Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 749

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 745 ← Archive 747 Archive 748 Archive 749 Archive 750 Archive 751 → Archive 755

small errors or oversights on wikipedia

I enjoy reading Wikipedia; it seems a fine, informative encyclopedia with many thorough and clear and accurate contributions. There are some small errors within it. Also, it seems that it is now used by the International Media by authors for major newspapers. These authors have repeated errors from Wikipedia verbatim. First, regarding the article for Debra Hill, the producer of the Halloween films; she was born in Philadelphia, PA and grew up in Haddonfield, NJ. Her obituary from The Courier-Post Newspaper available online gets it right; e19:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)173.61.126.2 (talk)very other newspaper and Wikipedia gets it wrong, stating she was born in Haddonfield, NJ and grew up in Philadelphia, PA; the opposite is the case; she is a graduate of Haddonfield Memorial High School. Second, a British tennis pro of the 1960's-70's, Roger Taylor won the Pennsylvania Grass Court Championship at the Merion Cricket Club in the early 1970's; this event was an important warm up for the US Open at Forest Hills when the event was held on grass; Taylor beat Jimmy Connors in the Final. Taylor's victory is not mentioned in the article about him. Third, the present "interim editor" of the Virginia Quarterly Review, Donovan Webster, does not appear on the masthead for the literary journal and probably is no longer an editor there; also, and more importantly, The Bread Loaf School of English of Middlebury College does not offer the MFA degree; Mr. Webster may have an MFA, but he must have completed it somewhere else. Also, Bread Loaf is two words usually. Gert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.126.2 (talk • contribs)

Hi, anonymous IP. Welcome to our Teahouse. It's great that you find Wikipedia helpful and informative, but, you know, with 5.6 million articles on stuff, and with the encyclopaedia available for anyone to edit and correct, it is inevitable that some errors creep in. We have all sorts of checks and balances to minimise this, but it can never be perfect. In fact, Wikipedia itself recognises (and advises) that it should never itself be used as a source of reliable information. So, it's quite sloppy journalism when professionals take at face value what they find on Wikipedia, rather than use the references which should be present in every article to support those statements. So, whilst you're sitting there in Haddon Heights Library, surrounded by books, journals and magazines, maybe you could use some of them to correct and update any errors you do encounter, like the ones you mention above? Or, if you don't feel happy to do that, you could always leave a note about your concerns on each article's Talk Page, and leave it for someone else to check and fix. Either way is fine. Wikipedia isn't built by experts; it's built by people like you and me - carefully doing our bit to collate information together into one easy-to-access place for others to use. That's why English Wikipedia is now the fifth most visited website in the world, with 3.3 million new edits added every month and 730 articles added every day. Whilst you're free to edit from an IP address, you might like to consider creating a free account and joining the 138,800 other people who have been actively editing here over just the last 30 days alone. (That's 33.2 million Wikipedia editors in total!) If you want any specific help or advice on editing, do feel free to ask. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

On Citation

Hello Fellow Wikipedia-editors... I was just wondering what sort of sources are recommended for reference in the creation (or edition) of a Wikipedia article. Particularly, I was wondering whether it would be all right to cite from other wikis, or from just any informational web page.

Also, I was wondering whether there is supposed to be a certain citation form to a reference, or whether it is only required to state any pertinent information in particular, such as an author's name, publisher's name, etc.

- J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.S. Clingman (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@J.S. Clingman: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to make it better by citing your sources. Start by reading WP:RS which will explain what sources are (and are not) acceptable. Citing Wikipedia is not allowed, since it is user generated content. You can also read WP:REFB for how to format citations. RudolfRed (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@J.S. Clingman: It's worth mentioning that either of the two editing tools we use both contain a "Cite" button which, if clicked, offers you a choice of "Templates" into which you can add pertinent information, depending on whether it's a books, newspaper, journal or website, to name but a few. These prompt you for all the information you might be able to supply. The more you can add, the more useful the reference will be to another user to check the facts that you have supplied. If you use the Visual Editor (that's the more WYSIWYG of the two) you can create some references automatically just with a url, DOI or ISBN number, which makes life a lot quicker than doing it all manually. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a horse picture galloping through the grass?

My horse picture was deleted but I don't know why? And I can't make one my own. So if you don't mind, can someone add a horse picture to my talk page or userpage please? HorsesARENiceRide me to my talk page 18:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason for the deletion was given in the deletion log. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@HorsesAreNice: There's a bunch of pictures over at Commons - maybe you can find one there? --bonadea contributions talk 19:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@HorsesAreNice: These any good to you? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Caballo-ruano-castaño
Caballo-ruano-castaño
Canter animated
Canter animated

Thanks for the pics! I used the one on the right! Thanks! HorsesARENiceRide me to my talk page 22:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding A Photo

I have submitted an article on Blair A.Ruble an author and Russia Expert. I want to add a photo that has been provided by The Wilson Center that he uses for the book jackets of his books and for all of his publicity. The photographer and The Wilson Center and Blair Ruble have given permission for it to be used in Wikipedia and agreed that it can be used by anyone. Can I do that with The Wilson Center being credited? I have some personal pictures that I took but they are not very good. The one I want to use is a good head shot. I tried to use one before and it was rejected and I was told that I could not give permission for it to be used since The Wilson Center took the picture. Thanks for any help you can provide.

