Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 416

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 410 ← Archive 414 Archive 415 Archive 416 Archive 417 Archive 418 → Archive 420

Help me construct (walk through) my article page, so it will be accepted

I have created an article page for review. It was declined for unknown reasons. I would like the assistance of a pro to help me make it acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollyannprice (talk • contribs) 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
(moved up from bottom of page by GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC) )

The article in question is User:Mollyannprice/Polly Punkneck, which appears to be an autobiography that isn't supported by independent reliable sources, and the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Mollyannprice, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reasons for the decline are stated in the grey box within the pink box at the top of the draft: "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability — see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."
Have you read the articles linked above? If so, what specific questions do you have about the instructions? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this page ok to do?

I'm wanting to make a page about a little known but growing podcast called "The Toon Goons". However, even though it has more than 60 episodes and a few thousand listeners it is not very much covered by other sources, aside from themselves on social media, youtube, and soundcloud. However since it is a podcast and most all the information is, by default, coming from the show itself would it still be eligible for a page? Penheart7 (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Penheart7 and welcome to the Teahouse. It's all about those other sources, namely: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 05:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Penheart7: "little known but growing " item generally fail the criteria. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Elizabeth Anne Hin

I declined this draft at Articles for Creation as not meeting the minimum standards for in-line citations for a BLP, and said that, due to the lack of sources, it was not possible to verify whether she met notability guidelines. User:71.170.17.236 then posted to my talk page: "Hello, Thank you for your speedy review. Please give me more specifics on what items need citation. Is it the Robert Louis Stevenson reference or Elizabeth Hin's Grail publication or forthcoming works. Thank You, Sarla Matsumura" Will other experienced editors please comment? The author appears to be trying to ask what is the minimum number of footnotes that will be needed to pass review. While I am required to assume good faith, the question appears to be how to game the system with the minimum number of citations. Every statement in a biography of a living person that might be questioned should be footnoted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon. Every statement in a article about a living person that might be questioned does NOT need an inline reference. I've seen a lot of confusion about this at AfC. Only contentious material (controversial or likely to cause an argument) needs inline citations. At WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions it says Avoid the following errors: 1.Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons. Also see WP:BLPSOURCES. ...all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
However, everything does need to be in a reliable published source. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleting content

Can I delete content from my user Talk page?? LionsRule125 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LionsRule125. With a few exceptions like block notices, you can remove material from your talk page. However, It is recommended that you archive old discussions instead. See WP:ARCHIVE for details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
You'll find guidance at WP:OWNTALK and WP:UP#OWN. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Creating a second page in Sandbox

Hi,

Could you please help me to know the procedure for creating a new page in sandbox. I already have one article which is yet incomplete in my sandbox. I am planning to write a second article but I am unable to find options to create a new article.

Thanks in Advance and Happy Editing..!! Sanket Edits Wiki (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sanket Edits Wiki and welcome to the Teahouse. You can create a new sandbox page for example here: User:Sanket Edits Wiki/sandbox/2. If you already know the name of your future article, you can name your second sandbox that, simply change the "2" in the link I've provided to anything you find useful. This doesn't have to be the same as the article when it's finished, just something to remind you of what the contents of that particular sandbox page are. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 07:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Sanket Edits Wiki, the mechanism to create another page like Finnusertop describes is to go to the Search box near the top of the page, and enter the name of the new page you want to create. When you press Enter it will take you to a page saying that there is currently no such article, and giving you the option to either start the new article or to go somewhere else. Choose to create it, and off you go...--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sanket Edits Wiki: A "sandbox" is any page in your user or user talk namespace after a forward slash. You don't need to use "sandbox" in the title; that's just the on-the-nose title that was given when they added an automatic sandbox for each user in the interface. If you're not going to use the draft namespace, then just name it intuitively, e.g., if the draft is on the topic Foo widgets, then create the sandbox at either User talk:Sanket Edits Wiki/Foo widgets or User:Sanket Edits Wiki/Foo widgets There are a number of different ways to create such a page. Four methods are described at Wikipedia:How to create a page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Tons of thanks Finnusertop, Gronk Oz and Fuhghettaboutit... It was really informational and helpful.. Thanks Again.. Happy Editing..!! Sanket Edits Wiki (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft Lleyson Hopkin Davy

Further review of this draft invited please. Additional references cited. I have a photo/portrait of the subject but reluctant to upload unless proceeding to nsubmission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 13:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC) (moved from bottom of page by GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC) )

