Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 February 17

= February 17 =

Article creation
Hello, I would like to create some articles for people I represent. How do I go about doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khloe.m (talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't, see WP:conflict of interest and WP:paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If I were you I would carefully read Wikipedia's Conflict of interest and Paid editing policies, as well as our guidelines on sourcing, specifically reliable sources. Next, I would use your user page to declare the relationship between yourself and the subjects you will be writing about. Then, I would write a neutral, well-sourced article in draft space using at least 75%-80% sources independent of the subject (i.e. not press releases, autobiographies, the subject's website, etc.) and submit it for review through articles for creation.  Keep in mind that AFC is a lengthy process, and don't get discouraged if your first drafts are rejected.  Avoid using words like we, us, our.  Avoid anything that sounds promotional or advertisy.  Use LOTS of 3rd party sources. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

My Page is up for Speedy deletion
The article I wrote is up for speedy deletion. I gave around 13 reference links to support the article. The tone of the article is same as other Wikipedia articles on the same subject, so the matter getting listed as promotional content, really beats me!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubercontent (talk • contribs) 07:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You may want to look at WP:Your first article and try WP:Articles for creation —PC-XT+ 08:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is better to start by editing existing articles for a while to get a feel for what is notable and not notable and how things work. All I could see in your edit history of 4 edits is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ubercontent/sandbox about a non-notable privately owned Indian based website. Refs appear all to tie back to press releases about a recent VC funding, which is not in depth coverage required from WP:RS to pass WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. WP is not a place to promote your business into being famous, it is a place that covers businesses that people independent of your business find notable. Legacypac (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Purplle seems to lack notability in the Wikipedia sense if Google is any indication. I can find only very brief mentions in reliable sources (but lots of promotional publicity material that doesn't count for much in Wikipedia).    D b f i r s   08:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any article that is up for speedy deletion. If you did create an article, it has already been speedy deleted.  Maybe you created it in article space rather than in draft space.  For new editors, that is ill-advised, because speedy deletion is common for new articles in article space by new editors who don't yet understand notability and Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Some new editors do, as one editor commented, think that that only or best way that they can start participating in Wikipedia is by creating new articles.  Maybe we need to caution them a little more strongly.  In any case, the sandbox draft is sourced only to the organization's own press releases.  Maybe the deleted article had 7 more (13) press releases.  You can request undeletion of your article to have it moved to your user space.  Not all reference links will establish notability.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Purplle.com was speedy deleted twice. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Robert, Ubercontent is referring to the article Purplle.com, which has been speedy deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. I can still see the article because I'm an admin, and I can also see that it has been deleted twice — you recreated it, Ubercontent. (Are you connected in any way to the User:Usamshab, who created the first version on 2 October 2015?) Please read Reliable sources to see what kind of sources are required for notability, Ubercontent. They must not be connected in any way to the subject of the article. Look at this one, for instance:. It seems you wrote it yourself! And the other references aren't much better. Moreover, writing about a company that you have a connection with is strongly discouraged here; you can read about that in the guideline Conflict of interest. Hope this helps. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC).


 * While I agree with your analysis,, I think that the article isn't unambiguous advertising or promotion, so I have restored it. I think it should at least get a proper deletion discussion. Maybe someone without a COI could look at the article and see what can be done. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Now at AfD: Articles for deletion/Purplle.com.--ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

how to get published?
Hi there! I finished editing a contributed article. saved my changes. What happens after that? How or when will the article be published on Wikipedia and appear in Google results? My article title is :translation pedagogy. Antar20 (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The draft appears to be Draft:Translation Pedagogy. It could use some sections. In Wikipedia, the author is found in the history tab, so we don't place it in the article, itself. That line could be moved to your user page, at User:Antar20. I'm sure others will give some advice, as well. —PC-XT+ 09:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like you've just copied the entire draft from another website, this is a copyright violation even if you own that website. Also, the draft seems to fall under original research. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

methodology for wikipedia creation
Hello. I would like to ask where can I find some documentation on general rules of Wikipedia creation. I am looking for abstract, high-level rules on topics like:


 * when two concepts should have separate articles and when is preferable to join them?
 * how were set categories of articles and parameters of these categories (like structure etc.)
 * how to categorize articles in groups and how to use tags
 * how to deal with usage of synonyms (in relation with cross-references etc.)
 * etc.

The purpose is, we plan to do an internal encyclopaedia in our institution and we would like to get an inspiration for methodology, because at the moment, due to lack of experience I can hardly tell what kind of questions should I ask myself... Thank you in advance.