PS: I just resubmitted the article which had been rejected because I did not do the reference citations correctly.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blair_Aldridge_Ruble#cite_note-4

Noreen BanksNoreen Banks (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Noreen Banks, and welcome to the Teahouse. You would need to follow the procedure described at Donating Copyrighted Materiel. The copyright owners must confirm the release of the image under a permanent free license, such that anyone can use it for any purpose, and make modified versions and use those. The the image may be uploaded to Wikimedia commons, see Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1 for more detail. Then it will need to be used in the draft, see Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/5 for details. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Noreen Banks. I guess it kind of depends on a couple of things. The first one is whether The Wilson Center holds the copyright on the photo in question. The copyright of a photograph tends to be held by the photogtrapher who takes the photo unless that individual engages in an official copyright transfer agreement, etc. So, The Wilson Center can only agree to release content they hold the copyright over. Sometimes an organization just mistakenly assumes they own the rights to an image., while other times, they may try something such as license laundering, etc. to make others believe they own the rights. Regardless of their original intent, Wikipedia needs to make sure of the copyright ownership and is unlikely to accept anything whose ownership is questionable.
The next question has to do with what they mean by it can be used by anyone. If they mean that they are giving their explicit consent (such as stated at WP:CONSENT), then they sould be able to release the image under a license compatible with WP:COPY and c:COM:L. If, however, they mean that the file can be used by anyone, excluding commerical, derivative or other uses they might not like, then such a license wouldn't be accepted by either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Basically, they have to agree in advance to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file and then subsequently use for any purpose. They also need to understand that once the file has been released under a free license, they cannot revoke or cancel the license at a later date.
So, if they are the copyright holder and agree to license the file in accordance with relevant Wikimedia Foundation policy, then they should upload the file to Commons directly since this will make it much easier for other WMF Projects to use the file. They can find out more how to do this at c:COM:UPLOAD and c:COM:OTRS. If, however, they are unwilling to agree to all of the above or are not the original copyright holder, then the file cannot really be accepted by Wikipedia or Commons. In such a case, it might be possible to uploadd the file locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, but this is hightly restrictive and not suitable for all types of uses. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Book as a Reference?

Can a Book be a reference? I have made a page called reticulitermes lucifugus using the information given in the book Atlas of World Wildlife by the world wildlife fund. Can we put it as a reference? Thanks a lot in advance (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Hello Sitaphul. Yes, of course. You can use the {{Cite book}} template to format it. – Joe (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is Khaled Malas tagged?

I am a new user. I am researching this architect, Khaled Malas for my project. I do not understand why his entry is tagged as being non-neutral. Thank you. ~~coneyislandbaby lou~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coneyislandbaby lou (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Coneyislandbaby lou, Khaled Malas is not tagged for being non-neutral. it is tagged for being promotional. These are often related, but are not quite the same. However, I don't see any seriously promotional content and may remove the tag. The article is also tagged for questionable WP:Nnotability and as it stands, i think that tag is proper. Additional cites sources might deal with the issue. A good place to discuss this would be on Talk:Khaled Malas. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed that the tag has not been removed, although i agree with the article being non-neutral. i do not agree it is promotional. a previous user has raised this in Talk:Khaled Malas. I will continue to find additional cites. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coneyislandbaby lou (talk • contribs) 10:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


Thank you very much. I do not understand it as being promotional. It ic certainly neutral. Thank you for your help. Coneyislandbaby lou —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This logo won't switch to the new version, it just shows the old version. Tried purging, didn't work. How to fix? ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 06:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's a valid link to it: This logo. I see that there's been some to-ing and fro-ing about which version should be used, the latest change was about two hours before you wrote your question above. Maproom (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I see the current version in Philippine Airlines. That is the version with comment "Reverted to version as of 04:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)". PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Music Artist Page

Hello. I represent a music artist and would like to get a wikipedia page set up for him. The artist is TKO from Omaha, NE. Easily found online, TKO is a rising hip hop artist with great presence on Spotify. His bio there explains a few things including recording a song with popular hip hop star Rittz, which has helped his music on Spotify reach nearly a million streams as of this writing. With a few other accolades and a bright future, a wikipedia page is something I am interested and securing for my artist. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:940A:A6DE:3166:176C:9215:27AC (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest that you not attempt to write an article for your client. You seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. It is not a forum for promotion or publicity. This is an encyclopedia where article subjects must be shown to be notable with independent reliable sources. Wikipedia has no interest whatsoever in what someone wishes to say about themselves, only in what third parties write about an article subject in depth. Your use of the term "rising" suggests to me that it is far too soon for an article about your client and that they probably do not meet any of the notability guidelines at WP:BAND. If your client does later meet them, it is best for someone unaffiliated with them to write the article.
Lastly, you should read about conflict of interest and paid editing, the latter of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Main page Twinkle mistake

Hi, I have just installed Twinkle for Wikipedia, and I decided to test its powers after using it on small things. At first I tried adding a maintenance tag to the main page as a test, and it failed, as it was fully-protected. However, when I attempted to remove all backlinks to the Main Page, it began to do that. I quickly stopped it, but I do not know how to restore the random links. Please help, thanks!

