Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 779

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 775 ← Archive 777 Archive 778 Archive 779 Archive 780 Archive 781 → Archive 785

Notability, sources

I'm concerned about Notability. Our topic is CBEID (the Center for Business Education Innovation and Development) a not of profit organization that helped small businesses in the Fox River Valley in the Chicago western suburbs. CBEID ran for almost 10 years, had 25 mentors, worked with scores of small companies and had sustaining results. It was closed in 2017, website shut down, etc. We can find numerous newspaper references to support notability and then obtain testimonials. Who determines notability and where do we submit documentation.

Some sources are legal documents which may not be available by link. Will there be an opportunity to download these?

Of course this is our first attempt at Wikipedia articles. At this point I've posted to my sandbox and need to know the above before proceeding. Thanks & regards. Ernie

Thanks & regards. Ernie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernest Mahaffey (talk • contribs) 21:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ernest Mahaffey Welcome to Teahouse! See below
  1. Please read the organisation notability guidelines to gauge if CBEID merit a page in Wikipedia.
  2. I have read the draft copy of CBID in your sandbox and would recommend you to visit Wikipedia:Your first article as there are helpful information there for you to perusal.
  3. Sources- Articles generally require significant coveragein reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Please scroll all the way up (4th-5th message from the top) and there are info recording this topics which I have detailed under the title "summary"
  4. You have mentioned "We" in you message above and it seems you are communicating with someone in your draft copy, I would assume you are affiliated to the subject (CBEID) either you have worked for the company or as a paid editor, which means you have conflict of interest here. conflict of interest (COI) means any any person, who is affiliated to the subject of a Wikipedia page (family members, friends, client, employers, yourself and etc), involves in contribution of the page. If a person is paid to write about a subject, that is a financial conflict of interest. COI is strongly discourage on Wikipedia as COI editors would/might not able to write the article in a neutral point of view. For COI, editor need to disclose your COI when involved with the effected article, here is your article about CBEID. COI discloses need to be made on user page (your user page), article talk page (Draft:Serafin D. Quiason talk page) and /or on edit summary of an edit you made. You could find how to disclose COI here. You could also place {{request edit}} on the article talk page and state your suggestion.
Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thanks for your assistance. I hadn't picked up the COI issue, which it seems we must deal with first. The several Directors (4) of CBEID will participate in writing the article. We all have COI issues, obviously. However I would hope we can help neutralize one another. Also, we will record testimonials of others with their credentials.

On Notability, we can cite numerous newspaper articles of CBEID's activities. We will highlight specific companies which were assisted. And, a related organization was created that's still in business.

But, I still don't know how to upload the articles and legal documents establishing CBEID's existence? I have read all the sections you referenced but the language is difficult to understand. Thanks & regards Ernest Mahaffey (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles and documents should not be uploaded to Wikipedia.
Firstly, such materials can only be used as references for articles if they have been published in a Reliable Source.
Secondly, they need to be cited so that any reader can identify the exact source and consult it – for example, by going to a library, ordering and reading the relevant newspaper, journal, book etc. It is useful if the citation reference includes a link to the relevant article or document online, but this is not essential. (See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for explicit instructions on how to do this.)
If given facts are not mentioned in such published, citeable reliable sources, they should not appear in the Wikipedia article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.26.63 (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Ernest Mahaffey, if four people are participating in writing an article, then each must have their own individual account, and each must declare their own conflict of interest. Each must speak individually as "I" and you should never speak as "we" referring to this small group of editors. When we use the word "we" on Wikipedia, we are referring to all Wikipedia editors, not a narrow subgroup.
Unpublished testimonials and legal documents are of no value as sources, so do not bother trying to upload them. The newspaper articles may be useful, but you should not upload them because that would be a copyright violation, and they would be deleted rapidly. Instead you should cite them as references in your draft. In other words, you provide the article title, the author(s), the newspaper, the date of publication and all other appropriate bibliographic information. If the article is available line, link to it. Please read Referencing for beginners for details about how to do that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Ernest Mahaffey, The message "Submission", which I have refereed to, has been archived and I am not sure you have a chance to have a look at it. You can find the message here on message # 8 - click here [1] of the definitions and examples of reliable, independent, primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Please note multiple reliable, independent (secondary source) sources are needed. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Title of English translation of French article

Hi! I am thinking of translating the French article fr:Île_aux_Œufs into English. In English, "Île aux Oeufs" would translate to "Egg Island". However, I am uncertain if I should name the English Wikipedia article "Egg Island", since I have noticed that there are some articles on English Wikipedia that refer to "Île aux Oeufs" directly. However, there are also some pages that refer to the island as "Egg Island", e.g. this external one and the List of lighthouses in Canada. What would some other editors recommend I name the article? Thanks, Hickland (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hickland. You should select the name most commonly used by reliable English language sources when discussing the topic. Current usage on Wikipedia is not a factor, except to the extent that it reflects published sources. Please read Wikipedia:Article titles for a very detailed analysis of how to best select a title. Alternate titles or plausible search terms should be created as redirects. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

how to upload photo in user profile

how to upload photo in user profile and after how much time it will be visible to all — Preceding unsigned comment added by MANJEET RANI (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse MANJEET RANI. Unfortunately your userpage violates the userpage guidelines and has been tagged for deletion. You may Contest the Deletion by clicking the button on the deletion notice in your userpage. Once the page has been deleted, Please read WP:UP and feel free to create another userpage after you have read that page. Thanks and Welcome to Wikipedia!Thegooduser Let's Chat 02:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Mistake