Welcome to the Teahouse, Davymi. I have a number of concerns. It seems that he was a soldier, a government official and a businessman. Based on the current state of the article, I am not convinced that his accomplishments were sufficient for us to conclude that he was notable enoiugh for a biography. Midlevel soldiers, government officials and businessmen are not usually considered notable. So, try to explain what set him apart from the pack. Part of the difficulty is that all of your sources are offline, and it is difficult for any reviewer to evaluate the depth and significance of coverage in the sources. Did a given source mention him in passing in a list, or devote several pages or an entire chapter to his life? I recommend that you cite your sources more fully, using Citation templates for example. Any books published in recent decades should have clickable ISBN numbers, so the reviewer can get bibliographic information about the book, including library holdings. I recommend that you include any reliable sources available online, as they are far easier to check. When I did a quick Google Books search, I found a few mentions of him, though I found his first name was spelled "Leyson". At least that search confirmed that he lived and served during those years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I will endeavour to make some adjustments. Unfortunately as you will appreciate, online references for an early 1800's subject are not going to be necessarily widespread. The notability I would argue arises from the lifetime achievements as archived in both contemporary (eg. Sir Stamford Raffles and Bodleian library entries), and recognition of industrial activities in Dartmoor reference books and recent chapters (half the book) of 'Sarn Fawr - Sarns first house'. The buildings and industrial tramway at Shipley Bridge in Devon are still in existence and are regularly visited by historical buffs and hikers today. I will continue to make some edits to the article and hopefully improve content. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Davymi. When I go to Google Books and search for "Sarn Fawr - Sarns first house", I get no results. Is this book published by an established publisher with a professional editorial staff? What is its ISBN number? Online sources may not be "widespread", but make use of the ones that exist. As for certain buildings and a tramway still existing, that is, I am sorry to say, not relevant to the person's notability. It is the quality and reliability of the sources discussing the person, and the depth of coverage, that is important. If the coverage is there, it makes no difference at all whether or not the buildings and tramway stand or have been demolished. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added a link to the online site where the Sarn Fawr book originates. I will attempt to gain further references soon. I would argue, that if historic buildings such as these (Shipley Bridge naptha works) exist today and are visited regularly it may be in the general public interest to note an online site such as Wikipedia to identify what they were used for and the person (s) behind the works. You may appreciate that at that point in history (early to mid 1800s), liquid petroleum fuels were almost unheard of and it would have been quite a pioneering activity in those days (this is not another flour mill). There was an association between these works and the gas lighting of a nearby town which I will try to dig up a reference for. Work in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Davymi. Please read what Wikipedia means by "notable". What matters is not whether the subject was important, famous, influential, popular, pioneering, or anything else that resonates with the everyday meaning of "notable": since the entirety of a Wikipedia article should be based on reliable published sources, we require that there be sufficient reliable published sources that cover the subject in some depth to ground an article. That is all that "notable" means in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Davymi, I took a look at the link to the book about Sarn Fawr and discovered that it is a self-published historical novel. Self-published works are rarely reliable sources except when the author is widely recognized as an expert in the field. A novel, which is a work of fiction, is never a reliable source for anything but its own plot summary. Please familiarize yourself with what we mean by reliable sources here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns, however Sarn Fawr is definitely not a work of fiction, it is a well referenced book by a local historian. Even without this reference (which you appear to be fixated upon), there are other more important and reliable references in the article. For example those regarding the industrial activities in Dartmoor, those concerning LH Davys time in HEIC and Java and his contributions to early New Zealand. Sarn Fawr is just a house, whose estate is now occupied by the Village of Sarn in Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC) PS. I should like to have input from Wikipedians in addition to Cullen if possible please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 22:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Davymi, any volunteer host is free to comment on any question here. Here is a direct quote from the book's website: "Click here to access further information and pictures sent to me after the publication of Sarn Fawr by the few individuals who actually purchased said novel: This novel retails for £6.99" Why would the author call It a novel if it is not a novel? I suggest that you go to the Reliable sources noticeboard for other opinions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You are again fixated upon this one reference (which I am happy to remove and locate better sources for). Please have due diligence and allow others to comment/ review this article, which as you agree is entirely allowable. There are other references and informative to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to but in. I am not a teahouse host, but the link (mentioned by User:Cullen328) to the Sarn Fawr book is showing a virus. Or pasting my AV report "Requested URL: http://www.paulhowellsbooks.co.uk/Sarn%20Fawr%20front%20and%20back.html

Information: Contains recognition pattern of the JS/iFrame.EB.368 Java script virus". SovalValtos (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC) The link has been removed from the draft page and I am inviting further review/contribution from additional editors.