I know it was pretty stupid. User:SuperTurboChampionshipEdition

@SuperTurboChampionshipEdition: I've reverted your edits. You're welcome. See Help:Reverting for more information. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this page good?

Hey just wrote my first Wikipedia page and was wondering if it was any good and what changes i need to make. here is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calpurnia_(band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethM06 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. I would suggest that you add more content about the band. Also, as it is the notability of the band can't be confirmed. So, I suggest you add more references from third party sources. Also, add the musical style and if you're among the band members then I would suggest you read WP:COI. Abhinav0908 (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello @SethM06: welcome to wikipedia. I believe the band are notable for wikipedia, but the article could do with being expanded. I've edited the page a little to help you out. Use google to search for news stories about the band, and look at other wikipedia articles written about other bands for ideas of what to add. If you need any help let us know. Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

My edit recently registered record was not published

I had edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saikhom_Mirabai_Chanu this page after she had registered a record in Commonwealth Games, but later I got a message that I can't edit a new record when it is registered. Can I know why did I get that message. --Ashish D Souza (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure, so I would suggest that you ask the person who gave you the message, by posting a reply on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Page Ratings and Recommendations?

Hi all!

I'm working on improving the Emilia Lanier wiki page. Does anyone have any recommendations? I'm going to add in more images, add to the biography (with sources, of course), break up some of the Poetry section with more specific headings, and probably delete a lot of the Shakespeare Links section. The Shakespeare Links section is problematic because it distracts from Lanier and is generally unfounded. I might interchange the Shakespeare Links section with a section called Dark Lady Theory, because that's all it really is. I'll explain the Dark Lady theory, but I don't think it's necessary to go into detail about Shakespeare's unrelated plays on Emilia Lanier's wiki.

I was also wondering if anyone could tell me how to, after I'm done editing, submit it to see if I can get the page rating improved. I'd like to resubmit it once I'm done to the Women Writers Project.

Thanks! CarefulCatBird (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The place for discussing improvements to the article Emilia Lanier is the article's talk page: Talk:Emilia Lanier. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Before changing the article, you ought to read the Manual of Style, as (for example) I see that some of your recent edits have changed dates from a format that complies with MOS:DATE to a format which doesn't. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User merging

Hi, aparently there was a global user merge a while ago. I havent been an active contributor in years now. However, now I see that this merge probalby lead to "hijacking" of someone elses account; as not the same person did use the username in question across all spaces. Who can be contacted to give the account back to the original owner, and un-link it from the rest of the similar usernames from other spaces? Roger (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roger, welcome to the Teahouse. The current unified login system means the same person must have the same username at all wikis. Special:CentralAuth/Roger shows you have around 1400 edits in total across Wikimedia wikis. The former English Wikipedia account Roger was renamed to Roger~enwiki in 2015. Special:CentralAuth/Roger~enwiki only shows 4 edits and Special:Contributions/Roger~enwiki shows they were in 2002. Don't worry. Nothing should be done. You have far more right to the name than he does, and he probably hasn't even discovered that he was renamed 13 years after his last edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

How to get my name on Wikipedia linked to my IMDb page

Hey there, Curious, my son is a series regular on the Netflix show Insatiable. Most of the cast names are typed in purple and link over to their IMDb page or web page. My sons name is typed in black and does not link to his IMBd page. How do I go about changing this for him. Thanks you so much for your assistance, Best, Mary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:4000:9E80:9C95:8ACA:4A17:87F9 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link Insatiable (TV series) though none of the cast links go to IMDb or websites, they are links to their Wikipedia articles. Theroadislong (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello Mary, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I presume that you refer to Insatiable (TV series). Most cast members' names are linked, not to their IMDB pages (we don't normally do that), but to a separate Wikipedia article about that person. Ones that are not so linked apparently do not (yet) have articles, either because no one has yet created such an article, or because they are not yet notable. See our guideline on the notability of actors for more details on this.
Note also that you are strongly advises not to try to create a Wikipedia article about yourself, your son, or any close friend or person or organization with which you are closely associated. Wikipedia articles should be neutral, neither promoting nor disparaging anyone, and it is very hard to write neutrally about anyone or anything one is closely associated with. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

CNN

Is CNN news is a reliable source or a good source for reference on wikipedia.DCEU (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. It would be for most stuff but if you could elaborate then I can give a more definitive answer. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Help! I believe I accidently created a page

I was following the directions for 'how to create a subpage in your sandbox' (To create a new sandbox (call it anything, such as 'sandbox2') enter this in the search box, using your actual username: User:Yourname/sandboxThen click on the reply you may create the page "User:Yourname/sandbox" ...but it seems I somehow created a new page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Redwidgeon/sandbox2&action=edit). How do I get rid of it?? Or, since I didn't actually add any info or click on 'publish page', will it just go away of its own accord? Thanks for any help you can provide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwidgeon (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Redwidgeon, welcome to the Teahouse. There is no problem. A sandbox is a page like any other so when you create a new sandbox, you create a new page. User:Redwidgeon/sandbox2 is valid page for a sandbox for your account. You can request deletion by placing {{db-u1}} on the page but there is no need to have it deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  Many thanks, PrimeHunter! Redwidgeon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Newbie asks, how do I create a page about my place of work?

