Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 614

What's a good minimum number of references for an article?
It's about a television show and is located at Draft:The Stanley Dynamic Aamri2 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question... but the answer is not that easy. There could be three great references from three great sources and it would be enough. For your article they could be reviews from TV guide, CBC, and a link to a winning Emmy. On the other side you could have 20 references from blog writers, facebook, industry publications that carry little to no weight and would not help show notability, and it would not be enough. I added a couple refs to the article. There are more out there that will support that article as it expands. Thanks for your question and for your contribution to Wikipedia. Cheers.  Gtstricky Talk or C 14:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Do I have a Conflict of Interest?
Hello, my name's Tom Nordlie. I just signed up for a Wikipedia account.

I'm a full-time public relations writer with the University of Florida, working for the UF agriculture program's communications office. I've been doing this sort of work for 15+ years but this is my first attempt at being a Wikipedia editor.

If you'll please bear with me for a few paragraphs, I'll explain my situation, and then get to my specific questions...

Some months ago, I was asked to prepare an English-language Wikipedia page profiling one of our new faculty members, Dr. Ilaria Capua. Dr. Capua is originally from Italy and has an Italian-language Wikipedia page. She's a virologist and is fairly well-known in contemporary scientific circles for her advocacy of "open source" genetic databases.

Originally, my intention was to write and post a piece on Dr. Capua that conformed to Wikipedia requirements, working from her Italian page. I've now completed the writing, but haven't tried to post anything yet.

Here's a recent development -- several weeks ago, I discovered that another editor has posted an English-language page on Dr. Capua. Consequently, my assignment changed and I am now supposed to make edits to that page, and expand it with material I have on hand. I hope to get started editing in the next couple of days.

Two questions concern me --

First, I may have a conflict of interest, by virtue of the fact that I'm a UF employee writing about another UF employee. I'm not sure if someone with Wikipedia needs to further vet me before I attempt to make any edits to the page, or if I need to follow a different course of action altogether, such as submitting my material to someone else for review and possible action.

Second, I have already left a message for the editor who posted the original page on Dr. Capua. I explained what I planned to do, and invited the editor to reply with any questions or comments. My question here -- is there any standard protocol for expanding a previously created Wikipedia page? In other words, am I expected to reach a consensus with the other editor about what I'll add? Or is it okay for me to make edits at my discretion and leave it to the other editor to decide whether to challenge anything?

Any advice would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Tom

Tom Nordlie (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is fairly standard wikipedia editing policy to include a link to an article being discussed, so Ilaria Capua, there. Secondly, there is no need to notify former article editors about your edits unless you are significantly changing what they have done. Then contacting them would be a polite courtesy. So edit away, be bold, and just be sure that you are properly referencing your edits.  Also, if you put something, anything, on your user page then your user name will change into a blue link rather than being the red one that it is now.  This suggests to others, or at least to me, that you are not the dead end that red links suggest and that perhaps you are even a serious editor who intends to stay around.  The "User Page" tab at the top left of your user page will change color too after my posting, because now there is something there. Consider it,  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * My view is that in this situation the advice regarding conflict of interest does apply. You should propose changes at Talk:Ilaria Capua, supplying references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to support your proposed changes. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia (WP). The page we are talking about is Ilaria Capua. In the following, highlighted words are "wikilinks" you can click.
 * A conflict of interest, in Wikipedia's sense, is any relationship that would make an outside observer infer that you might be biased; it can be a financial COI (writing about a client, a employer, etc.) but not necessarily (writing about a relative, a friend, a politician you support, etc.). Since you have been assigned with writing a page, you probably fall under the stronger guideline outlined at WP:PAID. Please read it carefully: you must disclose paid editing in a particular manner, by the terms of use of the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * The original editor of the page has no more oversight than anyone else over its content; while it was courteous to inform them, it was not necessary. Long-time editors use the watchlist feature to keep track of changes to the articles they care about.
 * While the usual advice is to be bold when editing a page, with the idea that anyone who disagrees can "revert" (cancel) changes fairly easily, you are encouraged not to do that because of your conflict of interest. Instead, post an edit request to the talk page of the article (Ilaria Capua).
 * The how-to guide for edit requests is here; the short version is to make a new thread on the talk page, place at the top of it, and describe your proposed changes in the format "change X to Y, per the source ".  Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, everybody! I have set up a user page and will review the WP:PAID guidelines.