I have added further information regarding LH Davy's industrial activities - indicating that his naptha works were a first of their kind in the Kingdom. This is supported by newspaper articles of the time. I'm only on my phone at the moment (out of State) but will add to this with some more refs. when I return home in a fortnight. News of his ventures at the time reached all the way to an Australian newspaper - thousands of miles away enhancing notability of article subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymi (talk • contribs) 09:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hatnote and or disambiguation

Hi, I have just recently written an article on business woman Cassandra Harris here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_Jayne_Harris

There is a Cassandra Harris on wikipedia already whom passed away many years ago.

The feedback that I have received is:

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cassandra Jayne Harris has been accepted[edit source] Cassandra Jayne Harris, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

There already is an article for a different Cassandra Harris. Either her article should have a hatnote to the businesswoman whom I just accepted, or there should be a disambiguation page. If this is confusing, please request advice at the Teahouse, but we need to be able to have people who search on Cassandra Harris find her. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

How do I create a hatnote or disambiguation? Can someone please advise?

Many thanks

Johnsonclaire12 (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Hatnotes are described at WP:Hatnote. I've added one in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

How to make railway layout easily

I often edit articles about railway. There are sometimes railway layout. To make complex layout, there are many combination of characters. How to make it easily? Kayukayu10 (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean a route diagram template, the honest answer is that you can't make them easily. See Wikipedia:Route diagram template. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is there a Old English Wikipedia

when no one knows how to speak it Rigsofrods (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thousands write it every day. Speaking is more conjectural. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Same goes for the Latin Wikipedia.--ukexpat (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)--ukexpat (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

problems with tone

Once again I appear to be having difficulties understanding your content writing/editing guidelines. Can you kindly explain to me what is wrong with the "style or content" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Marfox? Your guidelines are: 1. write in a formal tone/businesslike manner 2. follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable 3. do not use argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader 4. do not use a first- or second-person perspective 5. use gender-neutral pronouns All of which I follow strictly. I would appreciate very much if you could help me understand what is wrong with my tone or content as well as provide suggestions for improvement. Thanking you in advance. MarianaMarianadjraposa (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marianadjraposa. The article includes words like "pioneering", "foundational", and "highly acclaimed" in Wikipedia's voice. These are promotional words and are not neutral. Quotations from music critics are OK to convey a sense of the enthusiasm of the performer's fans. The article should be copy edited to remove every trace of marketing or advertising language, and it should be written from the neutral point of view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

haw doo eye chaynj stuf?

Eye wunt too chaynj stuf pleesL3onat0r PPlayZ (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. Please rephrase in one of the actual forms of the English language. I believe there used to be a Klingon Wikipedia, but I do not believe that there has ever been a 733t-speak Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
There still is a Kingon Wikipedia on Wikia - here - Arjayay (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Fandoms???

I've seen wikis on different fandoms like books, tv shows, anime, etc, and I want to know if that's something different than Wikipedia? Also, if it is different, say you wanted to look up something about your fandom and nothing was there so you do your own research over it, can you still make a Wikipedia article about that topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heart106 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Heart106 - thanks for your post.
A Wiki is "a website which allows collaborative modification of its content". Wikia hosts several hundred thousand wikis using the open-source Wiki software. Wikipedia is just one of the 12 main projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, so is unconnected to the "several hundred thousand" other sites, other than by using the same basic software.
The fact that there is a separate wiki about a subject you are interested in, does not stop there being an article on Wikipedia, as with the wiki on Dr Who here. However, all our articles need to be based on, and cite references to reliable sources, and because anyone can edit a wiki, and that includes Wikipedia itself, they are not acceptable as reliable sources for any information.
One other thing in your question to beware of is original research, which we do not allow on Wikipedia, all the information must already have been published in a reliable source. If you want to start an article please read WP:Your first article - if you have any questions - please come back here and ask. - Arjayay (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Heart106, the relevant distinction is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and topics that we cover here must be encyclopedic in nature. Our policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not describes what kinds of topics would not be appropriate here, and our notability guidelines help us determine whether a topic merits inclusion. Other wiki-style websites that focus on fandoms may include things that wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia. For example, in 2007, an extensive community discussion determined that not all Pokemon characters are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and many such articles were subsequently nominated for merging or deletion. Mz7 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

how to create a box for an existing page about a person

how to create a box for an existing page about a personEsaridak (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Esaridak, you don't have to actually create the box yourself. All you have to do is go to Template:Infobox person, copy it, and paste it to the article you want. Then fill in the parameters with info about that person. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 20:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Permissible to list DSM-5 symptoms?