Subject line pretty much says it all. I've been charged with creating a page for our newspaper, but I keep getting reprimanded by H. What do I have to do, and make it simple, por favor.

robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster at Kentucky Today (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Webmaster at Kentucky Today. Welcome to the teahouse and to Wikipedia. Hammersoft has been correctly informing you of some key policies and practices, namely that a username should not be the name of an organization, nor imply shared use, and that people editing as part of their employment, or under contract, must disclose this. No one that I can see has reprimanded you for creating User:Webmaster at Kentucky Today/sandbox, which is actually a surprisingly good start for a draft created by an editor about the editor's own workplace. In fact it is good enough that it might plausibly be moved to Draft:Kentucky Today. It is not, however, ready for the main article space at this time.
The most important thing needed for this to become a valid article is to cite several reliable sources, both to support the facts in the text, and to establish the notability of the topic. Note that Wikipedia uses the word "notability" min a special sense -- here it means "has been written about in some depth by multiple reliable sources". Please read our guideline on the notability of companies and businesses. There are also some formatting issues (for example, all links to outside sites should be in source citations or in an External links section), but the addition of source citations is probably the main thing needed at this point. Please read Referencing for Beginners to learn how to format inline citations.
Would you object to my moving it to the Draft space as the next stage of its progress towards a valid article? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, DESiegel. Your comments are very encouraging. Kentucky Today has been mentioned many times by a competing newspaper, that has a Wiki page. Not really in depth comments. More along the lines of snide. Also, Kentucky Today writers have numerous bylines in dozens of newspapers. Would those citations suffice? Should I change my username to my real name? I have no objections to you moving the sandbox page to the draft stage. Thank you. So sorry for all the questions. I find the instructions on here tedious for my so-right brain. -robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster at Kentucky Today (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Webmaster at Kentucky Today. While this user name is not as clearly against our policies, a name which more celarly identifies you as an individual would be better. It does not have to be your legal name. User:Robin At Kentucky Today would do, or User:R85 At Kentucky Today, or any penname that you might wish to use. Or you can use your real name, as i choose to. It may but need not include the "At Kentucky Today" form.
As to source citations, to establish notability, there should be several (at least 3-4 in my view, but there is not any hard and fast rule) Independent, professionally published reliable sources that have written about the publication. This means more than a passing mention, each such source should include at least several paragraphs about KT. Sources need not be newspapers, nor online. A book that describes a variety of magazines would be acceptable, as would a review article. Source should not be blogs, nor fan sites, nor be without any sort of editorial checking. Simple directory entries are also of no help in establishing notability, nor would anything published in the magazine itself. If some of your regular authors are themselves notable, this would help . DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Webmaster at Kentucky Today: Helpful tip; you can easily sign your talk page comments (like here) by adding a "~~~~" to the end of your post. That will automatically add your username and a time/date stamp to the end of your post. This helps us to identify who wrote something, and when. Ok, for the article; understand that stating that you have a conflict of interest is not an accusation about your integrity. We understand you have the best of intentions. The problem arises that people who are directly involved in or with a subject have a difficult time separating themselves from it enough to remain neutral on the subject, even if they are trying quite hard to do so. We have a policy here of writing neutrally in our articles. For someone employed by the subject of the article, is is not impossible to be neutral but it is quite difficult. I've seen it done, but it's uncommon. An example of how this can trip up against our policies is right in the sandbox you've created; there are five inline links that point to your website. Normally, the only place we would have that link is either in the infobox of the article, and/or in an external links section. ~10 minutes ago, @Theroadislong: tagged this sandbox for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11, which means the article is purely promotional in nature. I can't say I fully agree with this, but it's not inaccurate either. Think about it this way; you as an employee of an organization have been asked to create an article for that organization. Of course you want to put your company in the best light. Would you intentionally write something negative about your company, even if were true and could be cited to reliable secondary sources such as a notable newspaper? I don't think your employer would be too happy with you if you did. And now, while I was writing this, it's been deleted. People with no connection to an organization are at liberty to write negative commentary, if its valid and cited. That would be hard for you to do, and therefore through no fault of your own you are compromised in your ability to be neutral on this subject. Does that make sense? The numerous bylines help to sustain notability of Kentucky Today, but by itself would not be of interest to the article, were it created. I'm sorry the instructions here are tedious. I know the learning curve here is a bit steep. But, don't let that deter you. Despite all this, we really are here to help. We might be able to create the draft for you. Can you point us to some secondary sources that discuss the subject in some detail (not just in passing)? How about some verifiable statistics on the subject, far preferably that are independent from the subject? While we can use Kentucky Today as a source, it is a primary source and we would very likely use it sparingly. Lastly, I just want to say...thank you for trying to work WITH us than against us. Trust me, we have literally thousands of companies that have tried to brute force there way into this project. I appreciate your candor and collegiality. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Webmaster at Kentucky Today, Hammersoft, Theroadislong, and Deb:, While the above exchange was in progress, another admin deleted the page as being overly promotional. I disagree, and have requested that this deletion be undone. However, you and your employer do need to understand that if an article about Kentucky Today is created, they will not control mit, and negative content, if supported by reliable sources, my be added to the article and remain there. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I would be happy to create the article myself but I can't find a single independent source that mentions them. Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the restored page to Draft:Kentucky Today, and cleaned up the formatting. However, like Theroadislong I have been unable to find any significant independent sources via a google search. Webmaster at Kentucky Today, if you can find such sources, whether online or offline, please list them on Draft talk:Kentucky Today. Please include full bibliographic detail. If such sources cannot be found and cited, this will never be a Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for your efforts! Here are some independent sources about Kentucky Today