Tom

Tom Nordlie (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Randall Kay Williams
I have just finished my draft version of Randall Kay Williams and I would like to publish. I have tried to find out how to do it, but am getting confused. Does it need to be reviewed first. How do I go about that. Thax. PaulineG777 PaulineG777 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added a template which includes a "Submit" button for use when you want to submit the draft for review. I haven't looked at the draft in detail, but I see that there are some misplaced external links, and there is scope for tidying up the references which are used more than once. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I will work on your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulineG777 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

How to do notes instead of references?
There's a note on an article that's being displayed as a reference, how do I change it so that it is displayed as '[note 1]'? The Verified Cactus 100% 15:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi The Verified Cactus. One way is to create a separate section just above the references section with a header like, " ==Notes== " or " ==Footnotes== " and then place this markup in that section: Once you've done that, at the spot in the article where you want to place a note, use this markup:  By the way, "efn" stands for e xplanatory f oot n ote. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 21:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

IPA templates
It's obvious why the documentation for Template:IPA-en has a section describing how to use the template with English words, and another section for non-English words. But why are these same sections, for ±English words, included in the IPA templates for Esperanto, French,  Arabic,  Greek,  Belarusian,  Mandarin,   Klingon, and presumably all the other IPA-language templates? Please me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Help creating article about a blues musician - noob here
Article draft is at Draft:Solomon_King_(blues_artist)

This is an blues singer/songwriter and guitarist who I have seen live several times and become very familiar with his work. I decided to write his Wikipedia article because of the difficulty I had experienced in researching the guy's career.

Although there are numerous interviews in relevanr and reliable sources and official press releases and product information and other published material, I still had repeatedly encountered references and attributions to at two other artists with the same stage name "Solomon King".

I figured since I had taken the time research this person and determine which information is correct and which are errors or artifacts of music metadata systems I ought to share this with others who may experience the same confusion.

So, to sum up the help request:

Is there anybody familiar with writing music and movie articles that can help a noob with proper formatting and style, citations, etc?

Brownianps (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I have done some of these, including recently 500 Miles High. I will try to take a look at Draft:Solomon_King_(blues_artist) later today. In the meantime, I urge you to read Your First Article and Referencing for beginners if you have not already done so. DES (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Formatting and style are easily corrected (I've already corrected the use of boldface). The main problem is likely to be finding enough reliable published independent sources to verify that King is notable. The two sources currently cited are to interviews with him, and so not independent. Maproom (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems some of the sources I had previously included as citations were not saved. There are other edits that don't seem to have been saved either. I am not sure if my changes are being saved when working on mobile. It keeps refreshing the captcha and isn't displaying a confirmation or an error. Sometimes the edita stick, but sometimes I guess they don't.

Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownianps (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you use any source that is on the Google Amp thing, whatever that is, it won't save. I've had the same problem several times. It's apparently a blacklisted link, but you can circumvent it by removing the amp part of the url and leaving the newspaper's own website. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I use an Android and have experienced similar problems. I access Wikipedia via my Chrome browser rather than using the app and always select the desktop version. When I need a search engine, I access Google.com on Chrome and select the desktop version also. Hope that helps. John from Idegon (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't try to edit Wikipedia on any mobile device, only on a desktop or occasionally a laptop. DES (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Article Title Spelling change
I recently created a page for a local theater in my community, The Shelton Theater.

However it looks to have saved in the British spelling of 'theatre', which is different from the theater's other source spellings as well as their website. How do I make this marginal change to the title of this page.

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

Thank you.

Mayalekach (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I have gone ahead and moved the page for you; for (seemingly) uncontroversial requests such as this, you could either a) move the page yourself, or b) request it to be moved at WP:RM/TR if you cannot do so yourself. It would also be of help to view WP:RM in case a move is contested. Sky  Warrior  02:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You do, however, need to provide references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate the notability of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is my page marked for speedy deletion?
the page had all the proper references but still marked for deletion (Rjacobs1 (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This must be about Augustine Grant. It cites no references. It does list three references, so the citations could be added, as recommended in the "multiple issues" notice at the top of the article. But the first is to IMDB, which is not reliable, and the other two merely mention the subject, they contain no in-depth discussion of him. So, they fail to establish that he is notable. Maproom (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse,.


 * There's another problem here: based on your username, you may be writing an an article about yourself or you've chosen a username to perhaps imply you are impersonating the subject of the article. One way or another, you would be running afoul of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  07:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Best practice for citing articles in EU Treaties - to wikisource or not to wikisource?
Hi,

I've been trying to update and improve a variety of EU related pages, including for the European Council. I have query concerning the best practice for citing treaty articles as references, and whether we should utilise the wikisource versions of the Treaty on European Union, and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or link to external pdfs on the EU's own web domain. I notice that the page currently uses a mix of these approaches. I also wanted to know best practice for citing specific articles in the text on wikisource.

