Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 455

How do I change the title of a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Motor_Centre
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the Marketing Assistant at the British Motor Museum (formerly known as the Heritage Motor Centre). I have recently tried to amend our Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Motor_Centre to change the details accordingly.

I have managed to change the copy within our page but cannot find where to change the title of the page. This is effecting our google pages as we are still appearing as Heritage Motor Centre as it is pulling the information from Wikipedia. Please can you let me know how I can go about making this change or if this needs to be done by yourself. If it the latter please can you let me know how long it will take to which the change.

We are now open to the public and therefore, need to make this change as soon as possible.

Many thanks

Jo Flowers Britishmotormuseum (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Now done, by Theroadislong. Maproom (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Guess again. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like the move did take place. I do not understand.


 * (I'm not sure if this works since the name is blocked) you say "need to make this change as soon as possible." Actually, we move pages based on our needs, not yours, and we do need to have the accurate name of your museum.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that Ian's point was that he moved the article, not Theroadislong. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

finding out what directs to a page
Is there some way of finding a list of places that direct one TO a particular page? Thanks. Marentette (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Marentette. Go to the page you want to check, then look to the tools menu, toward the bottom of the left hand side of the page. Click the top link labeled * What links here Note the filters displayed near the top of the resulting page. If you wanted to just see redirects, for example, hit hide transclusions and hide links. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Marentette (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Links at bottom of page
What is the generic name for the links at the bottom of a page that lead a reader to associated WP articles, like this one: Template:LosAngelesCityAttorneys BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . They're called navigation boxes, or "navboxes" for short. They're described in fuller detail at Navigation templates. Mz7 (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft: After-school Programs and its Effect on Children
I reviewed Draft: After-school Programs and its Effect on Children, and declined it as reading like an essay, in support of after-school programs for children. Its author, User: Alma760 then wrote to my talk page:

Hi Robert McClenon, I wrote a draft on my sandbox and submitted for a review, but it was declined because it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Should I erase everything I did or is there a way I can keep my information. I'm so used to writing in an essay format. I don't know exactly what kind of information goes into an encyclopedia article. My topic is after-school programs and its effect on children. This is my first time working on wikipedia; I would appreciate it if you could help me. Thanks.

I thank Alma760 for asking politely for advice. (Not all new editors do that. It is appreciated by the reviewers.)  Can some other experienced editors share advice (and possibly help) with this editor? My first advice would be to research whether a separate article is needed, or whether reliable sources, such as papers published in peer-reviewed academic journals, about a positive effect of after-school programs on children can be added to After-school activity or Day care or Child care. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm slightly confused about what the subject of the article is. You use the term "After-school Programs" (plural) but then "its" singular. Is the article about a set of related programmes, or a single programme? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Larry, I meant to say a single program I will continue to make changes and edit my wikipedia page. Will I still be able to make the changes for my subject or is it too late to change the title? if I am able to change it should it be After-school program and the effect on children? or leave it as after-school program? Thank you for the feedback. Alma760 (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can change the draft as you see fit,, and can change its title by moving the page. It will have to be moved the fix the capitalisation of the title anyway. I think the "its effect on children" part of the title lends itself to an essay-like article, so I would consider dropping that part, but if it is to become a general article on after-school programmes, then you need to consider whether this is already covered by an existing article such as After-school activity. If you think it is, consider working to help improve that article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright and images of paintings
Thank you for inviting me here!

I’ve just written the East London Group page about a group of artists who worked together from 1928 to 1936 in the UK. As it’s about artists, it would be good to illustrate the page with a few images of their paintings. All the artists have now died and their work is held either privately, in public galleries or by their heirs.

Two of the heirs are happy (keen!) for their paintings to be used on the page. I’ve read all the 'paperwork' about copyright several times but still can’t work out which category these images fall into. Any advice would be very welcome.

Thanks in advance for your time and words of wisdom. :)

Graean (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse . Copyright is a complex issue. You probably should ask the experts at the Media copyright questions forum. —teb728 t c 10:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes,, it can be a bit tricky, but not overwhelmingly so. Under UK law, copyright now lasts for the life of the author (artist) plus 70 years. So any work f an artist who died before 1946 would now be out of copyright. Works of artists who died later than that would still be protected by copyright in the UK.
 * However, in the US, under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, copyrights in foreign (to the US) works that were still in copyright in their home countries on 1 jan 1996 were restored to the full length of applicable US law. This means that all such works are protected for at least 95 years from their dates of creation. Therefore, it seems very likely that all the works of the East London Group would be considered still under copyright in US law.
 * Given that the best way to handle any such images would be to secure permission from the copyright holder, who would normally be the heir or heirs of the artist. Follow the procedures at WP:DCM and Requesting copyright permission and have the copyright holder fill out and send in Declaration of consent for all enquiries or something very similar.
 * Note that under UK (but not US) law, the photographer obtains an independent copyright when taking a picture of a flat work of art, such as a painting. It would be best if the photographer (or scanner) is identified and also releases any copyright under a free license, although this may not be strictly required under US law and the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. decision.
 * I hope this is helpful. DES (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your advice. I'll follow it up.