From the Advocate-Messenger

"The Advocate-Messenger has also announced a partnership with Kentucky Today, an online newspaper covering state government and UK sports. Long-time journalists Tom Latek and Roger Alford, along with other Kentucky Today staff, will be providing The Advocate-Messenger with investigative and analytical reporting on state government. On the sports side, Kentucky Today sports writer Keith Taylor will provide comprehensive coverage of University of Kentucky sports. “We are excited to partner with Kentucky Today because it gives readers top-notch state-level news coverage,” Hensley said. Kentucky Today touts itself as “your one-stop source for today’s top state, national and world news, plus news from the business, sports and entertainment worlds. … without the hassle of subscription fees or logins.” It is an online publication of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, the state’s largest religious organization with 750,000 members in 2,400 churches." Source The Advocate Messenger Advocate moving Accent, H&G content to A sections

Sun partners with Kentucky Today for UK, state news "As The Sun becomes one of the exclusive print partners for digital-only newspaper Kentucky Today, former Sun sports editor Keith Taylor will provide comprehensive coverage of Kentucky sports. Long-time journalists Tom Latek and Roger Alford and other Kentucky Today staff members who will provide in-depth analysis of what is going on in at the statehouse. ... "For Taylor, it is an invigorating opportunity to again be featured in the newspaper he was an integral part of for nearly 15 years.

“During my time at The Winchester Sun, Winchester and Clark County was like a second home to me and everyone treated me like family from the very first day and I have never forgotten that,” Taylor said. “The community has a special place in my heart, and I’m looking forward to providing coverage of the Kentucky Wildcats for Winchester and Clark County in my new capacity as sports editor at Kentucky Today.” ... Kentucky Today touts itself as “your one-stop source for today’s top state, national and world news, plus news from the business, sports and entertainment worlds … without the hassle of subscription fees or logins.” It is an online publication of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, the state’s largest religious organization with 750,000 members in 2,400 churches.

I have more links about the staff.

Mark Maynard, Kentucky Today managing editor http://www.dailyindependent.com/sports/distinguished-tomcat-award-finds-hands-of-write-ful-owner/article_a6971d16-eb8c-11e7-84d5-ff6c7d287a59.html http://www.dailyindependent.com/news/ronnie-ellis-maynard-is-great-journalist-better-person/article_c5b6c19e-5da5-11e7-aa3b-2f116bf8d93f.html http://www.dailyindependent.com/news/mark-maynard-years-and-no-longer-counting/article_d4b2e77e-4566-11e7-94b5-7fcd2c232610.html

Books Mark Maynard has written Teamwork: Ashland's 1961 Championship Basketball Season https://www.amazon.com/Teamwork-Ashlands-Championship-Basketball-Season/dp/1931672695 Mark My Words https://www.amazon.com/Mark-My-Words-Maynard/dp/1931672555 Grace Runner http://amyforafrica.com/grace-runner/

I'm sure there will be many more links to independent sources. Our editor had a long tenure with the Associated Press and the Columbus Daily Dispatch.

We don't mind negative reviews, comments or links. As journalists, we are use to it. 

Webmaster at Kentucky Today (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Webmaster at Kentucky Today I would reiterate that you need to change your username; usernames cannot be that of a position as that suggests the name could be shared(as in handed off to your successor or used by other webmasters at your paper). Instructions on how to do so are on your user talk page, please review them. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