Sincerely Roman Ujbanyai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.5.214.112 (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure these are exactly what you are looking for, but I can point you to some pages.
 * When concepts should have separate articles and when to join them is covered at Splitting and Merging.
 * Information on categorization and structure is available at Categorization and Help:Category.
 * Information on dealing with synonyms and cross references is available at Redirect and Disambiguation.
 * One thing that might be useful for you is to click on the history tab of those pages and see how they have evolved over time, because the processes and policies and guidelines Wikipedia uses today are not identical to what Wikipedia used 10-15 years ago. Seeing how it has changed might give you more ideas for your own project than simply seeing the rules we use currently.
 * I wish you luck in your own project. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've changed your bullet point markup to actual bullet points to make your question a bit easier to read. I hope you don't mind.
 * As for where to start, that's quite a list! :) For the first couple questions, you might get some good info at WP:MERGE and WP:CATEGORY.  Dismas |(talk) 14:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advices. Ive read articles you recommended and some other related to them. I am quite surprised, how is it possible that Wikipedia works with so loosely defined rules, I thought that metodologies are very exact. For example, is it true there is no thesaurus for categories, just a few high-level rules and common sense of editors? (thats how I understood article on categorization) How is it possible that project can keep consistency over categorization when each editor is working within relatively small field of interest and there are no binding rules determining what tags use to which concept? At our project we are only starting, thus have only few rules, but even now, its hard to coordinate 40 content-makers to apply same standards and point of view, thus we wanted to deepen our current rules based on common sense to something more strict and systematic. But here, at Wikipedia, non-rigid rules works for tens of thousands active editors... How can it be?

Roman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.5.214.112 (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We wonder ourselves sometimes. E pur, si muove. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  04:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

AUBURN GALLIPOLI MOSQUE
81.53.192.158 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Hello,

The reason for my post, is to ask that a correction be made in the general information relating to the matter referred to in the "subject" relating to the Architect. At present a person named Omer Kirazooglu is noted as the architect, which is incorrect.

The architect for the Gallipoli Mosque is myself DAVID G EVANS and th16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)81.53.192.158 (talk)Dis fact is a matter of public record at the National Trust and also the archives at Auburn Council in Auburn Sydney.

At present investigations are underway by the NSW Architects Registration Board as to why this person is purporting to be an architect.

Secondly I am currently attempting to contact the Gallipoli Mosque administration to have this matter corrected on their website.

I would appreciate a correction be made to your site also, my assertions can be readily corroborated by research at both the National Trust and Auburn Council. I haethe original drawings used for submission to Auburn Council.

I look forward to your help in this regard.

David G Evans Architect

As you rightly say, the mosque's own website clearly states that Omer Kirazooglu was the Architect here, however, the photo on that page shows the site signboard including what appears to be "Architects David G Evans & Associates" although it is a llttle fuzzy Omer Kirazooglu was added in this edit on 16 September 2012 - I am sure that that addition was in good faith - it was by an experienced editor, and if I had seen the Mosque's website stating who the Architect was, I would probably have added it myself. Googling "Omer Kirazooglu Architect" shows most links are to an Architecture student in Istambul such as this one As the architect, I am sure you can give us links to reliable sources that specifically state that you were, although I note from your IP, that you currently appear to be in Ille et Vilaine in France. Despite the reference on the Mosque's website I have removed the "Architect", however, you will need to provide us with a reliable, publically accessible, source that verifies that fact before your name is added, as it is currently in direct contradiction to the Mosque's website. - Arjayay (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting


 * This is about Auburn Gallipoli Mosque. I removed the name "Omer Kirazoglou", as he is not mentioned in the source cited for the claim that he is the architect. (I didn't check the other pages on that web site.) David: can you cite a publicly available document stating that you are the architect? We need something which can be checked online, or in good libraries in our own countries. Maproom (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maproom, I don't think the qualification "in our own countries" is necessary, since both Australia and France are countries with many trustworthy Wikipedians. &mdash; Sebastian 00:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Creating and posting and article
I am a new user and I have created an article in the user space and saved it. It said that that releases it. Is this the right way to create an article? If so, when will it be posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veronikamusic (talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This question was answered via IRC. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Zimbabwe First Party page
I am the President of Zimbabwe First Partry and would like to avail our supporters and the world via wikipeadia information on our political party. I won the copyrights to all the information I included. Please do not delete our page as wikipeadia is linked to our website page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzshumba (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just asking us politely not to delete a page that violates Wikipedia policy is better than asking us rudely not to delete it, but it won't prevent us from deleting it. As the notices at Zimbabwe First Party note, there are two problems with the page.  First, it is promotional and not neutral or encyclopedic.  Second, it is copied from your web site, and so is a copyright violation of your web site.  The fact that your organization has the copyright does not permit us to keep the copyright violation page.  You would have to release the copyright either into the public domain or under a CC-BY-SA copyleft, and that would release it not only for use in Wikipedia, but to all in the world.  However, even doing that wouldn't change the fact that the page is not neutral and serves only to publicize your party.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Television shows produced and set in foo
I have noticed the creation of the category Category:Television shows set in Buenos Aires (that is, the plot takes place in the city of Buenos Aires), and the only pages listed in it are television shows that were produced (in real life) in Buenos Aires. I understood that those categories should list works set in a place but produced elsewhere, as a work being set in the same place where it is produced is basically the default thing, and thus trivial categorization. Am I correct? I wouldn't want to start a deletion discussion if I misunderstood the standard. Cambalachero (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Having invalid entries in a category is not a good reason to delete it, only to clean it up. IMO, this is a reasonable category. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft Edit
Hi, I'm really confused by basically everything on your site.