I'm new to wikipedia and creating an article for the WikiProject Psychology/APS-Wikipedia Initiative. My article will specifically be about several mental disorders and I am wondering if it is permissible to include symptom lists from the DSM-5 (DSM-5). Exact symptoms are helpful in that they define diagnoses, however, I'm concerned that including specific symptoms could be considered plagiarism or violate copyright laws. At the same time, it looks like other pages on disorders have listed symptoms and I'm not seeing concerns raised on the talk page (e.g., Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Oppositional defiant disorder). Any ideas about whether I can include symptoms if I cite the DSM-5?Klealake (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Klealake.Check out Your First Article then create your article if you have any more questions feel free to return to the TeahouseⓏⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
To answer your question about copyright concerns: very long verbatim quotations are not allowed, even if attributed to a source. Neither is close paraphrasing (ie. only making small changes to a long text copied elsewhere). Quoting a few sentences, however, is fine. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Klealake and Finnusertop, lists of information are not subject to copyright (at least under U.S. law) because there is no creativity required to make a list. This is why telephone books, for example, are not copyrightable (though advertisements, maps etc. in them are). So long as it's merely a listing using the standard medical term for each symptom, and not describing the symptoms, I believe the symptom lists could be included on Wikipedia. Please note however that IANAL. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the urls in the question to wikilinks, as these are more readable. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thanksKlealake (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving from Sandbox

Hello, I have an article that I am ready to move out of my Sandbox. When I click move, I get a message that it scant be done be cause the article title already exists.

Jdavisivad (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I've done a history merge.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

flagging up self-promotional living bio's

Hi, I'm coming across a lot of artist and author bio's of living people clearly written by the subject themselves or someone very close to them. In some cases the subject is at the beginning of their career or self-published, often with just few online sources to unreliable promotional blogs etc.

The guide says we should post on the page's talk page, but what do you post? What should we do as a first measure when we spot these? Bwcajp (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bwcajp, you can add the NPOV tag at the top of the article, which looks like this: {{npov}}. NPOV is applicable here because if people are writing about themselves, they are very unlikely to follow WP:POV. Or you could use the {{advert}} tag, which is for use if the article reads like a commercial for the person or their services. Advert tag is probably better, actually, although both are sometimes used simultaneously. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 18:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This is just some rough notes but my gross triage would be:
  • First measure? IMO, always, ALWAYS check if the page is a copyright violation. In my experience such creations are more than half the time – though Wikipedia users, even experienced ones, rarely check this first (if at all). If it is, follow the instructions at the section of Wikipedia:Copyright problems at the shortcut WP:CPI.
  • See if any of the criteria for speedy deletion apply (CSD A7 or CSD G11 are probably ones to focus on). If not
  • If there are no sources (broadly construed), add a BLP Prod tag. See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people.
  • If BLP prod does no apply, check if the subject appears notable by looking for existence of reliable sources. A quick Google Books and Google News search is an easy way.
  • If the subject appears to lack notability, propose the article for deletion (prod, not BLP prod) on that basis. If deletion would seem inappropriate using that method, or controversial for some reason (or the prod tag is removed), you might take to articles for deletion. Remember to comply with WP:BEFORE, but the searches you already did for reliable sources go a long way toward fulfilling that already.
  • If the topic appears notable, then (among other Wikipedia:New pages patrol-like tasks), maintenance tags should be added. I would use {{Multiple issues}} if more than one is called for, which is not unlikely. It's hard to predict what might be appropriate without a concrete example – see generally Wikipedia:Template messages – but some that come to mind here are {{BLP sources}}, {{COI}} {{Primary sources}} and so forth. Many of these can be used in the frame of the multiple issues template I linked.
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Bwcajp. I agree with much of the above, but be careful with WP:CSD#A7. Such more-or-less-promotional pages often make claims sufficient that A7 does not apply, in my experience. Remember that claims need not be sourced to defeat an A7, they merely need to be credible. I would also say that a {{COI}} tag is often warranted. I absolutely agree that a check for copyright violations is a good idea, I generally use Earwig's Copyvio Detector first, it seems to do a very good job. I do caution that a fair number of these pages are actually about notable subjects, and merely need cleanup, removal of puffery and promotion, and better sourcing to be perfectly valid articles. DES (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Bwcajp, all the above is excellent advice. I would just add one thing which I learned the hard way recently - when you add an tag like {{COI}} or {{NPOV}}, be sure to explain your concerns on the article's Talk page. Otherwise, the author is within their rights to remove the tag immediately. And swallowing my pride, I admit that it makes sense; what is obviously an unbalanced POV to me may not be obvious to another editor unless I explain my reasons.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Bwcajp, I think many editors have had the same experience as you. There's a lot of good advice above; however, when one of these articles is by (or about) someone notable by our standards, there are some other things you can do too. The first step (after the copyvio check recommended by Fuhghettaboutit, which I heartily endorse), is to remove any unreferenced personal information, in accordance with our BLP policy. Another is to post at WP:COIN, the conflict of interest noticeboard; that should attract the attention of editors used to evaluating COI and cleaning up articles of this kind, who may step in and help. Another possibility is simply to edit the article yourself, sticking rigorously to a dispassionate encyclopaedic tone, and to what is reported in reliable sources; you might be surprised at just how much better an article can seem when the unreferenced puffery has been cut away. At times it can seem almost worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