Did I make a mistake here reverting promotional edits? I think I accidentally restored it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_schools_in_Maharashtra&oldid=843731140 Thegooduser Let's Chat 02:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thegooduser, it is not a NPOV as per your edit summary. I have removed subjects have not had a page in Wikipedia from the list. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

On moving images back to Wikipedia

Hey, some of you people may remember me from my old account Jakec. For a variety of reasons, I stopped participating in Wikimedia Commons in 2015, but continued to contribute images to Wikipedia in 2016, and included specific requests in the file description pages that my images not be moved to commons. Despite that, hundreds of my photos were moved to commons in 2017, evidently using some automated tool, and I was never consulted. Clearly I have no legal recourse, but I would like to know if there's any way to get them back, as again, Wikimedia Commons is a place I would prefer not to be associated with anymore. Jakob (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jakob Coles and welcome to the Teahouse.
There are a couple of difficulties with your request and I don't think it can be resolved here at the Teahouse. Since you are making a claim about being the same person as another username, you'll probably have to satisfy someone at OTRS as to this fact. As a policy matter, WMF appears to expect that free and suitably open-licensed material reside on Commons while only non-free images are hosted on en-wiki itself. When you contributed material, you apparently released it under a Commons-compatible license, so it seems you gave up on any rights to restrict where the images are housed. The only possible claw-back I can see working here is if you were to go back and assert your copyright and argue that the original uploads and releases were not done by you. Your post here makes that a very difficult case to make. I'm sorry I can't offer anything more pleasing to you. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Typo

Hello. I am new here. I have been fixing spelling mistakes and have found one on a locked page. How do these mistakes get fixed? ThanksCalliopeMuse (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CalliopeMuse. Go to the locked article's talk page, and leave a properly formatted edit request there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The "View source" tab on the article is the easiest way to start an edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi CalliopeMuse. Thank you for your good work on correcting spellings. You have already made more than ten edits, and by tomorrow your account will be four days old, so you will then be WP:autoconfirmed and will no longer have a problem with semi-protected pages. Dbfirs 06:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

What to do about this user page

I ran across this user page and I can’t decide whether it’s speedily deletable or not. (I’m probably too tired to be making decisions :-P) Can someone here opine about this situation? NotARabbit (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

NotARabbit, Tagged for deletion CSD: This user page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a userpage being used only for promotion or publicity, with a username that promotes or implies affiliation with the entity being promoted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Tata Nexon

I have created this page “ Draft:Tata Nexon “ can we redirect the article in Tata Nexon ? --Lanciatype840 (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lanciatype840 and welcome to the Teahouse.
Your account is new, so you do not yet have "autoconfirmed" status. Until you do (a couple more days), you cannot yourself move the draft article into mainspace.
I've only glanced at the article but I wonder if it has the proper sources needed to establish notability. One way for you to get a reading on this (and a review on the other problems the article may have) is to submit it to WP:articles for creation by placing the text {{subst:submit}} at the top of the source text and click on "Publish changes". — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wells of Life

Hi, I sent in an article for Wells of Life today. It was declined because of the references. It mentioned that I did not have any 3rd party references, but I had the World Health Organization listed and I thought that was an independent source.

Thanks for your help.

Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraSS123 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, LauraSS123, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several problems with Draft:Wells of Life.
  • A significant part of the content seems to be copied directly from wellsoflife.org/our-story/our-mission-purpose-values which is not OK. For both legal reasons and content integrity, Wikipedia cannot accept content copied from outside sources, nor content closely paraphrasing such sources. The copied content must be removed promptly.
  • You list a number of web addresses under 'References" but you are not using inline citations to cite them, so no one can tell which statement is supported by which source. Please read referencing for beginners
  • You include several quotes, but do not cite supporting sources. All direct quotes must be supported by a citaiton to a source that shows that exact quote being made by the listed person.
  • you seem to have copied the contents and perhaps other sections directly from the Lifewater International article, and the section headers in the contents still link to that article. If you simply include section headers, the wiki software will make a table of contents automatically.
  • you list http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drinking-water as a source, but that page does not mention Wells of life at all.
  • You need to cite several Independent published reliable sources that discuss Wells of Life in some detail. Not press resales, nor interviews with people from the organization, nor blogs or personal sites, nor passing mentions or routine brief coverage.
  • Please read Your First Article and Referencing for Beginners.
I hope this is helpful. Do feel free to ask further questions here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed one more problem that I should have noted when I reviewed the draft yesterday. The draft often uses the first person plural pronoun "we" to refer to Wells of Life. First, this is not permitted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is written in the formal third person. Second, are you employed by or otherwise affiliated with Wells of Life? Please read the conflict of interest policy. If you are employed by or otherwise affiliated, you must make the required disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding a name