I'm trying to create a page for my nonprofit and I'm not sure if I did because there was a "speedy deletion" problem so I don't know whether it was deleted or not.

Secondly, I'm trying to write what I thought was an article but it's coming up as User:WFFund so I don't know what I'm actually creating.

I need a serious run down of how to do this...

Thanks! Casey — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFFund (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First, if the Worldwide Fistula Fund is "your" non-profit, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be writing about it. Second, your username is problematic, because it is that of an organization and not of a person.  Change it.  Third, the draft contains copyrighted material that has been copied from "your" website.  Wikipedia does not permit copyright infringement, even if you are the owner of the copyright, unless you explicitly release the copyright under a CC-BY-SA copyleft or into the public domain, and if you release the copyright, you are releasing it not only for use on Wikipedia but to all in the world.  As to "how to do this", you probably can't.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete a duplicate page
I created two articles for the same subject, can you please show me how to delete the duplicate. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msjazzyfed (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Information is here  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 18:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Primefac (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

MFD Question - Please confirm that COI and OR do not warrant MFD of draft
I have yet another MFD question. (Many of them have been elsewhere than here, but this is a question only for experienced editors.) I requested at a WikiProject that a draft be reviewed by a neutral editor. The history is that the primary author of the draft became involved in a dispute about a related article, and made a legal threat, and was indefinitely blocked. As a result, the author won’t be able to respond to the review of the draft, but I thought that the draft was reasonable on its face and needed review. An unregistered editor replied, saying that the draft should be taken to Miscellany for Deletion because the author had a conflict of interest, and because the draft contained original research. I didn’t check the references in detail, but it is my understanding that if the research done by the author of a draft or article has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it is no longer original research. Is that correct? Also, it is my understanding that COI and OR are not normally reasons to take a draft to MFD. They are reasons to decline a draft, or to take an article to Articles for Deletion. After all, draft space is, within some limits, a place to develop stuff that may have problems that need correcting. (It isn’t ready for prime time, to quote from a TV show that aired after prime time was over.) Am I correct? So should I just wait for a review by another editor? (I know that I can review the article myself, but I was asking for a review by an expert. Maybe the only expert is the blocked editor.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OR, original research is material "...for which no reliable, published sources exist". If there is a published source that is directly relevent, then it is not OR.  I took a quick look at WP:MFD and see several items being considered for deletion due to COI.  RudolfRed (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , COI editing would not, in my view, be a reason to delete an article, unless it was nothing but advertising and could not be reduced to a valid stub, or was on a non-notable topic. Original research can and should be removed from articles, but unless the article is nothing but OR, I don't see that as a reason to delete, nor as a good reason to start an AfD. Therefore, there is IMO far less reason to run an MFD on a draft for either reason. Content published in a reliable peer-reviewed source is not generally considered to be OR (assuming it is not a WP:FRINGE publication). it might still be considered a bit spammy and promotional to insert ones own scholarly writing as a source into a Wikipedia article, even if peer reviewed, but I wouldn't class it as OR. It might fail NPOV, depending on what other research had been done on the topic. Whether you will get a truly expert review is another matter -- subject-matter experts who also know Wikipedia well enough to review a draft can be thin on the ground. DES (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