Many thanks, EU explained (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . I do not have a hard and fast answer, but the following may be better than no answer at all.
 * The general guidance on sources is that you are referencing a publication, not a particular way to obtain it, which different download links essentially are. Of course, a low-quality scan on a shoddy website is not as good as the original publication, because of link rot and falsification issues.
 * I would say (but that it my opinion, I do not have a strong guideline in mind) that you should link the wikisource in the "see also" sections of articles about a particular treaty, but use the europa.eu link for any other reference. The idea behind it is that when you are using the reference, you refer not only to its content but also to who published it, and for that the official website when available is better IMO. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Creating a list
I have created List of Removed Monuments and Memorials of the Confederate States of America.

However, trying to put on the first item, Liberty Monument (New Orleans), it's not working. What's wrong? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi deisenbe. It appears you are confusing a list and a category. A list is an article which just happens to include a list of something. You add something to a list by editing the list, just like any other article. A category has a name starting with "Category:". If it's called "Category:X" then you add pages to it by adding  to the pages. It requires that the pages exist. Wikipedia uses sentence case for titles so a category for your purpose should be called something like Category:Removed monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Reason for deleting my article "Draft:Thukachi Abatsahayesvarar Temple"
I could not understand the reason for deleting my article "Draft:Thukachi Abatsahayesvarar Temple". It had proper footnotes and necessary photographs. Relevant information have been given based on the field work carried out by me in person. The temple has a history of more than 13 centuries. From the archaeological perspective also it was important. In Tamil Nadu, only select number of temples are found in this style. The iconographic aspect of the temple is very worth to mention. So far I have written more than 100 articles, most of them on temples, in English Wikipedia and 600 articles in Tamil Wikipedia. I request to reconsider your decision. Your reconsideration will help me to contribute more articles in Wikipedia.If any corrections have to be made, I will do, accordingly. Regards. B Jambulingam (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to the teahouse. Draft:Thukachi Abatsahayesvarar Temple is still there in draft space, and is a promising article.  It just needs a few more references to support the statements.  Unfortunately, your own field work cannot be used to support the statements until you have it published in WP:Reliable sources.  Keep up the good work.    D b f i r s   11:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for your opinion that this is a promising article. Let me know if I have to give many more foot notes/sources enabling others for not deleting the article. Your comments will be helpful to make the article in proper shape. Regards.--B Jambulingam (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, a few more reliable sources would help to establish notability. Statements such as "It is said that previously there were seven prakaras" need WP:reliable sources.    D b f i r s   07:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, For the concerned line suitable quote is given. I tried my level best to give reliable/available quotes. Regards.--B Jambulingam (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not able to check the references because I don't understand the language, but, ideally, each statement should have a reference which confirms the claim in the article. The reference should immediately follow the claim.    D b f i r s   17:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I write an article which is not there in Wikipedia but in other websites ?
I want to write an article about abellaite (mineral) but it is not present in Wikipedia but it is present in another website called Geoscienceworld.org. 122.172.167.134 (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Provided that you can find multiple Reliable sources about it, this would be helpful. I don't know Geoscienceworld.org, what kind of site is it? does it have some sort of editorial control? Can additional sources be found, perhps via a google books or google scholar search, or a library search?
 * Please read Your First Article before trying to create a new article. Unless you register an account, you will need to use the Article wizard to create a new article. I would urge you to do that anyway, and to go through a Draft stage in any case. This will allow an experienced editor to review the draft before it is moved to a live article. DES (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * After a quick search it looks like there would be enough to support an article. Unless you create an account you can not directly create it.  You can use the articles for creation process and create it in the Draft namespace.  Then when it is ready it can be moved to the main space.  ~ GB fan 14:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You should also be careful not to copy-paste the text from geoscienceworld.com. Doing so would be a copyright violation and would force Wikipedia to delete it as soon as it is detected. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think all known minerals, animal species, and plants are notable for us by definition of existing. There's some scientist out there studying them. Abellaite should be listed and discussed in mineral or stone identifying books. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 15:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've found a few good sources:
 * Commons has a photo at File:Abellaite-738453.jpg
 * The Wikiata page shows that four other language Wikipedias have articles
 * We obviously need this article so please go ahead and start it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Commons has a photo at File:Abellaite-738453.jpg
 * The Wikiata page shows that four other language Wikipedias have articles
 * We obviously need this article so please go ahead and start it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Existance of naming guidelines
Does Wikipedia have guidelines on the naming of articles? And if so, where are they located? AtlasDuane (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi The page you want is WP:Article titles. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer, much appreciated! AtlasDuane (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