Hello. I'd want to add a scholar's full name to an article I'm working on, but when their name was added, there seemed to be a hyperlink attached to that name already. However, the problem was the link was a about someone else, NOT the one I wanted to add. Any suggestions? Thanks,-- From a newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomCa (talk • contribs) 11:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If the scholar is notable, perhaps we ought to have an article that we can link to. Meanwhile, just avoid linking. Eventually, we will have a disambiguation page, and some distinguishing word in parentheses, such as (linguist). I see that only one of the "notable" people mentioned in that article has a Wikipedia article so far. If they are genuinely notable in the Wikipedia sense then there's a task for someone so find sources and write articles. Dbfirs 12:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Help needed to improve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fauna,_Inc

I've drafted the following article, and would like help to improve it as per wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodilp (talk • contribs) 12:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dodilp, and welcome to the Teahouse. Additional sources are required, in my view. I have provided an analysis of the current sources, and some comments on notability and citation formatting on Draft talk:Fauna, Inc, the talk page of the draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page navigation stuff

I have a section at the bottom of the talk page named Bottom of talk at the bottom of my talk page (this is my talk page) because I have a {{Skip to section}} template at the top of the talk page that leads to that section. I didn't use {{Skip to bottom}} because i think the template is too small to be noticed. I'm afraid that ClueBot III will archive that section. I'd like a {{Skip to section}} template that will work the same way as {{Skip to bottom}}. I don't know how to make a template that works that way. I don't want the skip to bottom template in template space to be replaced by my thing, I'll keep my thing in my userspace. Thanks! PorkchopGMX 16:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not requesting an edit to the {{Skip to bottom}} and/or {{Skip to section}} templates themselves, I just want the {{Skip to section}}-{{Skip to bottom}} type of template made and i'll have it as a subpage of my userpage. Thanks PorkchopGMX 16:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, looks like it already got fixed, nevermind. Thanks PorkchopGMX 16:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi PorkchopGMX. I used a "footer" anchor the software automatically places at the bottom of pages in the desktop site.[2] The template you used doesn't display at the mobile site so it doesn't matter "footer" is omitted there. {{Skip to bottom}} uses the same "footer". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, i didn't know that the footer thing was autoplaced. Thanks for fixing it PorkchopGMX 16:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porkchop Jr. (talk • contribs)
@Porkchop Jr.: Please update your signature at Special:Preferences to link to your current username. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I know that, i just haven't done that yet. I'll do it right now. PorkchopGMX 16:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porkchop Jr. (talk • contribs)
A section will not be automatically archived if it does not contain any timestamps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The Dilemma of "Editor A"

"EDITOR A", "UNIVERSITY A" AND SOME INEXPERIENCED NIGERIAN EDITORS

For the purpose of this real time discussion, the editor of interest will be referred to as "Editor A", but be rest assured that there is no trickery here and everything is exactly as it seem.

This post became necessary after an uninformed post on the talkpage of "editor A" by some inexperienced editor some months ago, and since Teahouse is the most friendly yet policy-oriented part of Wikipedia, he wanted to know their assessment of his case so as to handle future occurrence in a better manner.

The Facts: Editor A has been on Wikipedia for more than 5 years, and during that period he has created more than 300 articles and significantly contributed to numerous others. He can emphatically state that none of the 300+ articles he has created over the years can link his real life identity to the creation of those articles, infact they likely don't know that it was his WP identity who created those articles, except an article for one actress whom he contacted through email (OTRS) to get a free image for her article and she obliged, and I haven't communicated with her since then (years ago). This is just to buttress that Editor A believes he has a sound understanding of COI and paid editing, so he prefers to stay away from any drama that will affect his editing experience.

The concern: Editor A had his first degree from "University A" (obviously not real name), University A is clearly the best private university in Nigeria by a large margin and definitely one of the best university overall (always top 3). At the moment, the only connection of "editor A" to "university A" is that he was one of the 2000 students that graduated more than 5 years ago, he has never been directly or indirectly been professionally linked with the school or anyone in authority in the school either in the past or present. Presently, the alumni base of "University A" is appox. 26,000, so he is 0.0038 out of the population. "Editor A" has also gotten his masters degree from another university successfully, but he is not really interested in the wiki article for his second alma mater and has proposed in his heart to continue editing the article for "university A", if he ever finds any encyclopedic content on the web, that will be useful to the article. So basically, he does not edit the article for where he got his masters degree as much as "University A".