can someone help me with my last tag?

I added references and cleaned up the article Duarte galactosemia, but there is still a

tag on it. I'm new to wikipedia and I don't know what editor added this tag or how to get it removed. What can I do to get this tag off and "okayed" by an editor?

Thanks!

--Jfridovichkeil (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jfridovichkeil. Maintenance tags like that one can be added, and removed, by any editor who thinks it appropriate. So if you are confident that you have fixed the problem, you may remove the tag. (If somebody else disagrees, and puts it back, then you should discuss that matter on the article's talk page). If you look at the history of the article, you can see that it was Ozzie10aaaa who added several maintenance tags: I have just pinged them, so they may like to look at the article and see if they think it is appropriate to remove it: but it's up to you whether to refer the question back to them: you're not required to. --ColinFine (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed it, but please reference "prognosis" section, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification ColinFine, that was very helpful. Ozzie10aaaa thank you for removing the tag, and for adding the medref information to my talk page. I see now why you added those tags. In the prognosis section, there is currently no comprehensive literature review/ meta analysis on DG studies, so that is why the few specific studies that have been done are listed, but I felt I also made clear that these studies have limited generalizeability and that more research needs to be done. I would rather not run into these issues again, would it be better to remove this section altogether?

Thanks Jfridovichkeil (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Jfridovichkeil not at all, the section with the reference you've added is fine, should you need anything (question , comment) leave me a note[1] id be more than happy to help,,,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia adventure problems

I keep getting stuck and not being able to proceed in Mission 2 of the Wikipedia Adventure.Tyler york4 (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tyler york4, and welcome to the Teahouse. Can you give some more details, please - where exactly did you get up to, what did you do, and what happened. If there were any error messages, what were they? And what sort of device are you doing all this on? --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

How to activating a page?

I create a page called "Empty Veins" (a music group). I thought I did something wrong in the process of creation, because when I search for the page, it won't appear. I don't know why! Could you please guide me! Thanks.Empty Veins 07:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfailing rise (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Unfailing rise. Your draft article is at User:Unfailing rise/sandbox. —teb728 t c 07:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
When you have added independent reliable sources to demonstrate the band's notability, click the blue button to request review. —teb728 t c 07:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Image request protocol & etiquette

I recently stumbled across an article on Worthen's sparrow (Spizella wortheni) - "a species of American sparrow that is endemic to northeastern Mexico." A quick glance at my signature will tell you how I stumbled onto this endangered bird's Wikipedia article. ;o)

At any rate, the article does not have a photo of the poor little fellow, so I searched Google Images to see if there might be a photo in the public domain, but alas, I came up empty-handed.

However, I found some beautiful photographs of the sparrow taken by professional photographers, which led me to wonder about the following:

a) Is there any sort of formal or informal protocol or etiquette for asking a professional photographer if he or she would be willing to donate a photograph to Wikimedia Commons?

b) If I made a living selling my photographs, I would probably wonder something like, "Yeah, well Wikipedia is great and all, but what's in it for me? I have to make a living!" - Is there any advantage for a photographer to donate an image, other than awesome wiki-karma? I know watermarks and such are out if it's going to be a truly 'free', non-copyrighted image, but does the photographer get to have his or her name in the caption?

c) If no credit is possible, and, understandably, a professional photographer does not want to donate a photograph that other people can use for commercial purposes, how do we obtain images for more obscure topics like my namesake sparrow? [I am guessing the answer is something like, "Patience Padawan, provide it time will", but I want to make sure.]

Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD 04:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not a Teahouse host, but User:Markworthen I have added an image from Wikimedia Commons. A host will be able to explain how to find such and how to add it to a page better than I can. Luckily there was also a recording I was able to add! SovalValtos (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Way cool! Thank you so much SovalValtos! Wouldn't you know I completely forgot to check Wikimedia Commons! Boy, don't I feel like a dodo bird. ;^] - Mark D Worthen PsyD 05:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Markworthen. Just in case you're still wondering, I think the answer to your questions can be found at c:COM:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder for question a, WP:DCP#Donating your photographs and WP:CREDITS for question b, and possibly WP:NFC for question c. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Y'all are awesome. Thank you very much Marchjuly. Mark D Worthen PsyD 08:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Can anybody Help me in clearing multiple issues from my artcle?

Dear Sir/Ma'm

I had created Niat Qabool Hayat Kakakhail. It shows some multiple issues. I have gathered more information about the mentioned article, but due to some grammatical mistakes, I haven't publish it yet. Is there anybody else to help me??

Regards KhesrawkakakhailKhesrawkakakhail (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Khesrawkakakhail, and welcome to the Teahouse. Niat Qabool Hayat Kakakhel has already been "published" on Wikipedia; it is not still a draft, though it's possible to turn an article back into a draft if extensive work needs to be done. A quick skim of the article revealed no egregious grammatical issues. Did you mean that there are grammatical mistakes in the information you intend to add? Other editors may be willing to help correct grammar issues if you add content and/or a source that need copy-editing. When it comes to sources, it's best to add what you have and worry about formatting later, as a lack of sources is considered a more serious problem than grammatical mistakes. By the way, I notice the similarity between your username and the article title... are you related to Niat Qabool Hayat Kakakhail? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 10:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a comment – the article is Niat Qabool Hayat Kakakhel, but the man's name is given as Niat Qabool Hayat. Why are they different? Maproom (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
(User talk:Maproom), where's the name given in? The actual name is Niat Qabool Hayat Kakakhail.Khesrawkakakhail (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The similarity in names, is just a coincidence. I have gathered the whole information about the related article. I want somebody help me in vanishing out the grammatical mistakes from the article. So it will be able to publish on Wikipedia.Khesrawkakakhail (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, Khesrawkakakhail. I have corrected some more of the grammar issues. I also rephrased some sentences which you had copied directly from other websites. Copying material from other websites is a violation of copyright and even one copied sentence could cause the entire article to be deleted. Please be careful not to copy directly again, or at the least use "quotation marks" to show that the wording is not your own. But rephrasing is best. You should also try to find more reliable sources to cite as references for the article. I removed one source because it was completely unreliable; it was largely copied from other Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia itself is actually not a reliable source. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 20:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:GrammarFascist Thanks for your cooperation. I hope you will continue helping me in this regard. The one thing, you are saying about copying materials from other websites. Actually it's not so. I had created this article a year before, but due to some mistakes, it was deleted. The websites, from where I have copied the materials, have copied from the deleted article themselves. Now I'm recopying them, its not a violation of copyright. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khesrawkakakhail (talk • contribs) 07:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If a source includes material copied from this article, then it shouldn't be used as a source as that is clear circular referencing. I'm not sure what to suggest about the wording - perhaps just rewording it to avoid giving the impression of a copyvio (even if the copying actually happened the other way around) would be easiest. However, we shouldn't be citing a source that is copied from Wikipedia. Can I ask which sources this apples to, Khesrawkakakhail and GrammarFascist? I don't know if it's one of them, but I see a blog cited in the article. I don't think that's a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cordless Larry, the sources I found apparent copying from, and rephrased the relevant parts of the article as a result, were "History of Shandur". Shandur Polo Festival. and "Shandur Polo Festival". Niyat Qabool Hayat. I have not evaluated any of the sources cited in the article for reliability, other than the one source I removed that was patently unusable; I was focused primarily on grammar and formatting, though I did also remove some puffery. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 09:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the 5th ref doesn't mention the subject of the article, the 4th ref I can't access because of a problem with the site's security certificate, the 2nd & 3rd are blogs, and the 1st is one that may have been copied from Wikipedia. Not encouraging. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not a Teahouse host but I am concerned with the copyright status of the image used in the infobox of Niat Qabool Hayat Kakakhel .SovalValtos (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation style

Is this an appropriate way to add references to an article as is done in Smart Cities Mission#Smart City News -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No, those don't appear to be references. They just look like misplaced & inappropriate external links. If they are intended to be references for the text in the article, they should be properly included as references. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Article rejected - make into a stub?