unsuccessful in getting help

i am not a computer user and have been having a really hard time getting information for Daniel Shindarov, a 93 year old violin player published to wikipedia. tried my best with directions on article creation but to no success... and no matter what i try cannot get any help, just deletions. Mr. Shindarov being 93 years old does not really have articles... there are some russian newspapers and a few online music sites that have written some articles, but being his age not much is available from russia when he was part of bolshoi theater orchestra. how can i get some help with this creation? didn't want to wait until he is passed on before creating information about him. thank you, sofia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirskull (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, Sirskull welcome to our Teahouse. I'm a little bit confused by your posting because the 'hard time' you refer to seems to date back six years to an article your submitted in 2012 which was then rejected. That article appears to have been kept as a draft so that it could be further worked on, though six years later, untouched, it is inevitable that it would have been deleted. You then appear to have returned and posted a question on the talk page of an editor who has not been active for over a year -though I couldn't work out what drove you to do that. Anyway - you're here now, and that's what counts. The best place to draft any article is in your own sandbox (every user has one of their own) as there's no time limit on how long content remains there, providing it meets with our general acceptability guidelines (no copyright violations/unsubstantiated material about a living person etc). Because not everyone in the world meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it may be that you'll never be able to create an article on this man. But there's no harm in trying. If he's from Russia, a good place to start is to look on Russian Wikipedia and see if he's been covered there. If so, you could use the references deployed there as a starting point, and even translate the article (providing you give credit to the source). If not, you'd need to start looking around for in-depth coverage of him in books, newspapers, magazines etc. If he is notable only for his music, you would need to read WP:NMUSICIAN to see whether or not he's likely to meet our criteria for notability of musicians. Gather those references together in your sandbox and then use only them to write about him, but using only your own words, not copying those sources directly. Once you've done that, then you could consider submitting the article to Articles for Creation, or coming back here for an opinion. How does that sound? Is this the sort of help you were hoping for? We can't write the article for you, but we can advise whether or not you're one the right path. There certainly seem to be a lot of videos and short mentions of him, though at a quick check I couldn't see anything in depth that had been written about him by other people in mainstream independent websites. But maybe you can dig these out. Hoping this helps to get you going again. regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Article

When I want to write something in wikipedia , I am denied why?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obaidullah wahdat (talk • contribs) 07:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Obaidullah wahdat. In the article Subject pronoun, you misspelled the word "subjective" as "subjecetive". Also, you added this personal commentary "It is proofread by Obaidullah Wahdat Haidar" to the article, which is not allowed. You are allowed to edit articles, but if your changes do not improve an article, they will be reverted. Take some time to study our help pages, including our policies and guidelines, and be sure that your edits to articles are actual improvements. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:AlviZaman80

I found this account on the user creation log. User:AlviZaman80. Thir userpage and talk page seems too advance for a new user to do. Is this user a sock? Thegooduser Let's Chat 23:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Do you have some reason to suspect that the user is a sock other than their ability to use wikicode on their user page? Maybe they studied it beforehand, or abandoned a prior account in good faith, or forgot their password, etc. etc. Please assume good faith and don't go looking for socks unless you have evidence. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Sorry. I was just wondering about that account. I'll assume good faith in the future. :-) Thegooduser Let's Chat 23:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Appears Thegooduser was correct and user was a sock of User:Alvi Z.NZFC(talk) 00:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
NZ Footballs Conscience Fair enough, but Thegooduser didn't say that the name was similar to another one,(or say they had anything else to base their suspicion on) only going by the user's proficiency in creating their user page. That's probably not enough in most cases. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

How to recover deleted draft for editing

hi i would like to see my draft that was deleted for editing please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloggerglittergloss (talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bloggerglittergloss: I don't see that you have edited any pages other than this one. You can try WP:REFUND if you know the name of the article that was deleted. RudolfRed (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bloggerglittergloss: It was deleted as spam. Spam is never restored. There is another draft about the same person at Draft:Abhijeet Gholap and there should never be more than one draft avout the same thing. As already requested, you have to comply with WP:PAID. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 08:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bloggerglittergloss: I have mailed a copy of the last version. Other users don't have access to your stored email address but can mail you via Special:EmailUser. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Slander on a person page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_McArdle

I absolutely do not like the person the web page describes. However the sentence: 

 ``She is a useless human devoid of empathy, humanity, or merit. She is medically incapable of self-reflection, a condition doctors have deemed terminal.

is extremely childish and needs to be removed.

And no, I'm not going to be the one to remove it, the damn drama that happens here when editing pages is why I stay the hell away, but putting that in a wikipedia page is clearly not appropriate and reflects badly on wikipedia.

The user that did that, even though I probably would buy them a beer for being right, needs to have their account suspended for mis-use of wikipedia in that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B06B:8D62:B30E:1CD2:A6CC:41AE (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've reverted it. Fram (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, the person who carried out that vandalism did so from an IP address, not an account. That IP made three reasonable minor Article edits plus one comment on a talk page during 2017 – this latest seems different in character, so may not be the same person. Time may tell. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Review Draft