Yes, it's a complex issue!

Graean (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Graean. Just to clarify: we cannot accept a one-time license for use here of non-free copyrighted material, because we require that our end users be able to take media they find here and reuse it as liberally as the licenses covering most of our content. Rather, it has to be a permanent and irrevocable release of the material under a suitably-free copyright license or licenses (or a release into the public domain). That is what the instructions at Donating copyrighted materials, linked above, describe. I mention this because it is exceedingly rare for owners of the works of established, prominent and exhibited artists to want to, or to actually go ahead and give up their rights in this manner – for very good reason. Understand that this would mean a release of almost all rights over the copyright, essentially but for attribution; use even for commercial purposes. The minimums of a compatible free copyright licenses would allow anyone to take the paintings/images and put them on mugs, t-shirts, placemats, sell posters bearing the image, etc. and the only limitation would be that sufficient attribution be provided to the author and the license for reuse be mentioned. Assuming they are non-free copyrighted, the only other way these images could be used is under a claim of fair use, if a particular use met all ten of the non-free content criteria. That's a whole other conversation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be possible to create a moderate-to-low resolution version, and release only that version, I suppose. DES (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks,Fuhghettaboutit, for the clarification. And DES for the moderate to low res idea.

I'll pass this on to the heirs and see what they think.

213.78.66.3 (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Change title of page to Clifton Observatory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observatory,_Bristol
Hi,

I work in Marketing for Clifton Observatory and am looking to change the title of our Wiki page to Clifton Observatory as this is the correct name of the site. (www.cliftonobservatory.com)

Many thanks. 213.105.132.227 (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not use official names, but rather the common name that it is referred to in reliable sources. Looking at the reliable sources on Observatory, Bristol, some of the sources call it Clifton Observatory, whilst others call it the Bristol Observatory, or The Observatory.
 * To move the page, you would need to start a requested move discussion.
 * Also, note it is not your Wiki page, rather a page about your organisation on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have created a redirect from Clifton Observatory to Observatory, Bristol. This means that a reader who looks for "Clifton Observatory" will find it, and will automatically be redirected to the article at "Observatory, Bristol".  I hope this helps.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Having taken a quick look, I think Clifton Observatory is actually the common name. Take a look at the Google results for "observatory bristol", for example. I'll make the move now. —me_and 09:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources
1, 2  Are these two sources too bad to be used in an article in Wikipedia? Captain Spark (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. The Daily Mail is not usually considered a reliable source, per WP:DAILYMAIL, which says "In general, tabloid-journalist newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, equivalent television shows, or sites like The Register, should not be used."
 * If the information in those sources is good, then it'll likely be published in another more reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and Recently I found template  which may be helpful looking for reliable sources. The template can be added to talk pages, under the banners. Regards,  JoeHebda   (talk)  13:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia. In the last couple of days, I created an article and today I received an email that it has not been accepted at this time.

Draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Judith_Donovan

Please guide me.

Hammadshk (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you seen the notice at Draft:Judith Donovan that points you towards Help:Referencing for beginners? You have attempted to manually insert footnote references into the article, which is not how referencing works on Wikipedia. The software will sort the footnote system out for you, if you learn how to use the correct markup. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside from the technicalities of the references, I think you need to do more to demonstrate the subject's notability, . On Wikipedia, that term has a very specific meaning. Basically, it means that articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, so you could do with citing a few more sources that discuss Donovan in depth rather than just mentioning her in passing. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing
I edited an article and someone deleted my edit without any proper explanation. What should I do in this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SabbirHossen177 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They provided an explanation on your talk page, but you deleted it with this edit, and insulted them on theirs. What you should do is read, and try to understand, the explanations and advice you are given. Maproom (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

How can I delete this account? I don't need it anymore because I have been blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SabbirHossen177 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You haven't been blocked from editing, you've just been asked by other users to add reliable sources to support what you are adding.
 * And Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted, however if you no longer wish to edit then you can request a courtesy vanishing, or you can just leave your account. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Name of template at bottom of page
What is the generic name for a reference template like Template:LosAngelesCityAttorneys which you often find at the bottom of Wikipedia pages? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi BeenAroundAWhile. You appear to have asked this below, where your question has already been answered. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Improvement of the article S-200 (missile)
The article appears to be quite inconsistent about the means of guidance of the missile. From what I know, it is semi-active radar homing throughout its flight. However, I cannot find any reliable sources myself to verify this. It is hoped that the forum linked below may serve as a starting point for a search for sources.