I wrote an article for inclusion in 2013 for the Australian Aviation Heritage Centre. (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Australian_Aviation_Heritage_Centre )

It was rejected as not being notable, which I interpret as have not sufficient third party sources. However, it is really just a list of aeroplanes and engines that are stored in the museum- so the museum itself should know what it has stored there, not a third person. The whole article is based on another Wikipedia article of another aviation museum: please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Aviation_Museum where all references and notes are referring just to their website. When I look at the Wikipedia list of aviation museums (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aerospace_museums ), most seem to just referring to their own webpages as source material. For the newspaper articles, most are what the museum has sent to the newspaper.

What I suggest is making this article into a stub. I can also fix the incorrect link in the References. Thanks for the opertunity to talk to someone - I did not know how to do this previously.Apple1Pie (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Apple1Pie, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you might be confusing two policies, which are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. While the museum may well know what it has stored, and a museum source is therefore useful to verify the contents of the list, third-party sources are required to establish notability. The way that notability is defined on Wikipedia is that we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic in order to have an article about it. Based on a very quick search for sources, I am pretty sure that the museum does meet the criteria - you just need to demonstrate that by citing a few more sources in the article. Here's one to get you started. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome, Apple1Pie. I have taken the liberty of adding an additional source to the article which is from a reliable publisher independent of the museum and which devoted more coverage to the museum than a mere mention. I recommend you add at least two more sources of that sort, from books, magazines or newspapers, to ensure that notability is well-established so the draft can pass review next time it is submitted. I also demonstrated how to use <ref name= > to attribute facts in different parts of the article to the same source. Good luck, and feel free to return with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 12:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

security fix

article date; Posted at 11:06 AM ET,03/ 6/2009 Subject; Security Fix. Title Why Web Site Security Matters to Us All How do I locate this old article?32.211.150.30 (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean this? --LukeSurl t c 14:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Desire to post a reference about a supplier of innovative point of sale and payment technology

Hi - I am a marketing manager acting on behalf of a client who would like to see an entry about their innovative point of sale and payment technologies but 2 drafts have been rejected as being too promotional. I have considered sites like ShopKeep, which has a page on Wikipedia and tried to emulate the style and format but I have just qualified for Speedy Deletion and clearly failing. Can you please advise. There are 4 links in my post to newspaper articles in praise of the solutions which I though would qualify them as informative or encyclopaedic. Kid regards Richard 86.161.43.18 (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You haven't given us a wikilink to your draft, so we can't comment on the detail. You mention ShopKeep, and that seems to be an established product, so more likely to have received the significant coverage in published reliable sources needed to establish notability in Wikipedia's terms. Even if you were to find an article which already exists which ought not to, it doesn't justify the existence of your article; the guidance on this aspect is at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. You do need to read Wikipedia's policy on paid editors and on conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Richard. The thing to realise is that Wikipedia hardly cares at all about what your client wants. The only point on which they probably agree is that anything that Wikipedia does say about the company should be accurate - but even then they may have a difference of opinion, because Wikipedia will only listen to what people unconnected with the company say about it, which might not be the same as what the company wants said about it. If, after reading the links that David Biddulph has given you, you decide to proceed, you would do well to forget absolutely everything you know about the company, and write an article entirely from what sources unconnected with the company have said (and that excludes sources which are merely parroting the company's press releases). --ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Old business wiki page appearing in google Knowledge Graph Box for new business at same geographical location

Hi there,

The school Mount Kelly has a new wiki page (up and running for a week or so) Mount Kelly School

When you search for 'Mount Kelly' in Google - the google Quick Facts box on the right brings up a feed from the old school wiki page which was named Kelly College, google is still drawing data from this old business wiki page Kelly College

Can anyone help with stopping the old business (Kelly college) appearing in google Quick Facts Wiki box? Or is it just a matter of increasing the number of clicks through to our new Mount Kelly School wiki page?