Hello! Why does it takes so long for my draft to be reviewed? I've waited 1 month now, before, I only had to wait 2 weeks, max.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jan_Lexell Nimbo.lo (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nimbo.lo, and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts are reviewed by volunteer editors, working on there own time and at their own pace. There is a backlog. Six weeks is not an uncommon delay. If you got reviewed in 2 weeks before, you got lucky. In the meantime you can improve the draft further, or work on other articles or drafts. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As it happens, Nimbo.lo, I'm one of the editors who review drafts, so I popped in to take a look at this one. It's been rejected four times already because you haven't demonstrated that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, published, third-party sources, and all you've done are some cosmetic edits since the last rejection. I've now declined the draft for the fifth time, and I strongly urge you not to resubmit the draft until and unless you address the previous concerns and provide such sources. Ravenswing 19:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ravenswing:, I'm positive that the academic person meets the criteria for notability WP:NPROF. I'm just not sure how to show it. First, Lexell has received a honory degree at Luleå University of Technology, which therefore should establish notability under criteria #2. Lexells work has also got many citations which also should satisfy criteria #1. Although I'm aware that I haven't written in the submission anything about his citations. I wasn't sure how to reference it, that's why. I have now read in WP:NPROF that Scopus would be a good source. So if I wrote about Lexells citations in my article and reference to his site at Scopus, then notability should be established right? Nimbo.lo (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Nimbo.lo surely an honorary degree would be covered in a news article at the time, and probably in a press release or on a web page by the granting institution. That could be cited. however, not all honorary degrees count as a highly prestigious honor, so this along may not satisfy WP:NPROF #1. Thw Scopus cite would need to make it clear that this person is 'highly-cited", which is a bit of a judgement call. Still such a cite would be a good idea. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
DESiegel I know, but I've already referenced to the university page, where they wrote about Lexells honorary degree. I've also referenced to Lund Universitys page where they wrote about it, and also to a big medicine magazine in Sweden. It should satisfy #2. Since it's an honorary degree at Luleå University of Technology. Which is a highly center of learning in Sweden. It would have been different if he'd got an honorary degree at a college, but LTU is not that. Therefore Notability should be established. About the citations, on Scopus you can clearly see that Lexell has many articles where he has got many citations (over 500, which is many), and he also stands as first author on them, that should be enough to establish notability. Nimbo.lo (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I just had a look at the draft - out of curiosity - and I also think this person seems to meet the criteria although the article is poorly-worded in places. I might be prepared to help out if needed. Deb (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Deb Yes please, that would have been very nice of you! Nimbo.lo (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Referencing Wiki Commons creators

Hi,

I've been trying out adding in a photo from wiki commons - the actual adding in process is fine. However I haven't added a specific attributation to whoever uploaded the photo to Commons. I've had a look at a number of other photos added by others from commons, and nothing seems to show up in the wikitext - I just wanted to check there was nothing that I'm supposed to add?

Cheers, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nosebagbear. Clicking an image automatically leads to attribution (unless there is specific image code to disable this feature). This is sufficient. Wikipedia does not use image attribution in captions or elsewhere on the article itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I shall go and add some more to some photo-less articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Publish Biograph

what are the details i need to input before my article can be publish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief bolaji (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit a particular fact in question.

Edit a particular fact in question. Item: Subject, Martin Luther King Jr., where the "Cause of death" is noted as "Gunshot head wound".

How do I edit?

Thankfully, milliedehls

  • @Milliedehls: - You edit by clicking the "Edit source" button and then changing the source code for the article. Martin Luther King is a protected article, which may be preventing new accounts from editing it until they are four days old and have made at least 10 edits to the encyclopedia, criteria which you have not satisfied yet. Why, exactly, do you wish to edit this passage, and to what? If the edit is a constructive one, I will implement it on your behalf. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC).
Milliedehls you should not attempt to change a well-established fact like this unless you can cite reliable sources which say otherwise. What sources did yo9iu have in mind? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia subject, "Martin Luther King", where "Cause of death" is stated as "Gunshot head wound". That is factual, however, for historical best, "Cause of death" should be noted as "Assassination". "Assassination" should be without hyperlink or without any (cyber) link to another page. This Wikipedia edit suggestion is of opinion only, but also considering respect of the one greatest leaders in United States history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milliedehls (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't reiterate again terms I used to suggest or request the edit for "Martin Luther King". Words used in my explanation of my intitial inquiry were, "opinion" and "factual" and "should". Is the rationale of my suggested edit of subject readers or editors curiousity? My edit would not be other than the fact, just less morbidly stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milliedehls (talk • contribs) 18:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Milliedehls: It now reads "assassination". Has it been edited? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Cause of Death" has been edited to state "Assasination" for the subject Martin Luther King. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milliedehls (talk • contribs) 04:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Milliedehls: As far as I can tell, this edit changed it. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
A lad insane and Milliedehls: it was this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: Thanks, I forgot to check the link. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Milliedehls: @A lad insane: Yes, it was me, forgot to leave a note here. "Gunshot head wound" is just as poor of a description as "cardiac arrest" when someone was electrocuted or "drug overdose" when they were given a lethal injection. It may not be factually wrong, but it doesn't represent the facts properly. Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I would agree with that. All the other articles (Bobby Kennedy, JFK, Gandhi, etc) all read "assassination", and for good reason. I probably would have changed it if you hadn't. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

notability

If the lack of religion coverage is a larger trend among national media and some reviewers require national media as legit forms for notability how can I get approval for Draft:Douglas_Clay ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csulaguy (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