The future: Editor A believes linking his WP username to the talkpage of University A based on the information above is ABSOLUTELY unnecessary, but since he will DEFINITELY continue editing the article, he wanted to know what others might think. Please note that Editor A is very experienced when it comes to understanding what Wikipedia stands for, and if there is one policy he has never broken, it is COI and paid editing, he has no real life links to the subjects of any of the articles he has edited on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is very possible that there are more Wikipedians, who are alumni of "University A", so should article talkpage be used as a place to list Wikipedians who are alumnus of a university? That doesn't seem right! Lastly, editor A has never had an editing dispute with established editors regarding the article (University A), but some inexperienced ones (the ones he is not in good terms with) are quick to pick on his edits in the article, he believes declaring a link on the talkpage might give them more basis to revert his edits, even though they will be sourced, neutral and encyclopedic.

So from the above, is it ABSOLUTELY necessary for editor A to declare a connection on University A talkpage? HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, HandsomeBoy. Without the actual user name of "Editor A", this can only be hypothetical. You have probably given enough information to make it fairly easy to determine that username, but i am not going to try at this point.
  • Many people feel an emotional attachment to the university or college where they took an undergraduate degree. This is enough to create a conflict of interest in many such cases. Therefore, I think that "Editor A" ought to declare that he has a COI as a graduate of "University A" if he intends to edit the articel about it. Any invalid reverts based on this COI can be addressed if and when they occur, via dispute resolution if need be.
  • A list of notable alumni of a school is common, a list of Wikipedia editors who are graduates is not, and in my view should not exist. A list of those who have a COI and edit the article is another matter. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the questioner substituted "NIGERIA" for the name of a different country, to disguise the username identity somewhat. If they did, that would be fine by me. Or perhaps they made other disguising changes in posing their question.
HandsomeBoy, DESiegel, I don't think that one has to declare COI if one edits at one's alma mater, assuming the edits are factual/moderate and are adding material that is verifiable in sources, rather than simply reflecting "personal knowledge", and not taking some subjective slant. Probably a very large fraction of edits at most university articles are by editors with some association like that. If an edit or series of edits are questioned by another editor, as appearing to be biased/slanted, then you should certainly stop with the edits, and you should worry that indeed maybe you do have a bad-type COI which is influencing your edits. You could then switch to making suggestions for specific edits, at the Talk page, and avoid the issue. I don't think you would be obligated to go into explaining a COI, if you are merely making suggestions at a Talk page. I am not an administrator and I am not an expert in this, and I am not a regular at the Teahouse, so feel free to take or leave my views, but I hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Unlike paid editing, declaration of a COI is never mandatory, particularly a rather mild one. Note that it is my view that even after declaring a mild COI, an editor need not refrain from direct edits as long as all edits are properly sourced. Procedures for COI are not graven in stone. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not certain whether this would meet your needs, HandsomeBoy, but how about creating an alternative account for editing that article, and declaring the COI for that account? It seems to me that that is a legitimate use of multiple accounts (see WP:VALIDALT). --ColinFine (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks DESiegel, Doncram, ColinFine so much for the responses. You might not understand but editor A really does appreciate your views, and enlightenment. Even though he is not 100% convinced on why he should say anything on the talkpage, he has learnt some crucial points from the proper interpretation of COI policy from this discussion. Regards. HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Use of images

Hi, I'm a publicist and am updating/creating some new pages for a client. I have some cover and book art I would like to upload in the article entries. Do I need some kind of release form from the author to do that, and if so, is there a standard release form Wikipedia prefers us to use? Thanks! -- ARynan (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Angela D

Welcome to the Teahouse, ARynan. The first thing that you must do is comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure. You must reveal the names of your clients. Please be fully aware of our conflict of interest policy, and follow it carefully. As far as uploading cover art, no permission is required for items that fully comply with our policy on use of non-free images. As for donating copyrighted images, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Permission must be granted by the image copyright holder, not the author. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there any specific verbage that is used in the disclosure statement? I want to make sure I do it right. Also, I'm not being paid for these Wiki articles; this is basically a freebie I'm doing -- but I will be uploading other material for another client later; that client IS paying me. Apologies if I'm being confusing. Do I still need to put some kind of disclosure in my Talk page? Thank you! ARynan (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, ARynan. Using the {{Paid}} template on your user page and {{connected contributor (paid)}} on the talk page of each such article is perhaps the simplest method of disclosure, and the most favored one. Click the links for detailed instructions on the parameters to use with each template. Do read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose for more detail. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but what should I do if I'm not being paid, but am making the editorial contribution on behalf of or at the request of someone else? ARynan (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If you expect to gain any indirect financial benefit, ARynan, such as advertising your editing services, you are still considered to be paid. Interns, for example, are considered to be paid editors. If not, you would still have a pretty clear conflict of interest and should read that page. A COI can be declared using {{connected contributor}} on the article talk page. Again, follow the link to see the details of usage. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. That answers the question for me; "paid" doesn't necessarily mean financial or monetary compensation. I think I'm clear on it now; I'll write a disclosure statement and put it on my page. I'll review the COI and make sure I address that as well if necessary. ARynan (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh...sorry, one more thing: Can I just write the disclosure on my User page, ie, "This User, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been compensated by <Name> for their contributions to Wikipedia." ? Will that do? ARynan (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, ARynan. Certainly, a detailed statement like that on your user page is a very good step toward compliance. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Very good; I'll make sure to write the disclosure. Thank you. I thought it would be better to get this question settled way in advance, rather than deal with it in the middle of everything, and didn't want to misrepresent in cases where I'm not being compensated monetarily. I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARynan (talk • contribs) 04:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Cullen, I apologize -- I didn't think I had made any new edits since speaking with you, but it was not my intention to violate any rules. I have added the disclosure on my User page; did I do it correctly? I don't want to continue with any edits before confirming the disclosure is acceptable. Again, I really apologize.ARynan (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARynan (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Disputing an articles information and marking it up a disputed to make sure all readers who visit the article understand to take caution, because other editors are refusing to allow more accurate corrections to be made.