'''Obviously, it is not itself usable as a reliable source. I am not suggesting that we do so.''' It is hoped that my suggestion would not violate policy or guidelines.

Thanks, a CLoG? |  unCLoG  05:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to raise this and to have the discussion about sources would be at Talk:S-200 (missile). If you don't get any input after a few days and you feel that you need it to proceed, you could post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that placing such a suggestion on the talk page will be met with strong responses relating to WP:reliable sources. See what has previously taken place on that talk page for an example of what I mean. a CLoG? |  unCLoG  21:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I would just go ahead and post. As long as you explain that you're not suggesting using the forum as a source, I think you should receive constructive input. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Shoul I simply paste the text of my original post here into the talk page under a new heading? a CLoG?  |  unCLoG  21:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, . Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

rating an articlewiki tamil 100 09:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
how can i rate an article. i am a member of wikiproject asia.but i doesn't no how to rate an article wiki tamil 100 09:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki tamil 100 (talk • contribs)


 * Hello, . For information on this, see Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. I'm afraid I can't give you more information, as I've never rated articles. --ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . To rate an article, go on its talk page and edit the WikiProject templates. Fill the  parameter with any class from stub to B that you feel is appropriate. Refer to the link provided by ColinFine above to see how to assess quality (Projects usually have guides that have the same standard but use examples from the field, see WikiProject Asia/Assessment). The higher classes (A, Good Article and Featured Article) need a formal review process, so you won't be able to rate them by yourself. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Lance Hohaia - Early Years.
Good morning I am the father of Lance Hohaia and I have documentation in my possession that details Lance Hohaias' early years before his NZ Warriors and NZ Kiwi rugby league careers which are all well documented elsewhere. My problems is, I don't know how to go about placing said info on his Wikipedia page. I can email info to someone if that's any help. There are 3 A4 pages of detail.

Rex Hohaia125.238.134.95 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Rex, and welcome to the Teahouse. Can I ask what the nature of the documentation is? If it consists of newspaper articles or other published materials, then we can certainly use it, but if the documents are of a more personal nature, we might not be able to. Material on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, which essentially means it needs to be based on published sources that a reader could reasonably expect to access in some way. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding new page
How do I create a new page on Wikipedia without having to refer to the Special Pages dialog page? I would like to create a page on an upcoming comic house known as RED Comics.Mcpemaestro (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Please start by reading your first article, and then use the Article wizard to create it in draft space so you can work on it. But before even that, you need to locate several independent reliable sources which talk in depth about the company, because if you cannot find them, then there is no point in spending any time trying to create an article which will not be accepted. Very often, things which are upcoming have simply not been written about enough yet to make a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Due to COI I suggest you wait for a non-affliated editor to create an article Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Non English sources
Are sources from Hindi newspapers inferior to sources from English websites in English Wikipedia in India related articles? Captain Spark (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. No they are not. However, when sources of equal quality, reliability, and relevance to the article are available, English-language sources are preferred. This because many readers will find them easier to use and more informative. When non-English-language sources are used, it is helpful to provide a translation of the title and of a relevant quote. DES (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Nude Photo?
Am I permitted to post a nude photo on Wikimedia commons? Another question: Isn't Indian National Congress a socially liberal political party? Senthoora poove (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Commons is not censored; so the requirements for a nude photo are the same as for any other photo, including free content and educational purpose. There are many nude photos on Commons.
 * Why do you ask about Indian National Congress? the article says several places the party's ideology is social liberalism (among other things). —teb728 t c 08:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

How to Correctly Make a Wiki Page for a Business?
Hello Wikipedia representatives,

My name is Cameron Smith, and I represent Henley Enterprises, Inc. dba Valvoline Instant Oil Change. Our company Henley Enterprises, Inc. is the largest Valvoline Instant Oil Change franchisee in the country. We have 235 stores in 12 states. I created the username henleyenterprisesinc and recently requested approval to create a page—“Henley Enterprises, Inc dba Valvoline Instant Oil Change” that educates the Internet world about the company we are.