How do I write about a design studio without it becoming promotional?
I recently wrote an article about a design studio and its work and it was then immediately flagged for deletion. I then changed the contents to only have cited facts from reputable sources such as their work that was shown by the Cooper Hewitt but was then still deemed to be promotional by admins. I have no idea how to proceed since there was no other explanation on how that is promotional from the admins. I see other design firms having wiki pages e.g. Continuum (design consultancy) and want to know how. For full disclosure I interned and freelanced at this studio a while back but have no current association with it, do I have to declare conflict of interest? Inksquare (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. As it happens I am the admin who deleted Prime Studio. Phrases such as "It is founded by designer, engineer and entrepreneur Stuart Harvey Lee" seemed promotional to me. Also, the rather shot article did not clearly indicate how the subject firm was notable. Still, the decision was not as clear-cut as many that I encounter tagged for speedy deletion. If you wish, I will restore the article in Draft space (as Draft:Prime Studio. There you will have more time to fully develop the article before it is assessed, and it will be reviewed by an experienced editor before it is taken live again. Would that be helpful? DES (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . It would be advisable for you to read WP:My first article and also to familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines for companies found at WP:CORP. Although there are some exceptions to notability for artists based on there works being exhibited, no such exception exists for a studio, which is after all a business. John from Idegon (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation. I would like to continue working on the article and would really appreciate having the draft page to work on. Thank you  for the resource link, I would definitely have a read before I continue. Inksquare (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article titled "Examiner.com"
I need help with the Wikipedia article titled Examiner.com.

I was a contributor at Examiner for over 6 1/2 years, from November 2009 until it closed in July 2016. Recently I read the Wikipedia article about it, and I was alarmed by a few different paragraphs and so I deleted some and edited others. This started an editing war. Someone is angry that I removed his or her incorrect, unsubstantiated input. The article now appears exactly the same as it did before I got involved.

On Wikipedia, a critic or an industry competitor wrote that Examiner had an ongoing plagiarism problem. Initially they did, but in 2010 Examiner's IT department installed software that detected images and sentences that had been published online before. Any contributor who got caught doing that instantly lost their login and their column disappeared.

Additionally, in 2010, Examiner hired a full time editorial team at their headquarters in Denver, Colorado. They were tough. Contributors would submit their articles to the editorial team for review and approval, and the first submission was always rejected for trivial reasons that were a non-issue. An article could bounce back and forth between a contributor and the editorial team several times for weeks. By the time an editor published it online everybody was sick and tired of it, and they hated each other.

Also, a critic wrote on the Wikipedia article that Examiner never offered to pay their contributors. That's not true! This is a double-edged sword: When I was contracted in November 2009, my recruiter said that contributors who had established readership had earned $100 to $150 per day for years. I worked really hard to establish my readership and when it reached about 10,000 unique visitors I received about $50. As my readership increased, my pay rate dropped. Obviously Examiner's recruiter lied. If it's true that they had 25,000 contributors during that period then there could be enough unpaid earnings to justify filing a class action lawsuit, and an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. For some mysterious reason, Examiner kept changing parent companies, but all of them were owned by Philip Anschutz in Denver, Colorado. The umbrella parent company was Anschutz Entertainment Group ("AEG"), which is now called Anschutz Corporation.