Hello,

What can I do or what process needs to be followed to ensure that readers understand, at the very least that the information in the article is being disputed and is not considered 100% accurate? Is there a warning or something that can be placed on the webpage for future readers? Please assist because this needs to be done.

What do I need to do to ensure this happens?

Thanks, Monsore (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Monsore and welcome to the Teahouse.
It sounds like you are involved in a content dispute. The Teahouse is not a venue where content disputes are resolved. You already seem to be involved in discussions on the talk page of the article and on your talk page. That's the first step towards trying to work out a resolution. If that's not working, you should follow the steps at WP:dispute resolution which may eventually lead to creating an WP:RFC. Nobody on WP has more authority than you do, but your own authority is not useful in content disputes. You must be able to cite suitable sources that document what you claim.
As for marking up the article, there is a {{disputed}} template that can be used. To use it, you must follow up with a talk page discussion. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Where is the notice that part of an article is formatted like a list?

Hi, I have seen a notice that part of an article is formatted like a list at the top of the page, and I would like to add that to articles myself. What is the text i must insert to do that? Thanks, Heliozoan (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Heliozoan and welcome to the Teahouse.
There are so many maintenance templates, it's hard to keep track. It sounds like you're interested in the one named {{prose}}. You can place that template at the top of articles where you think a list is better represented as prose. There are also a number of cleanup templates relating to lists, but you could start at {{cleanup list}}. Please come back to the Teahouse with more information about what you are looking to do if these suggestions don't help. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

How do I auto-edit

I have no idea how to auto-edit. Can anyone please help Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huff slush7264 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Huff slush7264 and welcome to the Teahouse.
I'm not sure what you're looking for. Could it possibly be that you need instructions on AutoWikiBrowser? If that's not what you want, please try again with a more complete explanation. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Huff slush7264: If you refer to your account becoming autoconfirmed then it happens automatically when the account is at least four days old and has made at least ten edits. Your account has enough edits but is only one day old. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing process question

This is going to probably sound really dumb...but while I'm editing a draft and want to save changes, but not resubmit just yet, do I click the "publish" button as I go along? I don't want to accidentally resubmit the draft before I'm done and am terrified of stepping in the poo here... ARD (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@ARynan: Yes. "Publish" is the save button. RudolfRed (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and thank you for not laughing at me. There's a lot to take in here. I think I had better go slowly and check out some information pages and the chat room for some guidance before moving foward...:P ARD (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@ARynan: Others are unsure of the meaning. It was called save previously but changed to publish to hint that everybody can see the edit no matter which page it is on. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it better to edit on the draft page and make changes there? I'm kind of unclear about what the Sandbox is for. From what I've been able to gather, making changes in Sandbox can complicate things when transferring those changes to the draft page, because other people may have made additional edits in the interim...? Or am I misunderstanding this? ARD (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again ARynan, and any others reading this. Once a draft page has been created, I would edit it in place. Making changes elsewhere and then pasting them in runs the danger of accidentally overwriting other peopel's edits to the draft. However, if you want to use complex markup, such as a table or a tricky template, you might well want to practice that in a sandbox until the result is what you want. That is one of the classic uses of a sandbox. It can also be used for testing calls to a template being created or modified, and for testing wiki markup or editing generally. Some people use a sandbox as a place to start a draft, which is then moved to a draft page, or possibly even directly to an article page. This is surely acceptable, but I think it is easier and better practice to create a separate userspace page for such a purpose. If User:Example wanted to start a draft of an article about widgets, s/he could create User:Example/Widgets, or just create Draft:Widgets. Any user may create as many pages in his or her own userspace as he or she finds useful, provided that all such pages are aimed at improving Wikipedia in some way, and are not being used as personal web space of no connection with Wikipedia. (And of course provided that they do not violate any Wikipedia policies.) See WP:CSD#U5. I have quite qa few such pagesd myuself, see Special:PrefixIndex/User:DESiegel DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs

edit a name

Hi guys,

I want to try and get more clarity on something. I tried to update the name of Donnybrook Stadium which is now called Energia Park. The whole stadium has been renamed yet Wiki is holding the old name. What are the reasons for this? In Ireland we see examples of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviva_Stadium and I was wondering how this can be applied in my request? Thanks Jcoleman10 (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jcoleman10: This has been discussed with you at Talk:Donnybrook Stadium, including at least one link to a discussion on the general matter you speak of. Official or legal names are not always used as an article title, see WP:COMMONNAME. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Another user told you in that discussion "Standard practice for sports venues (in the UK and Ireland, at least) is to avoid using sponsored names for article titles unless no traditional alternative exists". If you want to change this standard practice, you will need to discuss such a significant guideline change in an appropriate forum(not exactly sure which one at the moment). 331dot (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask more about this here or raise it again in the Talk:Donnybrook Stadium to ask more? --Jcoleman10 (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more you want to ask(which you should do on that talk page), but unless you can demonstrate that in the last two months the name you want to use has become the common name for this facility,(which frankly seems unlikely to me) I don't think that further discussion on that page would be productive. Looking around, if you want to work to change the common practice regarding UK/Ireland stadium names, you may want to start a discussion at WT:SPORTS(the WikiProject for sports); If you want to work to change WP:COMMONNAME(which would be a very large, lengthy undertaking) you should comment at its talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
That being said, @Jcoleman10:, Wikipedia's a consensus-based operation. If consensus goes against you, no matter how right you think you might be, what we don't do is try to find another venue to argue it all the same. What we do is to lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 09:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ravenswing I think you need to be aware that this name has become common place with the stadium. It's not me thinking I am right it's the the case that it has become known as this and I would like to see that reflected in the name of the page. In regarding to losing gracefully I didn't think this was something to win. I thought it was about getting the information correctly reflected to what is common place which is what I am trying to do. If you look at these links you'll see that the name change has been adopted locally. This isn't meant to be an argument so please refrain from trying to turn it to one.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Energia+Park+(Donnybrook+Stadium)/@53.3210197,-6.2331055,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xb17013137ab9f79e!8m2!3d53.3210197!4d-6.2331055 https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/donnybrook-is-now-to-be-known-as-energia-park-1.3434934 https://www.ticketmaster.ie/Energia-Park-tickets-Dublin/venue/198701 https://www.aikenpromotions.com/shows/show/1268-the-national-donnybrook-stadium-dublin-live-in-energia-park-mulberry-ln-Dublin-4-on-15-Jun-2018.html https://www.aikenpromotions.com/shows/venue/414-energia-park.html http://sportforbusiness.com/energia-park-new-deal-confirmed/ http://www.irishrugby.ie/mobile/ireland/41707.php https://www.entertainmentforbusiness.com/energia-park-is-new-dublin-venue/ https://www.thesun.ie/sport/rugby-union/2568858/leinster-welcomed-back-to-ireland-by-thousands-of-fans-in-emotional-champions-cup-homecoming-at-energia-park/ 331dot does the above not show the common naming change? ThanksJcoleman10 (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  • The unanimous consensus two months ago was that the new name had not yet met the relevant standards for a change. So far, the consensus is still running against you. (That being said, you do realize that a majority of the links you present purporting to show that the new name is the most common one in all English-language sources use the old name?) I stand by my advice on the article's talk page that you just let this one go, and revisit this two years from now. In the meantime, the Teahouse is not the proper venue for content disputes. Ravenswing 22:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving sandbox edits to an article

I decided to make some major changes to an article, but since I am new at Wikipedia I decided to copy the article into my sandbox and first make the changes there. Now I have finished making the changes, but I'm not sure what the best way is to apply them to the article. I could copy and paste my sandbox version over the old version, but then it wouldn't show the changes that I specifically made in the history, so that is probably not the thing to do. I could put in the changes manually, going back and forth between my sandbox and the article, but I would rather use a faster method. Is there an efficient way to do this? Scd123 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scd123. I don't think there's a faster way, I'm afraid. It might be slightly faster to do it the other way around: copy over your version and then re-do others' edits. That's all I can think of.
This is why it's not actually a good idea to sandbox changes to existing articles. The "wiki" approach is to make incremental changes and be bold. – Joe (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Scd123: Administrators like me can perform an action called history merge which will copy all your individual edits with edit summaries to the article history. It is not meant for sandbox versions and don't ask for it another time or plan for it to happen but assuming you mean your normal /sandbox page, the pages are suited for this process. Do you want it? If you do then please do not edit the article at all before it has been done. I'm not even linking to the pages because I don't want to encourage others to view and edit the article. Doing so would block the history merge or make it difficult to perform. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
PrimeHunter, that would be great. If you're willing to do it, I won't edit my sandbox or the article until the merge is done. Scd123 (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Scd123: I have made the history merge. You are now free to edit both pages. One edit from the article was merged due to overlapping edits. It is now registered as the creating edit of User:Scd123/sandbox2. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much, PrimeHunter.