History- The school was named Kelly College - it is now Named Mount Kelly as it merged with another local school. Red Demon 2015 (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Red Demon 2015 - our standard template answer is:-
Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong.
From your question we know you are referring to Google Knowledge Graph - but Google is outside our control - you can wait until their crawlers find the new information, usually a few days, or contact their feedback link as explained above. AFAIK multiple clicking will not affect the abstract they have already chosen to show - Arjayay (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The comments above regarding Google are true, but I think that you have contributed to the confusion by creating a new article for the school under its new title. Much of the content of the new article refers to the history of the college under its previous title. You haven't provided wikilinks from the old to the new or vice versa. In my opinion the old article should have been moved to the new title, and then relevant new material added. I would suggest that you now propose a merge of the two articles under the new title to try to reduce the confusion. I have taken the liberty of changing the urls in your question to wikilinks, as these are much more readable. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is the Knowledge Graph where we have an issue. I shall try their feedback link, hopefully that will fix it. Many thanks for your reply.Red Demon 2015 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
So what's to be done with Mount Kelly School and Kelly College? Merge them? --ukexpat (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
We need to keep both Kelly College and the new Mount Kelly School wiki page so that there is a history on wiki.

Could the issue lie in Mount Kelly School not having anything in wikidata but Kelly college having coordinates in there? Red Demon 2015 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If the articles are merged in a sensible way, the history wil be there. Talking of history, I see that the section Mount Kelly School#History seems to be a copyright violation from the school's website. It has been tagged accordingly, as Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

My edits to a specific page "religious literacy" keep getting deleted

I have made edits to a specific page (religious literacy) that had copyright material on it. I received permission from the source to use the material. I forwarded that information to wikipedia- via wikicommons before making another edit. However, the information was deleted a second time. The first time it was deleted I received a notice form wikipedia saying they took it down because it had copyrighted material on it. The second time there was no notice, the edits were just erased. I am curious if someone else took down the material. Is there a way to find out? Any suggestions as to what my next steps should be would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! R.L. RobisonR.L.Robison (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you sent the information to commons, but it related to text rather than images, that might be your problem. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, R.L.Robison. What exactly do you mean by "received permission from the source" and "forwarded that information ... via wikicommons"? Did the copyright holder (not you) explicitly release the material under a suitable free licence such as CC-BY-SA, and communicate that release via the OTRS system? If not, then the material may not be used. --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
And of course even if the copyright issue is resolved the material may still be inappropriate for Wikipedia for other reasons.--ukexpat (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

citations for verification

I have just created a page for an artist Helidon Xhixha and I have included citations of everything that has been taken from another source, however, it is still telling me that the page needs additional citations for verification. Could you please tell me how to fix this?

Robert.jameson08 (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If you believe that you have addressed the problem, you can remove the tag {{BLP sources|date=June 2015}} at the top of the article, and include an edit summary to say what you've done. To tidy it up a bit, I would recommend that you read Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Robert.jameson08, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's a nice looking article, but it does need some work. The problem is that the article in Monaco Times seems to be the only one from a reliable, independent source which discusses the subject in any depth. The others are mostly from things he has written himself, or they are catalogue-type listings. Wikipedia cares little for what a person says about themselves; it cares for what other, reviewed sources have to say. This is aggravated by the promotional tone of the article: phrases like "the sculptures utilise their environment to capture and transform the surrounding colours and shapes, giving them a dynamic and energetic quality", without any reference of who says so, sound more like advertising material. Apart from that, most of the article is taken up with exhaustive listings of his exhibitions, which should not be in the article; they may belong in his CV, but not in his encyclopedia article unless those exhibitions themselves are notable. It makes me wonder whether you may have a close association with him, which would make it difficult for you to be objective.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Robert.jameson08, and welcome to the Teahouse. In looking over what references have been provided in Helidon Xhixha, I note that some of them are unambiguously connected to the subject of the article (e.g. Xhixha's website) and some others also seem connected to him (the PDF "Xhixha: The Moulding Power of Light"). That makes these what are called primary sources and, while they can be used for noncontroversial information in Wikipedia articles, ideally all sources cited would be secondary sources — those unconnected with the subject, such as an impartial newspaper or magazine article, or a book. There are also some issues with the formatting of the references, one being that, as David Biddulph pointed out, there is a way to cite the same source more than once without making it appear that it is more than one reference; information on who published some of the sources is also needed.
In addition, there is a lot of text in the article that does not use an encyclopedic tone. Be wary of overly-praiseworthy language outside of direct quotations. Some of the text of the article may also have been copied from other websites (though it's possible those websites copied from Wikipedia, at least one instance was published in a newspaper, which makes it unlikely the newspaper did the copying). Finally, some of the images may need to be moved so that article text is not sandwiched between an image on the left and an image on the right. There is plenty of room beside the Works and Exhibitions sections for images that won't fit further up. Feel free to return to the Teahouse for help implementing these changes, or with any other questions you may have. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_416&oldid=691631185"