And so would you please resolve this editing war. Clearly the people who wrote the paragraphs that I tried to edit did not know anything about Examiner and they had never worked there or even contributed a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiesmallory (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * your close involvement with Examiner.com makes you less qualified, not more, to edit the Wikipedia article on it, as you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not based on its contributors' opinions on a subject, however well-informed; it is based on what has been published in reliable independent sources. The edit war will be won by the party that provides references for its contributions. You will not achieve anything by deleting referenced content and replacing it by your own unreferenced opinions. If you can cite independent published sources for Examiner's current policies on wages and plagiarism, please add them to the article. Maproom (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Of course edit wars are bad and should be stopped. I haven't yet looked at the page Examiner.com, but I will. However, what drives article content should not be what you know, or what any other editor knows or has experienced, but what published reliable sources say about the subject. Do you have published sources to back your statements about Examiner.com? Your personal knowledge is not verifiable -- that is, a reader can't check it. All Wikipedia content should in theory be verifiable, so cited reliable sources are vital in such matters. DES (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , this issue should be discussed on the page Talk:Examiner.com. Please honor the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. You made a series of bold edits. Another editor (and a rather experienced one, by the way) reverted them, claiming that they were unsourced. You should now discuss the matter on the talk page. If you an provide or point to sources that support your edits, please do so. Other can help insert sources if that is needed. But without sources that support your changes, they will not stay in the article.
 * Also, one revert, with a plausible reason, is not an edit war. People revert edits that they disagree with all the time. This is normal and proper, provided that the reverting editor explains his or her action, and is open to discussion thereafter. this series of edits did not introduce any new citations or sources, and did remove cited content and the citations supporting it. DES (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , on looking further I see that you (or someone editing from an IP address ending in 42cd, which I suppose to have been you) made the same or similar edits three times, being reverted by a different editor each time. That is an edit war, but it suggests that you were the person warring. I will assume that you didn't realize that after the first revert you should go to the article talk page and start a discussion of the issue. But you know that now. Please do not continue to insert unsourced statements into the article against local consensus without discussing the matter on the article talk page first. Doing so will not gain cooperation from other editors here, and will have negative consequences. DES (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture
How can I add a picture to an article?NickTheScout (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi NickTheScout. It is very dependent on what picture you want to add to which article. Copyright is a big hurdle, and it depends on many factors, so please tell us the specifics so that we can give tailored advice. In their absence, I am posting a canned template below that may explain some of the issues. Best regards---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
 * If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add  to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing   with the actual file name of the image, and   with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Question Part 2 - Nick
The reason I ask for this is because I notice an article by the name "Hacker" didn't have any information needed so I wanted to find an easiest way to fill in this article with no info!NickTheScout (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . If you are referring to the page Hacker (film), which you created, it has been deleted (by myself, in fact) as a test page, and as by your request (by blanking the page).
 * If you want to create pages in the future I urge you to read Your First Article and Wikipedia's Golden Rule first, and then to use the Article wizard to create a Draft. That will make things much easier for all involved. DES (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

reference for word of mouth information
how do you write reference for word of mouth article and history Lmuamua (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are asking how to document something you learned because someone told you about it as a source for a Wikipedia article, the answer is simple, you don't. According to our verifibility policy and our guideline on reliable sources, sources must be published.
 * However, if a relaible source, such as a work of history, recounts what someone told the historian, that can be cited and used. So can published oral histories, such as the Oral History project run by the US Library of Congress. DES (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I've tidied up your article stub a bit, but you need to do some research to find WP:Reliable sources, and you might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners. Can you find the co-ordinates on Google Earth?   D b f i r s   23:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

trying to edit a page of an artist that is up for deletion but should not be in my opinion.
Hello I am trying to understand why artist Patrick Thompson (artist) is up for deletion. How can it be edited to avoid this?Plasterofparis (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason why Patrick Thompson (artist) has been nominated for deletion is given on the AfD page for that article, Articles for deletion/Patrick Thompson (artist). There the nominator says: "Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Can find no indepth coverage just a lot of listings and passing mentions." This means that the nominator, the experienced editor , has looked for but was unable to find published independent reliable sources that discuss Thompson in some detail.
 * As to "How can it be edited to avoid this?", the answer is simple. Find and add such sources. Several such sources at least. Published reliable sources that discuss Thompson and/or his work at some length (at least several paragraphs, more is better) are what is needed and all that is needed. Sources do not have to be online, although being online makes things easier. If you don't know how to add them to the article, simply list them on the AfD page, Articles for deletion/Patrick Thompson (artist), describing what the sources say about Thompson and why they are reliable (if this is not clearly obvious). Descriptions should be brief, but through enough to allow someone who has not read the source to understand how it deals with Thompson or his work (or both). Such sources as books published by mainstream publishers, scholarly journal articles, magazine articles, newspapers, or online sites of comparable quality and function to these will all work. Blogs and fan sites will not work. Neither will mentions in passing, or inclusion in directories and lists.
 * Significant awards can also help, but there must be a cited source showing that Thompson received the award (or was a finalist for a major award). Online searches may be enough -- library searches/research are sometimes required.
 * Does that answer your question? DES (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and do NOT copy sizable blocks of text directly from the sources, . DES (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

How can I improve article to be reviewed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Middleton

Hello I have written the above article and it was first declined for notability but i have since improved the sources and am awaiting review since resubmitting over a week ago. I wanted to ask your opinion on how it could be improved even further while I wait, or if it is OK as is to get approved when it does get looked at again? Thanks so much!