(edit conflict)

Hello Scd123 and welcome to the Teahouse.
Using a sandbox when making major changes to an article is certainly an accepted way to go about this. At your first step, when you create the sandbox copy, you are required to attribute the source article. See WP:COPYWITHIN. It's best to make a clean copy without changes and save it. You must then comment out or otherwise defeat certain items: non-free images cannot appear on sandbox pages and the category declarations at the bottom (adding a colon before the word Category is sufficient). If you did just these changes after pasting but before saving, I don't think anyone would complain.
You can now make whatever changes you want. If you're going to be at the task for very long (more than a couple of hours, say), you should probably leave a note on the talk page of the original article saying that you are working on it. You can even invite people to edit your sandbox in the meantime (but that leads to a complication we'll get to in a moment).
Once you are satisfied that your edits are complete and before copying the changes back to the original, you must check that no other edits have occurred to the original article. You can't just overwrite those changes without explanation.
Copy-pasting your sandbox copy into the original article can present other editors with a massive job of figuring out what you did. Remember that you must once again make an attribution for the copy according to COPYWITHIN. I prefer to see the changes merged back in to the original in "chunks" of an appropriate size for easier digestion. They can be logical chunks that make related changes throughout the text or just sequential chunks that work one section at a time. If nobody else made contributions to your sandbox, you're now done. If there were just one or two contributors, I consider it sufficient to give them credit when their chunk is copied over in the edit summary. If there are a lot of collaborators, you need to request a history merge by following the instructions at WP:HISTMERGE. This attribution is required by WP's approach to copyright. (It is not required that every individual edit you ever did to the sandbox remain available for inspection.)
It's always a good idea to close out your talk page statement that you are working on the article with a new statement summarizing what you did. It's particularly important to explain why certain references have been omitted or replaced in the course of the rewrite.
Of course, some editors may object, but there was a recent case at ANI where the consensus supported sandboxing for major rewrites as an acceptable path. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
jmcgnh, thanks for the link, that was useful. The reason I wanted to edit in the sandbox was I wanted to have more room for learning, experimenting, and changing my mind without messing up the original article, which worked out for me. It sounds like directly editing the original is more accepted by the Wikipedia community, but sandbox editing is still possible. The articles I'm working on get hardly any editing traffic, so I don't know if that changes anything. I think in the future I will directly edit articles, just to keep with convention. Scd123 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter and Jmcgnh: I'm genuinely surprised that neither of you has commented on the overt advertising style of the edits made to this article on the David O. McKay School of Education - (not all of which were, admmittedly, by Scd123 who has declared their paid involvement). I find the extraordinary minor detail based upon primary sources by the University which administers this college simply renders this page an over-promotional prospectus for this college - not something we normally approve of. (see WP:NOTPROMO. I would have expected mainly sources independent of the subject to have been used, and for links to the multiplicity of departments to have been placed into External Links. From a quick skim through the 22 references, 16 of them are pages created by the managing body. Hardly independent sources, and I would expect to see this verbose and overly detailed article to be heavily trimmed down, not expanded in this way. And, as a note to the new version creator, I would also expect the first sentence to tell me where in the world this college is located, not how many undergraduate degrees and educational degree courses it runs. I had to wade through three sentences of trivial detail before finding such a key fact, or which University runs it. I hope the editor will address these concerns and act on the relevant templates I have now added to that page. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nick Moyes and thanks for taking the extra step. When a question does not appear to require looking at a person's edit history and there is no link, I'm all too likely to take the easy path and just respond to the question at hand. Your criticisms of the article are valid and need to be addressed.
On the other hand, I would not like to have users think that bringing their questions to the Teahouse invites extra special scrutiny on their other activities. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes - you make a good point, jmcgnh, and I would never wish to put off any editor from contributing or asking questions here. But in my experience of helping out at the Teahouse over only the last 7 or 8 months, I have seen that many other issues (both good and bad) do tend to come to our attention as a result of a question being asked here. And it would be very remiss of us as hosts not to address them, too. Those follow-on actions that I have seen from new users coming here to ask questions has ranged from editors who have gone on to be helped and adopted under WP:AAU, to questioners given or offered extra help on another editor's talk page, encouraged and supported when they feel demoralised, provided with images, userboxes or general advice, guided, supported, right up to the extreme of (sadly) being blocked because they have drawn attention to their wholly unacceptable editing practices. I would not wish us to be selective in the way we give help, guidance and advice to new editors, otherwise asking a question at the Teahouse could become a route for bad editors to get their way. It is a difficult path to tread, but only by Teahouse hosts being supportive, fair, honest and open can we engender the trust of all our fellow editors who contribute to this amazing encyclopaedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Abbreviations from foreign languages in the lead sentence

In this article, what should the lead look like? I would like to know what the proper way to style a lead is on Wikipedia. Should the CATSA (English abbreviation) be bolded? And should the French abbreviation, ACSTA, be included? If it should be, what is the correct format for styling it within the lead?

Thanks in advance for the help.