My recent request to construct a Wikipedia page for my father’s company was denied, and I was wondering if you could tell me why—and/or please advise me how to correctly set one up.

I would like to create a Wikipedia page similar to the one In-N-Out Burger has created on your site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-N-Out_Burger. Just like In-N-Out, we are privately owned and started with only one store (25 years ago for us).

People constantly get our company information, history, products/services, store designs, advertising practices, mission statement, vision, and values mixed up with that of Ashland, Inc.—the public company that currently is the franchisor of Valvoline Instant Oil Change (they have 260 stores, we have 235 stores). Although we are mentioned on the Ashland, Inc page—their page comes up when users of the Internet search for our company on engines such as Google—and we are not currently separately represented on Wikipedia.

My father has tasked me to create a page just like the one you have on the site for In-N-Out. We are hoping to let the Internet world know about “Henley Enterprises, Inc.” on Wikipedia just like In-N-Out Burger has done.

Please advise! Thank you.

Cameron Smith



Henleyenterprisesinc (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all,, that user name is not acceptable, Wikipedia user accounts must be for individuals. They must not be shared, nor may they appear to represent or promote a group, company, or organization.
 * Secondly, Wikipedia articles must be neutral. They must not be designed to promote anyone or anything. Thirdly articles must be supported by citations to independent published, reliable sources, sufficient to establish notability. The In-N-Out_Burger article is IMO rather poorly written and needs to be significantly cut down; In any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument, and you would be well advised to  avoid it.'
 * You have a clear Conflict of Interest and are considered a paid editor on this topic. You must disclose your connection to the firm in Uses of accord with our Terms of Use. DES (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: OP blocked as an advertising-only account. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Allumer Jewellery London
I reviewed and declined Draft:Allumer Jewellery London, citing too few independent reliable sources. I then received this inquiry from User:Elvislondon on my talk page:

Hi Robert, I am new to creating a Wikipedia article and my first draft was recently rejected. Please could you give me some feedback on how I could create a successful article. I am a university student hoping to create a Wikipedia page for the brand I am studying 'Allumer'. Thank you. Elvislondon (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

On the one hand, if other experienced editors think that I should have accepted it, I will listen to their comments. On the other hand, if other experienced editors agree, do they have any advice for a new editor?

I am assuming that studying the brand does not constitute a conflict of interest. Is that correct?

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no conflict of interest as far as I see it, Robert., the best thing I can suggest is simply to use Google and Google News to find more sources that discuss the company (preferably in depth rather than just in passing). It might be that you have access to other resources via your university's library that could be used to find sources, too. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I will find and add more sources Elvislondon (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , I think it very unlikely the firm is notable. The charities are trivial, and the award minor. ''

How to delete AFC draft article

 * Note: This article is now in main-space. R F, 12:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

How do I delete an AFC draft article, so as not to waste any more time on it when a reviewer doesn't care if the subject is notable, just wants to demand more work on the article?

"(Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9)) (undo)"

This is false, she does meet notability guidelines, but there is no way to fight an established editor, so deletion is easier. Draft:Winifred Green

2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 you haven't even given SwisterTwister time to respond - you posted at 12:03 and had given up by 12:21. Looking at there edit patterns I would guess they are fast a sleep at the moment with 4-8AM being their busiest editing time (note all times are from GMT. Also why come asking for how to delete rather than asking for someone else to review? You also do not have to battle a single reviewer, I'm sure if you asked SwisterTwister to leave it for another reviewer they would have. As they have also only rejected it once I'm not sure why you already think you in a "fight" with "an established editor". KylieTastic (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You cannot get the draft deleted as it was created by 73.243.72.120 not this address (even though that may have been you) - also others may like to add the actual sources you claim exist in your post to Requested articles/Biography/By profession.
 * As for your question on SwisterTwister talk page "Please link to the policy page that gives the exact number of sources I should add" - there is no number of sources, it depends what they contain. For instance you nytimes ref only mentions her name in a list of names, and the srbwi ref also just mentions her in passing, but many of the other refs are good. However, after a quick look I would have thought that she is notable enough - so if you actually add a couple more of the other sources then hopefully it would be accepted. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lastly I assume that Charles Eric Dawson was also your work and was accepted by SwisterTwister so its not like they have declines all your work. I know its sometimes hard not to take declines and reverts personally, but its just part of the way things work that hopefully get us to better articles. So don't give up your work and time are not wasted. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Submission is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines." I think this says it all, especially about any chance of adding sufficient sources once this editor decided Green is "a person who does not meet notability guidelines."

There is no rule that you have to write an article in order to get it deleted, if this were the case, then every hoax ever posted to Wikipedia would become enshrined.