Ashalily91 (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I reviewed and declined your draft again. See my comments there. You have not addressed the issues raised by the first reviewer. John from Idegon (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The long list of his publications should be removed or severely trimmed. The article would also be better without the section on non-notable awards he's won. But the main issue is (as John from Idegon just said) whether the citations establish that he's notable. The article cites almost 40 sources, but I don't see even one which does anything to establish his notability. Maproom (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John from Idegon I really appreciate your comments and am working through those now. Can I ask if journals are notable sources as all research publications are 'written' by the subject, but if it has qualified for the journal would this be able to be considered a notable source for proof? I am looking at the International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics where both of the 'australian first' acheivements are published. Or would it be best to only mention the advancement that was also picked up by media/newspaper sources? Maproom thank you also for reiterating the comments made by John,appreciate your further advice here. --Ashalily91 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Draft:Mark Middleton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have supplied journals and a media source that verify Mark as introducing a major advance in the treatment of cancer to Australia, but I understand that there hasnt been enough media coverage to warrent inclusion in Wikipedia. I had focussed on this acheivement as I was told his business acheievements were advertising(although reported on by third part sources and a key aspect of Marks reputation in the health landscape), can I ask how this is any different to this article which has been approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Jaffray

Ashalily91 (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

verification
I've resubmitted my article but I'm not sure if it will be accepted this time or not. I've tried to follow the guideline properly but if possible can anyone of you please check it.

DhanishaB (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome back to the Teahouse,.


 * I assume you are referring to the draft article Draft:Vishnu Ramdeo. I took a look at it and can tell you it will not be accepted in its current form. It has no references, nothing at all that would substantiate the notability of its subject, and still has major failures to follow Wikipedia style guidelines. You can work on these while waiting for a formal review. First gather your sources and make inline citations for each statement of fact in the article. A good resource for how to do this is the page Help:Referencing for beginners.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  06:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Searching in multiple Wikipedias simultaneously
Hi Teahouse,

I use Wikipedia in different languages and like to have the ability to search in a few of them simultaneously. In other words, I don't like to switch Wikipedia when I switch language. Is there some sort of universal search capability? Can I "turn on" some languages and see results from them.

Hope I was able to convey my question. Thanks in advance. Alireza1357 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry, but the the best of my knowledge, that is not possible. Each language edition of Wikipedia is its own site and project. Besides, the corresponding term for a subject under another language might not be the obvious (machine) translation of the title in English. However, many Wikipedia article do link to corresponding or closely related article in different language editions of Wikipedia. Thus once you have found one in one language, you may be able to follow useful links to other languages DES (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Greetings and   You can open various language Wikipedias in different browser tabs. For example  https://en.wikipedia.org  in one tab, then  https://fr.wikipedia.org  in the next tab. So then you can easily switch between wikis by just clicking on the tab for that one. This is how I find a French article that corresponds to the English article. For example: article Roman Catholic Diocese of Angoulême and look at last entry for Claude Jean Pierre Dagens English wikipedia; and (fr) French wikipedia. Hope this helps. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:DESiegel and User:JoeHebda I was actually looking for a more convenient way like "turning on" different wikis in preferences and having a universal search box that pulls out results from the "turned on" wikis. This would save me some additional clicks and repetitive tasks. But thanks for your answers. I was wondering if it is a good idea to raise the issue on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)? Cheers Alireza1357 (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can if you like, . I don't see any obvious answer to the issue that the search terms would be different, and that languages do not translate 1-to-1. But I am not up on the latest developments in searching, and maybe there would be an answer. It couldn't hurt to ask, the worst that could happen is a laugh and "No way! Not possible." DES (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Will do! That is the least price one can pay! As Germans say: "Wieso, weshalb, warum? Wer nicht fragt bleibt dumm!" Cheers Alireza1357 (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes...the song for the German version of Sesame Street. Ahhh, those were the times. Lectonar (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You can also fire up the external search engine of your choice, and use the keyword site:wikipedia.org to restrict the search to pages on the Wikipedia domains. However, doing so will have all the shortcomings of an external search (some internal pages are not indexed, you cannot search by template, etc.). Tigraan Click here to contact me 07:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

how to write word of mouth stories and how to reference it
I was given the opportunity by our fathers to write the story about our family and how they travelled to reach where they have established our village at present, to write about their journey. This stories have never been documented before. How can I reference this stories as I go along, please advise. ThanksLmuamua (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , please read the answer you were given about in . Wikipedia citations must be to published sources. Wikipedia articles must be about notable topics. DES (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , even though you cannot write such an article here on Wikipedia, you could approach a nearby college or university's history department. Oral history projects are quite popular in academia these days. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Where do I find the list of articles people want created?
Before I had my account I would search, and if wikipedia didn't already have the article, I could ask for it to be created. (I never did.) So anyways, i want to help those people and give them their articles! If I had this list I would already be working on it. So whenever someone can please tell me where I can find it.