R64Q (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

R64Q, my understanding is that the English abbreviation should be bolded. The French abbreviation should be included, but not bolded. See MOS:BOLDSYN and MOS:FORLANG.
Naturally, there are exceptions. For instance, Médecins Sans Frontières is better known by the French name, hence the bolding. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Seeking second opinion on a few pages

  1. FATELOVE104/sandbox doesn't seem to meet notability by a long shot. However, it is in the userspace. Leave it alone?
  2. Ebonylouise123x (userpage itself) is already described in its own article at Party and play and will not become an article. It is on a userpage, but it is not really a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Second thoughts?
  3. Myo Aung 143 (userpage itself) only has a company name listed on the page but seems to be trying to advertise their merchandise via the edit summary (see the page history).
  4. Hush jack may not fit a criteria directly, but it is unneeded and rude. MfD?

Thanks, JustBerry (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, JustBerry, welcome to the Teahouse. Some interesting detective work you've done there! I've changed bullets to numbers for convenience; I hope that's OK? The right approach is always to assume good faith, as it's important not to put off new editors. I usually watch a user's contribution history to assess their attitude/activity in editing here. These are my responses to your questions. (other editors may take a different view, of course) 1): I've left a welcome message which I've tweaked, advising them not to try to move that content out of their sandbox, and that we're not a webhosting service. My take on it is that it's probably OK to leave it there for now. But I would monitor their future editing patterns. 3): I've put a speedy delete (G11) on this short but promotional piece of content in userspace. The name returns a business in Myanmar, and I agree that the edit summary evidences the promotional nature of this content, which isn't OK for a userpage. 4): I don't think this is unduly offensive, and I would simply monitor that user's future edits to assess whether they are WP:NOTHERE, or just a bit blunt. i.e. Assume Good Faith. 2): I'm a little undecided myself. Just one edit ever - not overtly rude, but not really appropriate userpage content, either. I might suggest leaving them a welcome message and a request/suggestion that they might wish to remove that content from their userpage, as per WP:UP#NOT. But they may never return, and the page is unlikely ever to be visited. I'm minded to think, as it's not dragging Wikipedia's reputation down, I might leave it at that for now. How do these suggestions sound? Keep up the good work! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello JustBerry and fancy meeting you here at the Teahouse. I'm used to seeing you on IRC.
Your first link struck me with two issues. As the user had made no other edits, it qualifies as a WP:CSD#U5 "abuse of WP as a web host" tag. It also contained material that, if the page were not deleted, might have required attention from WP:OVERSIGHT. My trigger finger on U5 tags is a lot quicker on pages that have hung around for 30 days with no other edits than it might be for a 3-day-old sandbox, but it's always a judgment call as to whether the material ought to be allowed to hang around or if it's better to ask an admin to consider removing it. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Converting a Table from the German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia

I am trying to transfer the winners list from this article, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironman_Australia, over to an English version of the page I'm making. However, when I do so, there are format errors. I am getting this error message: Error in Template:Dts: days must be an integer between 1 and 31. However, all numbers are within 1-31. I'm starting to think this particular table is incompatible with the English wikipedia, as it was specifically created for the German one. For example, the months are automatically shown as "Mai" instead of May and "Mär" instead of March, and they are nowhere to be found in the actual source code itself.

Is there a way I can fix this error I am getting? Or is it not possible to transfer this table from German wikipedia to English wikipedia? Airgum (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Airgum and welcome to the Teahouse.
Indeed, the de-wiki definition of the Dts template has its parameters in a different (some would say more logical) order than the en-wiki version of {{dts}} so you can't simply bring the table over without swizzling the date parts into the proper order. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help jmcgnh! I didn't realize it was as easy as just flipping the dates from "day, month, year" to "year, month, day". I got the thing to work! Airgum (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles in the fashion of Algonquin

Is there any way to write articles about what happened to Algonquin? Um, it's kinda unexplainable. CelestialSasara (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Welcome to the Teahouse, Celestialsasara. Unfortunately, unless you can elaborate on what you mean -- for one thing, there are a few dozen Wikipedia articles with "Algonquin" in their name -- we can't help you. Ravenswing 09:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
According to Boroughs of New York City, there has never been a borough of that name; nor is it mentioned in Neighborhoods in New York City. The name is of course anachronistically attached to a few individual entities, most obviously the famous Algonquin Hotel, and just as obviously pays tribute to (or in another view is appropriated from) the indigenous and widespread Algonquin people, but have you any reason to think that the name was ever applied to a particular geographical area within New York?
(Incidentally, as a Brit I was myself surprised to discover the above when researching your query.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.160.23 (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
When driving through New York City I was in Algonquin before I arrived at the Bronx. Then I drove south into Manhattan and saw that the architecture in the Bronx was lower-income compared to Manhattan. So that's how I remembered there were six boroughs. CelestialSasara (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a serious inquiry. I've also deleted the following from Talk:New York City: "How to talk about the sixth borough in New York City west of Manhattan and the Bronx? It disappeared due to a timeline change across the fifth dimension of string theory." Station1 (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_779&oldid=1138690095"