really don't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, appreciated; I'll give it some thought. Please WP:PING me if you reply. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nightmare

How to point out copyright violation and What does the term 'Nightmare' means in wikipedia. 119.160.98.127 (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi IP 119.160.98.127. Since you fail tp mention what the copyright violation is or where it is, the best I can do is provide you with some general information. For a copyright violation involving textual content, you can follow the instructions listed in Wikipedia:Copyright violations. For copyright violations involving image or other files, etc., you can follow the instructions listed in Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion.

As for the meaning of "nightmare", I'm not sure what you mean by "means in Wikipedia". There is an article titled "Nightmare", but my guess is you're looking for a Wikipedia:WikiSpeak-type of meaning. I can't find an entry for "nightmare", but maybe someone else knows how it's used and what it means in a Wikipedia context. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia page that outlines the policy of using {{sidebar}} and {{Infobox}} as a base for templates?

I was going to convert {{WPDINO}} over to use {{Sidebar}} but I've got some user who is saying that I will look over the sidebar parameters and requirements before I decide to convert it, because there are specific features here I would not want to be changed.. Apart from the fact that they clearly need to read WP:OWN, is there a clear policy that points out that all sidebars/infoboxes should be converted to use {{sidebar}} and {{infobox}}? Would be nice to have a WP link to direct them to. Obviously all sidebars and infoboxes are being converted but I haven't seen a clear policy documented anywhere... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Zackmann08. I don't know the answer, but I would be extremely surprised if we had a policy that covered that level of detail. Policies are for underlying principles: on specifics, Wikipedia always works on consensus. Usually, rather that looking for a policy so that you can say "Ta da! I'm right!", you need to argue the case and persuade other people. --ColinFine (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I delete old messages on my Talk page?

Hello to everyone. This is now a general question I am looking forward to get an answer. Its about deleting messages on my TALK page. First I like to say that it is an excellent idea and very helpful. I had been on Wikipedia since years, but only done some contributions on articles which existed already. Now that I am actually doing some real work - (and as a newcomer making beginner mistakes)I am a bit embarrassed that everyone can go to my Talk page and see what had been written to me. The welcome texts from other Users I would of course leave on the page, but templates where it says that my article was rejected for not enough resources ect... or my photos tagged not. I think I learned my lesson and I would like to delete those friendly reminders. Can I do that or will I be forever "branded" with that? Thanks a lot and wishing everyone a nice day. Laramie1960 (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Laramie1960. Whilst it's preferable to archive old messages, you are absolutely permitted to delete messages from your user talkpage. There are a couple of exceptions (most notably declined unblock requests which relate to an existing block), but none of what you describe would be controversial to delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

...although others may still access those messages via the Page history. But you probably already know that. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui and Tigraan. Thank you to both of you for your very useful replies. I understand that there is still a lot to learn. I also did not realize about the "page history". But that is fine, as long as I do not have to see all the time about my mistakes ;-) best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Laramie1960: what follows may be my own view only, but I won't be surprised if it's widely held. If I look at someone's talk page, and see that they've had articles rejected and been reprimanded for various mistakes, I think "yes, I was a new user once, no problem". But if I see that they've been deleting content, I wonder what they're trying (ineffectively) to hide. I would therefore recommend archiving rather than deletion. Maproom (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Maproom, first of all I did not understand how to "archive" old messages. Secondly why would someone be so "curious" as to go and see what I have deleted on by talk page? I always answer everyone and always thank everyone who helps me. I have nothing to hide at all. I might be new to Wikipedia, but outside of that I am on the Internet for many years, so I know whatever we do and write is archived somewhere. If I have offended you because I deleted your long message to me on my Talk page, I am sorry. But as Tigraan wrote to me it is all accessable via the Page History. It was my personal wish to see a "clean page" that is why I came this morning to ask if I was alowed to do it. Laramie1960 (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The long read for how to archive your talk page is at Help:Archiving and subsequent links, but if you want a quick-and-easy way, copy-paste the following at the top of your talk page:

Ready to go configuration for archival bot - will archive your page automagically
{{Archives\|auto=yes\|search=yes}} {{User:MiszaBot/config \| algo = old(30d) \| archive = User talk:Laramie1960/Archive %(counter)d \| counter = 1 \| maxarchivesize = 150K \| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} \| minthreadstoarchive = 1 \| minthreadsleft = 2 }}

This will archive automatically threads older than 30 days, to User talk:Laramie1960/Archive X (where X starts at 1 and increases as needed), leaving at least 2 threads on your page. If there are threads you do not want archived, add {{subst:DNAU}} just below their title.

If you do not get in trouble, I doubt anyone will dig through your page history, so IMO there is a perfectly legitimate case for cleaning up the page; for sure, it is better done by archival, though. However, if you do get in trouble, people will dig regardless, and trying to "hide" stuff would trigger the reactions Maproom talked about. There are ways to mask stuff from the page history (Wikipedia:Revision deletion, Wikipedia:Oversight) but they are certainly not applicable here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding an image

I want to add an image to a page, how do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somebuck (talk • contribs)

@Somebuck: Welcome to the Teahouse! I've found this essay on images for beginners by Yunshui very helpful and detailed. Take a look at the instructions there, and feel free to come back if you have any questions. Happy editing! –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)