Sportseditor (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome. It is sorted by general topic at Requested articles. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks i will get right on it!

Page removed - The ACRONET Paradigm
Dears, I have a question concerning a page removed by your staff (I guess) regarding an Open Hardware and Software Project named ACRONET Paradigm. Yesterday I included this project in the list of OH Proj. here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_hardware_projects), and I also created the specific page of the project itself. Both the link in the list page and the explanation one have been deleted. Could you explain me why? A brief motivation was given: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I would better understand if a description of ACRONET Paradigm can be published in Wikipedia (as well as other OH Proj. are), or if some other problem has been put in evidence. Many thanks in advance. Adrianofedi (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . I can find no trace of the article ACRONET Paradigm.  Did you create it under a different user name?  For me, Google finds only advertising for ACRONET Paradigm, and also suggests that you might have a WP:Conflict of interest, but if you can find sources where ACRONET Paradigm has been written about in WP:Reliable sources, then you could request an article at WP:Requested articles.    D b f i r s   07:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . The page ACRONET Paradigm was deleted by . The deletion log reason was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I can't say that this was an invalid deletion. The article stated that the "paradigm" was new. Although it had three sources, all were apparently by the inventors of the "paradigm", although they were apparently published in scientific journals. I haven't checked to see if the work was peer-reviewed.
 * Moreover, the article included such phrases as "Moreover, artifacts, schematics, bills of materials and firmware are kept publicly available on the project website for free", "The versatility of the dataloggers developed within the project allows the possibility to accept a huge amount of sensors already available on the reference market.", "simple Do-It-Yourself mounting kits (IKEA Model) are designed and made available from the website", "Thanks to the aforementioned characteristics, the ACRONET Paradigm has been successfully applied in some critical areas", "remarkable results were achieved", and "An important innovation resides within the fact that today the ACRONET stations can be queried by smartphone". Much of this is pure marketing-speech, and has no place in Wikipedia. It is an attempt to persuade people to use a particular website and the goods and services it offers. Wikipedia article must be objective and neutral. They must not try to persuade. No opinions may be expressed in Wikipedia's voice, only those cited to specific, named people or entities. Adjectives may not be used to praise (or attack) any product, cause, or subject. And the article as a whole must be supported by multiple published, independent reliable sources. Individual facts must be supported by cited sources, although not all need be independent. None of this was done. DES (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Dears, first of all many thanks for your messages and time. Moreover, I take note of your views and understand the reasons for page deletion.
 * The project wants to be ethical and sustainable with specific aim to meet requirements from Developing Countries.
 * The fact is that the words I used are the ones that we normally include in scientific papers. I must admit that the sentences you put in evidence sounds really as marketing-speech. Thus, I would sincerely that the project could be included in the list of Open Hardware Projects already available on Wikipedia. Maybe, we do not have yet "independent reliable sources", it means that me and my colleagues are more or less always authors of the articles regarding ACRONET that can be find on the web. It would be great if you could suggest me a proper way, if possible.

Many thanks in advance, AdrianoAdrianofedi (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately,, until someone can find and present those independent reliable sources, there cannot be a Wikipedia article on this topic. If such an article is created without them, it will almost surely be deleted fairly promptly. And only topics that already have Wikipedia articles are listed in Wikipedia's List of open source hardware projects. So the only proper way forward is to wait until those independent reliable sources about Arconet have been published. Remember, please, that Wikipedia is intended to summarize what others have already written. It is not to be used to bring new things to public attention when no independent reliable sources yet exist. DES (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

How to make my article eligible for wikipedia?
Respected Sir/Madam,

The wikipedia article that I created for Pittie Group company got rejected on the basis of it being sounding like an advertisement. I request you to please help me understand it further. Any inputs/suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Regards, Rahul Sharma