I just need to know how I put it up for deletion. 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 where does it say "Submission is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines" I cant find that anywhere? I can see "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" that does not say a person is not notable just that it has not yet been shown. Also i meant you cant just get it quickly deleted as you could have if you had written it all, hoaxes etc would be deleted for policies that don't count here, but if you want to propose for deletion it would be Proposed deletion that you are looking for. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That's the edit comment when it was declined, "person does not meet notability," good-bye. With that battle mentality, it will not go anywhere. Proposed deletion says it is not for draft articles, only for mainspace. 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I hadn't noticed that before and I use the same 'helper' script for AFC reviewing - it s just a bad choice of words that the script writer has used - please take note of the actual message posted and the policies as they are the ones that count. Also you may not have noticed that Theroadislong has been updating the draft and if you want to look at edit comments they said "clearly notable so doesn't require deleting". Regards KylieTastic (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * YES! Please don't request deletion the article is very close to being ready to publish, clearly she is notable, it's just that the sources weren't quite up to scratch, I'll have another look this evening. Theroadislong (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 I have posted to the AFC helper script talk page pointing out this edit summary wording not being inline with our actual notices, so hopefully it will be changed so others do not feel as bad as you appear to with this decline. Hopefully they will look at the others as well, or maybe I'll get around to looking at it myself. KylieTastic (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Every time I write an article about a woman, it gets this. I bet if I wrote an article with the same sources, but slightly less notable, a man not considered worthy by the NYT of heading the NAACP, it would wind up on the main page of Wikipedia, while the same sources for a woman would have editors requiring that an encyclopedia be written about her first.

Sometimes I let it get to me. Usually I do what everyone else does, not bother writing about women so as not to offend the gate keepers at Wikipedia and not to get my blood boiling about the absurdity of it all.

Someone else should write the article. Someone who doesn't see all the missing women in Wikipedia. 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed and accepted the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 in this case it was declined once only, updated, and now accepted. What are all these articles about women being rejected? As you do not have an account and jump between ip addresses we can't really comment on the other articles. However every time I've looked into such claims I have found no evidence of sexism just judgements on policies (some good some bad) that people choose to assign a subtext to. You have read far too much into this single decline - any note that at the finally tally you had yourself, me, and two other editors who believed she was notable, and another who only declined that they thought it did not yet meet the guidelines as they added the comment "May be notable", so overall very positive and with a positive outcome. KylieTastic (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

About as viable as my statement. Back to writing about men. (Note that I edit on a cell phone, the carrier jumps, not me.) 2600:380:992B:448B:882F:F3AE:A6A2:87C9 (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Create an account. Create an account.  If you have an established edit history, it might be easier to show systematic bias, if indeed there is systematic bias, rather than just a combative attitude.  Also, if you do create an account, and then want to delete a draft article, it will clearly be associated with you, rather than having IPs shift.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 February 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Yes, create an account. ( Not an accurate survey, but my personal observation is that the majority of biographies deleted for lack of notability are about men.  See Confirmation bias. )    D b f i r s   16:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also if you have an account, you may find WP:WikiProject Women in Red useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

Merging Pages
Our companies have recently performed a merge. You can see that referenced from our page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_Mission_Systems

General Dynamics C4 Systems was redirected correctly. However, we need General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_Advanced_Information_Systems) to do the same redirect as C4 Systems.

Please let me know how we can start the process of this. I started a Merger proposal back in January 14, 2016 and I am not sure what the next steps are.

137.100.97.30 (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Article needs more to be published
Hello,

I wrote an article and it was denied to get published because of the references. I was wondering if anybody could help me to get it published by telling me what else I need to do.

Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rhino_Equipment_Group Rhinotechnician (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear to have a conflict of interest and should not be trying to use Wikipedia to publicize your company. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

why ?
even there is gravitation force exists in whole world but why we can't attracted towards big building while we walk near them ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B madan11 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

even there is gravitation force exists in whole world but why we can't attracted towards big building while we walk near them ?? its my question ..response please — Preceding unsigned comment added by B madan11 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ask this question at the Science Reference Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madbio (talk • contribs) 09:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Madbio (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC) "Thanks for the warm welcome".
 * User:WillKomen is a fictional user, part of the Wikipedia Adventure. -Liancetalk/contribs 18:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Lionel Messi
Why does it state Lionel Messi has won the champions league four times when he has only won it three times?

In 2006 he wasn't in the squad for the final so couldn't have received a winners medal?