AFC Question - Can we reduce number of clueless good-faith submissions without discouraging clueless editors from becoming clueful editors?
I have yet another AFC question. (Many of them have been elsewhere than here, but this is a question only for experienced editors.) As a reviewer at Articles for Creation, I see many drafts that in no way even resemble encyclopedic drafts. My question is whether there is some way to reduce the frequency with which they are Submitted to AFC. I can see that most of them are submitted cluelessly in good faith by new editors who in various ways don’t understand how Wikipedia works. (There are also bad-faith submissions, but I am not asking about them. We know that they are dealt with by templating the editor, or, if necessary, blocking the editor.) A few of them are reasonable user page drafts, presumably by editors who don’t yet know the difference between user space and article space. Some of them are test edits in sandboxes. My question there is whether there is some reason that they choose to Submit them that could be minimized by better information without preventing new editors from Submitting real article drafts. In general, does anyone have any thoughts on how to reduce the number of good-faith Submissions to AFC that are clearly not meant to be articles? I agree that we don't want to discourage clueless new editors from becoming clueful editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If a clueless new user is trying to create an article (or a "posting", as many of them now call it), and a big green "Submit" button appears, of course they are going to click it in the hope that something good will happen. I would blame the process (I don't know what it is) that distributes these buttons so freely. Maproom (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that non-reviewers have a big green "Submit" button on their draft pages and sandbox? I can't check this myself because I have the AFCH (Article for Creation Helper) script, which causes those pages to have a less interesting AFCH button at the top, which, when pressed, will display a Submit button for unsubmitted pages, but anyone who has the AFCH script installed knows what Submit means.  (For pages that have already been submitted for review, the options are Accept, Decline, and Comment, and an editor who has the AFCH script knows what Accept and Decline miean.)  If non-reviewers have a big green "Submit" button, that answers my question, which is indeed that the process makes it too inviting to do something that clueless new editors don't understand.  Maybe it should say something clearer, like "Submit Draft Article for Review".  I thought that there might be a user interface issue encouraging mistaken good-faith submissions.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe new editors really should refer to a "posting", because anything that is saved is a posting, including things that are not articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User sandbox, which is normally preloaded in a new sandbox, has a large submit button. Many users try to edit this part of the preload, even though there is a comment to edit below, eventually resulting in accidental templates. Attempting to fix this, I often restore the sandbox template, but this can prompt them to click that button prematurely. Maybe it would be better to just clear that area in most cases. —PC-XT+ 06:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

SpartacusEducational
I would like to inform you of the extreme inaccuracy of an article in SpartacusEducational, which you seem to take as a reliable source. It is anything but that, at least on the one topic I looked at there.

I wrote my dissertation on Robert Baldwin Ross, 1869-1918, at USC. I used a great many documents (letters, etc.) from the Clark Library in Los Angeles; the Bodleian Library at Oxford; visited Rupert Hart-Davis's estate in England to use Wilde papers he had temporarily while working on his edition of Wilde's letters; and from various other sources, including a trip three years ago to the Toronto Public Library where there were interesting letters to and from Ross's family members. At one time my dissertation was recommended as the best work on Ross.

I stumbled on the article on Ross in SpartacusEducational by chance, and was appalled by its portrayal of Ross. It omitted sources for many of its most controversial statements about him, and even omitted well-known facts that support a completely different picture of him than it gives, such as his raising the money for Wilde's tomb in the cemetery of Pere Lachaise in Paris, done by Jacob Epstein. Two years ago Wilde's grandson, Merlin Holland, contacted me to see if I could find out why Mrs. Wylie had donated the money, but I was unsuccessful, probably because I am in the U.S. and do not have access to some of the proper British sources.

I hope you will examine some of the other articles from this website. If they are as bad as the article on Ross, their use by schools and colleges is spreading gross misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.49.39 (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article in question is Spartacus Educational. State your issues at Talk:Spartacus Educational.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * However, I see no mention of Ross or Wilde in the article. Are you saying that there are errors in the Spartacus Educational articles about Ross and about other topics?  If so, Wikipedia has no control over them, and you need to go to Spartacus Educational.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And I don't see the Spartacus site cited at Robbie Ross or at Oscar Wilde. You say we "seem to take [it] as a reliable source" – can you give an example? Maproom (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with this place, but bad information does tend to creep in everywhere, if it can. I hope the rest of the site is more accurate. External Link Search for Spartacus-Educational.com (It's used in about 130 articles, plus discussions.) —PC-XT+ 06:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC) 07:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also see Articles for deletion/Spartacus Educational, where the site owner apparently commented. —PC-XT+ 06:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Also, External links/Noticeboard/Archive 15 —PC-XT+ 07:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hit List
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

You have provided a hit list!

I know you are biased towards warmism but this is going far too far! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.234.186 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't like it, register an account and nominate it for Articles for Deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Click "[show]" at "Article milestones" at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. This shows it has already been nominated for deletion or deletion review 12 times. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Watching a section?
Is there a way to add a section of a page to the watchlist? For example, if I only wanted to be notified of edits to a certain section of an article or the Help Desk? RudolfRed (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. As far as I know, this is one of those suggestions that gets brought up every so often. So, you're not alone in wanting that. I think there's a list somewhere. Something like Perennial requests or something.  Dismas |(talk) 22:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Found it! Perennial proposals under the Technical section. Dismas |(talk) 22:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and the link. RudolfRed (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The exact location is at Perennial proposals. BTW, a solution for pages such as the help desk would be to keep each post, or the posts for each day, in its own subpage that's just transcluded in the main page. But that shouldn't be discussed here, but on this page's talk page or at the WP:VP. &mdash; Sebastian 00:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)