Sharma.rahul.4110 (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The whole draft at User:Sharma.rahul.4110/sandbox reads like a company brochure or website. Phrases such as "Under the leadership of its chairman and the CEO, Mr. Aditya Pittie...", "Yogurtbay has poised its strong expanse by introducing a new line of waffle stick desserts", "A robust and strong supply chain along with retailer clients like Reliance, Star Bazaar, Hypercity, Metro, D-mart, More, Max Hyper Market, Vishal Mega Mart and Spencer have enabled the group to empower Patanjali and serve all its distribution needs.", "...a one stop destination in puja and spiritual products category.", "...positioned as the ultimate destination for its valued viewers."
 * Wikipedia articles must be objective and neutral. They must not praise or attack anything or anyone. puffery is not allowed. Any opinions must be those of a named and cited person or entity. Adjectives that imply value judgements should not be used except in direct or paraphrased quotes. I hope this is clear. DES (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * even if you can remove all the promotional language from User:Sharma.rahul.4110/sandbox, it has another serious problem. It has no references to reliable independent sources. Of its 13 references, 1,2,3,9,13 are to the business's own web sites, 4,5,7,8,10,12 are to articles based on interviews with people closely associated with the subject, 6 is to an advertisement, and 10 does not mention the subject. Maproom (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User keep reverting
I read the WP:RS, and the sources put in some articles are not WP:RS, and thus I removed the sources and some if its content. There is one user who keeps reverting without giving an explanation. What shall I do? Shall I just leave it or should I do something else? Xenani (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . To what article or articles do you refer? It looks from your contributions as if you have made edits with summaries mentioning lack of reliable sources on several articles.
 * If you remove a citation (and content supported by it) on the grounds that it is not a reliable source, and another editor reverts your change, please start a discussion on the relevant article talk page. You can ping the other editor involved, inviting that editor to join the discussion. Follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss (BRD) cycle, please. If there is debate on whether the source is an RS or not, use the reliable source noticeboard (RSN) where experienced editors can help asses the reliability of specific sources in specific contexts. Remember, please, that context matters. No source is reliable for every possible statement, and few are never reliable for any statement. DES (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh,  one point of formatting. Within a Section headings are placed as sub-sections, that is with equals signs, such as , not with bold text. Subsections appear in the article's table of contents, and use standard formatting. Please do not convert sub-sections to bolded text. 12:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Thank you for the tips. I was referring to the articles Kadurugoda Vihara and Sinhalese alphabet. But I think I have sorted it out with the user. Xenani (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Would the proper use of electronic yellow pages entries be a violation of policy?
I have added a list of places of worship into an article ( Norwalk, Connecticut ), of which some can only be cited by way of sources such as electronic yellow pages or Google maps. I believe such a list to be associated with or significantly contributes to the article. Would such a list, not in itself a directory--- and if properly cited, be a violation of Wikipedia is not a directory policy? If so, how might I re-frame the list so that it does not violate any Wikipedia policy? Thank you for your time. --->StephenTS42 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I suggest that you limit yourself to a list of notable places of worship that already have Wikipedia articles about them. Such a list should be of places that are of historical or architectural interest. Listing every one is by definition a directory. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

deletion
i need some advice on how to get my page up. I dont know how to ask the person who edited and then deleted my page directly. I reviewed it and worked to eliminate all self promotion- is there someone i can talk to about reviewing my page and giving me pointers?

klsklskls (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Dermaplaning, which you created, was deleted by with the logged reason of "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: http://www.webmd.com/beauty/cosmetic-procedures-chemical-peel-treatments". G11 is fundamental advertising or promotional pages, and G12 is a copyright violation. G11 can be worked around, with editing, but G12 is a hard limit. Wikipedia simply will not accept content copied from another site without proof that it has been released under a free license by the copyright owner. (See Donating copyrighted materials.)
 * I see that two previous versions were also deleted under G11. The final version contained sections on "Benefits" and "Treatment Alternatives" and included phrases such as "DERMAFLASH is the only at-home exfoliating device that uses a subtle sonic vibration and stainless steel edge to remove dead skin cells and fine hair from the cheeks, jawline, lip area, chin and forehead". It looks pretty promotional to me, and i would have made the same deletion as it stood. DES (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse.  Wikipedia does not have "my pages".  The article Dermaplaning has been deleted because it was advertising and was a copyright infringement.  There is lots of advice on your talk page. If you think that Dermaplaning is notable in the Wikipedia sense (i.e. it has been written about in multiple independent WP:Reliable sources), then you might like to start again by creating a draft article using your own words, not copied from anywhere else, at Draft:Dermaplaning which can be improved gradually and is less likely to be deleted (though copyright material will not be allowed).  Do you have a WP:Conflict of interest because you have some connection with the topic?     D b f i r s   19:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)