Same applies to Paul Scholes/Roy Keane in 1999

FACT is if you didn't play you didn't win — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.229.137 (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please discuss the content of an article at the article's talk page (where you will probably get read by editors who have heard of the subject). --ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

change Company Picture
I am trying to update our company logo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrackingPointbut it will not let me. The logo displayed on the page is not our logo and I am not sure who put it there.72.48.120.164 (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is TrackingPoint. The logo shown there was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TrackingPoint_logo.png, by "Factual1979", possibly without the right copyright procedure, and is being discussed here. The company's own web site uses a related but clearly different logo. Maproom (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There shouldn't be a copyright issue as that image is clearly PD-simple.--ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

References in a translated article
Hi,

I wrote an article in french and I would like to translate it. Do I need to have english references or can I keep my french references? Olivier.dilain (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the original references will do, but English references in additional are highly desirable. (And you cannot copy over the French references templates as they are--they will give error messages in the English Wikipedia, but the data will need to be re-entered into our templates). Also, when you do use French references, it helps very much least to give a translation of the article title in parentheses).  DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism on individual with the wrong use of word "convicted"
Hi,

This inquiry is regarding the wiki article for a company named Eminata Group:

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

This article contains the following sentence. “Eminata is chaired by Peter Chung, a man convicted in 1993 in California for defrauding students at a computer school he ran.” This sentence contains a defamatory term "convicted" which is not applicable given that it was a civil injunction. As you may know, in civil law, a judgment/injunction may be made against the defendant but it is different from a conviction which is applicable to criminal cases only. This is a dangerous entry as it harms the individual noted, and misinforms the layperson who may not know the difference between civil lawsuits and criminal charges. Similarly, when Mcdonald’s was sued for injuring Liebeck with hot coffee, the company (defendant) was ordered to pay $2.7 million to Liebeck. Now, this does not mean that the CEO of Mcdonald’s was convicted. (Liebeck v. Mcdonald's). As you can see in the history page, I (Amvan2002) have tried to make edits on the page as the page is filled with outdated and misinformed entries. However, it has been difficult due to the Conflict of Interest policy as I am an employee of the company. A particular user, Ronz, has been reverting my changes without willing to collaborate to rectify the situation.

Below are the links of his “talk” page that shows my attempts to work with him with no success.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#Regarding_your_changes_on_the_Eminata_group
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#Eminata_Group_page_edits

Despite my efforts, the only response I received was:

“The solution is to provide sources. I've tagged the article as possibly being out of date. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)”

Although this was frustrating, I tried to accommodate his request by obtaining a clear criminal record check from Mr. Peter Chung, but I found out that “California Penal Code section 11142 prohibits you from giving your copy of your criminal record to an unauthorized third party. In addition, California Penal Code section 11125 prohibits an individual or agency from requiring you to provide him/her or the agency with a copy of your criminal record or proof that a record does or does not exist. Violation of either of these sections is a misdemeanor offense.” (reference: https://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/security_faq)

Lastly, you will note that this particular user (Ronz) has been a subject of other Wikipedia users’ complaint for his disruptive behavior. See link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard#User:Ronz

Thank youAmvan2002 (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the dispute resolution policy and take content disputes to article talk pages. If discussion is inconclusive, follow one of the dispute resolution procedures.  Also, do not create subpages of WP:ANI.  No one sees them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I have removed the wording claiming a conviction from the article. Our critically important policy on biographies of living people states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." One mention in an Indian publication is not reliable sourcing for a supposed conviction in California. The burden is on whoever tries to add this "convicted" language back into the article to furnish an impeccable source. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have two more comments. First, the heading of this thread is incorrect.  The misuse of the word "convicted", while problematic, is not vandalism, which has a specific meaning of malicious edits intended to harm Wikipedia.  Not all incorrect edits are vandalism.  Second, please discuss content disputes on article talk pages before seeking other forms of dispute resolution.  While discussion on user talk pages is better than no discussion, it is even better to have the discussion on the article talk page.  That is what the article talk page is for.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Any tips for finding historical importance?
Hello Wikipedia

I have submitted an article for review and it back rejected. I fixed my notability problem but now I am trying to find sources for the impact of the subject. I feel as if it has made an impact but I am not sure what to say about it. Here is my draft for my article. Does anyone have any advice for me that will be helpful for this and future edits to wikipedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Subterfuge_(game). Also is there a way I can clear my sandbox to start on a new project? Thank you very much for dealing with my lack of experience and taking time out of your day to make everyone smarter.