self-published source and local newspapers as sources

I am writing a reasonably short history of a 200-year old church, of which I am a member. The WIKI article will be supported with citations from a longer history of the church written 50 years ago, by an independent author, but self-published by the church. The only other source I have is from issues of the local newspaper. I need to use it as a source for the church's activities for the past 50 years. Do I need permission from the publisher to cite the local newspaper as a source? Will use of a local newspaper be acceptable to Wikipedia? The local newspaper went out of business last November, but I don't think that affects the need for permissions. Can anyone advise? Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug armstrong ph (talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Citations and short quotes don't need permissions at all. Local papers, which are reliable should be fine. Self-published sources would be fine for non-controversial information, but for anything which could be contested, a independent source is helpful, and self-published sources do not meet the minimum requirements for notability. --Jayron32 14:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Welcome to the Teahouse, Doug armstrong ph. I echo Jayron that a local newspaper generally works as a source, but it depends on the breadth and importance of the paper. A city daily newspaper, almost always; a small town weekly, often not. Beyond that, though, a source must provide "significant coverage" to a subject, which means discussing it in depth: the general run of "Rev. Ignatz Bartosiak will be the guest preacher at All Souls Church this Sunday at 10:30 AM" items do not count as to supporting the notability of the subject. Even if it does, you'd have to find another source beyond the self-published history; WP:GNG requires multiple sources to support notability. Ravenswing 17:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Transfer old contributions?

I cannot remember my login for my old account BroadwayLuver, so I created this one. Is there anyway to port the contributions I made in BroadwayLuver to SondheimFanatic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SondheimFanatic (talk • contribs) 04:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi SondheimFanatic. I don't believe it's possible for such a thing to be done, primarily because the edits made with a particular account need to remain attributed to that account and accounts are never really deleted. You can, however, post a link on your user page to the older account if you like if you'd like people to be aware that you once edited using a different account. Just follow the instructions in WP:MULTIPLE. You might also be able to WP:REDIRECT your old usepage and old user talk page to your current ones. At the same time, you can treat your older account as if it never existed and just edit as normal. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
SondheimFanatic In order to transfer your edit history to a new username, you would need to make a request using either procedure described at WP:CHU from your original account. Since you say that you forgot the login to it, that's not an option, so you will need to do as Marchjuly suggests. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@SondheimFanatic: User:BroadwayLuver has an email address registered in the account. If you still have access to the mail then you can use Special:PasswordReset. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: thank you, unfortunately I can't remember what email I used. I thought I did - and asked for a password reset, but it never arrived... so I guess I don't.

Infobox for venue vs NRHP

How does one decide under which Infobox should a sports venue with great historical and architectural value be listed? Can one list a structure such as the Hiram Bithorn Stadium in Wikipedia under a dual infobox? comment added by Tgrau789 --Tgrau789 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Opinion vs reported fact in 'reliable sources'

Hello all. I have a question regarding citations of reliable sources, and how reliability translates between factual reporting and opinion reporting.

As I understand it, these sources are generally considered reliable because a certain amount of rigor/fact-checking goes into their publications. Furthermore, if they misreport a fact, usually there are other publications that one can cite showing the mistake (e.g. so and so is blue).

These standards seem somewhat more difficult to apply to opinions/opinion pieces/mixed opinion-facts in those same reliable sources (e.g. so and so is mean). After all, while 'so-and-so is mean' might appear to be a violation of neutral point of view, someone who routinely kicks puppies for fun is probably objectively mean. To some extent these can be explained by expressing the rationale, but this may not be possible if the citations are made in the condensed top-of-page summary, and one can fall into the trap of misleading due to incomplete information (e.g. so-and-so kicks puppies for fun, while leaving out monthly donations to orphanages).

How should this sort of thing be handled?

I apologize if this was previously answered. I did not see it when I checked through the archives.WeeSquirrel (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, WeeSquirrel, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are correct that opinion sources are treated somewhat differently than straight reporting sources. In general, when a source expresses an opinion, say Governor X is embarking on a disastrous policy. we report that as Columnist Y asserts that "Governor X is embarking on a disastrous policy." along with a citation to where Y said that, and, if others have given different views non the issue, a representative sampling of other views. (See WP:DUE.) When a basically opinion source states something as a fact Governor X accepted a bribe from mogul Z. we may accept that as a reliable source to support the fact, but usually not as a sole source. And if there is dispute about what the facts are, we should give all versions that have reliable support, or at least a representative sample, if there are too many. Here again we tend to Use the Y said that X accepted ... or According to Y, X accepted ...., again with a proper citation. If there is a choice between a straight reporting piece, and an opinion piece that also states facts or purported facts, then all other things being equal, the straight reporting tends to get more weight. But much depends on the reputation of the specific sources involved. For example, an opinion piece on a Economic issue by Paul Krugman who is both a columnist and a renowned economist would probably weigh more heavily than "straight reporting" from the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail.
Note that accurately recounting what a non-neutral source says is not itself non-neutral: the source did in fact make a statement, and if the source is significant enough, then its views should be included in the article (WP:FRINGE sources are a different matter). WP:NPOV means to include all relevant views, not to omit on4es nthat have strong opnions, even biased ones. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for your welcome, your in-depth answer of the question, and the very helpful links (especially on balance). We were having some difficulty on a somewhat controversial page on what would I suppose be considered a fringe source. There seems to be an argument flaring up over the extent to which the discussion/manner of discussion of the topic, especially in the lead section, gives off the appearance of undue Wiki bias, and I was having some difficulty wrapping my head around when it is just a case of calling a spade a spade, versus an excessively enthusiastic description of something that admittedly is seriously flawed, but may not on the whole quite merit the treatment received. WeeSquirrel (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_749&oldid=990452631"