Chariot Rider (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . To clarify, notability isn't really about importance or impact per se, but more simply the requirement that people have written about the subject in independent sources. Have you tried simply searching using Google and Google News? As for User:Chariot Rider/sandbox, this is currently serving as a redirect to Draft:Subterfuge (game). If you want to reuse it, you can just delete the current markup in the sandbox or replace it with something different. Alternatively, you can start a new one with a different name (e.g. User:Chariot Rider/sandbox2). Cordless Larry (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread your question. I see that the notability issue is resolved. The latest review comments state that the article needs more detail on the game's development, impact or historical significance. It doesn't have to all be about impact (though I imagine you could probably find sales figures somewhere) - could you find something on the game's development, for example? Are there more reviews that you could cite? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should explain. I had submitted it twice.  The first time it was struck down because of notability but not this time.  I should have made that more clear.  This is what the poster said was the reason why he rejected it" The proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance—not just a summary of the plot. You may wish to add this content to an existing article, such as Subterfuge (game). As anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are free to do so yourself."  I don't think he was hitting for notability but for lack of significance?  But thank you anyway.  I didn't think of using google news.   Chariot Rider (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not create multiple copies of drafts on the same subject. Your sandbox is no longer a redirect but contains another copy of the draft of the game.  You should work on the one at Draft:Subterfuge (game) rather than creating another draft in your sandbox.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Help with a link
Hey guys, I tried to cite a new source on an article because of a dead link but I made things a bit wonky. Could someone help me out and clean this up a bit?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Rumeur&oldid=706707382#cite_note-2

Thanks Asmigelski (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I have fixed this reference, the issue was that the url had a. before the address. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Asmigelski (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Help understanding Neutral point of view
An article titled Ashutosh Kotwal initially was proposed for deletion becos I forgot to add a reference. I'ver added a reference and the proposed deletion notice went away. Now I'ver got the following tag added to the article ... “This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. It may need editing to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. There may be relevant discussion on the talk page.” I looked through the Teahouse discussion bit was not clear what this really means. It was written by Ashutosh Kotwal about himself and so is subjectively oriented but is factually accurate. Can you explain how I can take care of this matter. Avatwiki (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I think that it is likely that Ashutosh Kotwal meets our notability standard WP:ACADEMIC as the holder of a "named chair" professorship in physics. However, the current version of the article is in very poor condition. Consider the unreferenced promotional words highlighted in this passage:
 * "Kotwal has performed repeatedly performed world's most precise measurements of the mass of the W boson, precise measurements of the top quark mass, led the most incisive searches for new forces mediated by a Zprime boson, and been instrumental in observing the Higgs boson in one of its crucial production modes. His research group is currently spearheading the analysis of data from the ATLAS experiment at the LHC to look for evidence of a second, heavier Higgs boson."


 * The lengthy article has only one source, his own faculty page. Every single assertion of importance or accomplishment needs to be properly referenced, and the article is in danger of deletion until it is properly sourced. The article must summarize what independent sources say about Kotwal, not what Kotwal says about himself. This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook or LinkedIn. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. You say that the article "was written by Ashutosh Kotwal about himself and so is subjectively oriented"- this is exactly why it isn't considered neutral point of view. All Wikipedia articles should be objectively orientated, and Wikipedia is a place for biographies of notable people, not autobiographies
 * In addition, you have a clear conflict of interest as you know/are Ashutosh Kotwal. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This article presents something of a corner case that is occasionally encountered in Wikipedia, an autobiography of a person that does establish notability based on a well-defined notability guideline, such as an autobiography of a professor who holds a named chair (in this case) or of a state legislator. One approach might be to stubbify the page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed some of the puffery and unsourced claims, it's now considerably shorter but well sourced and more neutral tone. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the meaning of to stubbily the page?22:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatwiki (talk • contribs)


 * Robert Mcclendon wrote the following: I've removed some of the puffery and unsourced claims, it's now considerably shorter but well sourced and more neutral tone. I have seen and viewed the sources he has added as well. I am not A Kotwal but am helping get his BIO set up on Wikipedia. In the present form the article is acceptable to me. If it now follows the Wikipedia guidelines can the tag:"This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. It may need editing to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. There may be relevant discussion on the talk page", at the top of the page now be removed?Avatwiki (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that I had removed the puffery and unsourced claims. Joseph2302 did.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've removed the autobiography tag. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Frank Garvan
I reviewed Draft:Frank Garvan about a month ago and declined it, saying that the subject was probably notable, but that additional independent reliable sources as to that notability were needed. Another reviewer declined it today. I then received the following polite comment from User:Robertpschneider saying:

Dear reviewer, Thank you for taking time to look over my submission. This is a page for Frank Garvan, mathematician, who is a prominent figure in modern number theory. Most famously, Garvan is responsible for co-discovering the crank function in partition theory, which is a big deal and a widely praised discovery made with George Andrews (the preeminent number theorist of our era), who was Garvan's PhD advisor. Note that "crank of a partition" has its own Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_of_a_partition) and Garvan is credited on that page. I added a reference from an article by Richard Askey, another towering figure in modern mathematics, detailing Garvan's role in the discovery of the crank function. I do not know Garvan personally, and provided the best references I could to show his importance. I hope this is adequate; I believe it is vital that Garvan should have his own Wiki as he is an important figure in recent mathematics history, whose work is the subject of great interest for other researchers in the field. Sincerely, Robert Schneider

I would appreciate comments from other experienced editors or advice to the author or to me. It appears to me that Garvan is notable, but that the author hasn’t established notability (and may not understand how to establish notability). Can the author find references in independent reliable sources, such as journal articles?

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I was the other editor who declined the article. And Robertpschneider left a virtually identical message on my talk page as well. I agree almost completely with Robert's assessment, although I am less sure about the notability of the subject. A Scholar search gives several of Garvan's papers, but they all have relatively low citation counts (213, 134, 131, and the rest below 100). Now that could be because of the specialty, but I'm going to ping several editors who spend much more time evaluating academics like this, to see what they think:, , and.
 * In the meantime, the two relevant guidelines should take a look at are WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLAR. My feeling is that the second one is the best bet. Then, they need to find sources which back up the notability criteria. Those sources need to be independent of the subject. Currently, there are 3 sources. The first is Garvin's CV - this needs to be deleted. The second is his university bio. Not independent. The third is a lengthy paper by Richard Askey, which doesn't give any page references (the editor might also want to check out WP:CIT on how to format citations). Journal articles, from peer-reviewed publications are probably the way to go to show this person's notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Unquestionably notable by WP:PROF. 2 papers with citations over 100 are normally enough for notability in any field, even biomedicine, and he has 3. Furthermore, this is mathematics where citation counts aren normally much lower than in biomedicine. I accepted the article. The list of most cited eapers needs to be added.  DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since DGG has already accepted, it might be better to move the discussion to WP:PROF Talk or to the article itself in case or others want to contest/PROD, etc., but I'll say that I'd definitely support DGG's assessment that there's not a single discipline I can think of (maybe some medicine fields? but probably not) where two papers w/ over 100 citations wouldn't be enough to keep, and there are many fields where far less would be enough.  As Garvan is a living person, there does need to be one reliable source no matter what (BLP), but I think that what is there is enough.  Thanks for the ping.  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Can't make my edit "stick". At all.
Just now, tried every way I can think of to improve the opening para of "Margarita" and it shows in a pre-posting Show Changes, but not in the Show Preview or Save Page. Tried several times. I was logged in. I have no idea what step I'm omitting.

NeverLift (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * hello, and welcome to the teachouse. At least two edits by you to Margarita are currently in place, both to note 1, See this edit and this edit. Were those the edits you had in mind? DES (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Now I am confused. On the off chance that my "issue" might be browser-dependent, I re-accessed the page in question from IE and found it unchanged.  So I hit Edit -- the editable version has my changes present!  Neither the Review nor Save brings them up.  The only possibly unusual element:  My newly insert text follows a ref group=note (had to leave off the) enclosures to get this response in).    Uh . . . I have been a computer jock for 50+ years, but edit a Wikipedia entry once or twice a decade, so there is clearly a RTFM point I'm missing. NeverLift (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverLift (talk • contribs) 03:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The one labeled "Revision as of 01:13, 24 February 2016 (edit) (undo)" Did I inadvertently add it to the note? NeverLift (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I wanted it to be simply text, following the note ref.NeverLift (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oops. I see it is in the note.  I don't want it there.  Just in the text following the note cite.  What am I doing wrong? NeverLift (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , all text between the ref tag and the closing /ref tag will be part of the note. You inserted text into the middle of the note, so that is where it wound up. But then, the how-to tone of the text "Take care to moisten only the outer edge and sprinkle the salt, so that it presents to the lips or tongue of the imbiber and does not mix into the liquid. " would not have been appropriate for the body of the article anyway. DES (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I should have realized that. Used to code html, but that was a decade ago.  Thanks. NeverLift (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

content
How can I add a content table on my wikipedia page? thank youAlma760 (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The wiki software will automatically generate a Table of Contents in any article that has four or more sections. Please see WP:TOC for complete details. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)