Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 576

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 570

←

Archive 574

→

Don't able to find a Source for an Article.

Hi to everyone. I recently searched the Air India aircraft list on Google. And it shows that they have a total of 109 aircraft and 21 on order. And it also shows that Air India has 23 Dreamliners instead of 22 (VT-ANX is 23rd Dreamliner). But if I have to add it to the The Air India Wiki page, I have to give a reliable source. And that I am not able to find that. The sources which are on Google has only images. Should I add that or leave that for now?? Can someone help me please? Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey FlyJet777. Wikipedia generally lags behind the "truth", especially on topics where information can change rapidly or continuously. This is, as your rightly point out, because information on Wikipedia has to be backed up by reliable sources. So before we can write about it, the thing first needs to exist, and second be around long enough for a reliable source to take notice and write about it themselves.

So as a general rule, we err on the side of "definitely recently correct" rather than "potentially currently outright false". If the information has in fact changed, and the topic is in fact notable, then it should only be a matter of time before a reliable source becomes available, and if Wikipedia is slightly out of date in the interim, it's just one of the necessary constraints of our policy. TimothyJosephWood 15:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So you mean that I have leave it until some reliable sources come? Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

FlyJet777: In a word, yes. However, keep in mind that the reliability of the source needs to match the size or relative weight of the claim it supports. So for example, we have exceedingly high standards for reliability when it comes to medical information (see WP:MEDRS), but on the other end of the spectrum, it is perfectly acceptable to cite even social media sometimes for mundane and uncontroversial personal details (see WP:SELFPUB). If all you are looking to change is something as minor and uncontroversial as the size of their fleet, probably even a reference to their official website (if the information is actually there) would be reliable enough to support the content. TimothyJosephWood 15:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you very much for your response. Well.. How many years does it take to gain the adminship? FlyJet777 (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Umm...There is no formal requirement as far as time spent on Wikipedia or number of contributions made. Some current administrators, especially the old-timers, may have gotten the bit after several months. Others who have been here for ten years or more aren't admins, never have been, and plenty flatly don't want to ever be.

Being an admin really just means that you have some extra buttons to push, most of which are for...essentially janitorial maintenance: things like deleting clearly inappropriate articles, blocking obvious vandals, adding protections to pages when it's requested...generally fairly boring stuff. But other than that, being an admin isn't really a special status. Everyone's more-or-less on equal footing around here, and experience and perspective matter much more than what user access level you may have. TimothyJosephWood 16:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I have understood. Hey.. What do you think of my edits here on Wikipedia? Need explanation or good work? Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

FlyJet777: I'm afraid we have a bit different subject areas, but I would encourag you to consider participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation if you haven't already. Seems right up your ally. TimothyJosephWood 17:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Updating company name

Hi! A couple of days ago I started my internship at Vekoma Rides, one of the largest rollercoaster manufacturers in the world. During research I found that the wrong name is b eing used in Wikipedia. So I made an account but I can't seem to change the company title. Before 2001, the company name was Vekoma. After their overtake by Huisman, they continued under the name Vekoma Rides Manufacturing (or short Vekoma Rides), but since Vekoma (without addition) refers to the company before 2001, it's inaccurate.

Can some tell me if its possible to change this, and if so, how?

Thanks in advance!

Valceryn (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Valceryn:This guideline will assist you to move a page to your desired name.

Hi Valceryn. You are not yet autoconfirmed, an edit threshold requiring accounts to be more than four days old and have made more than ten edits in order to take certain actions, including moving a page. Please also be aware of the article titling policy and especially its subsection regarding common names and its sub-subsection at WP:NAMECHANGES. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Your own website switches between "Vekoma", "Vekoma Rides" and "Vekoma Rides Manufacturing", e.g. on About Vekoma. Vekoma Rides Manufacturing has redirected to Vekoma since 2015 and I have just created the same redirect at Vekoma Rides. The article mentions the full official name in the opening sentence. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your information and help! @ PrimeHunter, they indeed use different names. I went by the legal department of the company to inform about it. Conclusion was that it is not (legally) wrong to use Vekoma, but it's not its official name anymore since 2001, so it is advised to note the entire name every time only Vekoma is used in an article etc. At the Dutch Chamber of Commerce another Vekoma (transportation company) is registered as Vekoma (without anything). Our company is officially only mentioned as Vekoma Rides. However, I hear multiple employees answering phones with just Vekoma.. I think its also because the company size, worldwide familiarity, and habit to say Vekoma.

Anyways, thanks again for your help! Also in general, you are doing the world a great favor! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valceryn (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Valceryn. While the legal name, and changes to it, should certainly be mentioned in the article (provided reliable published sources can be found for them - which is likely, because for this purpose the company's own website or publications would be acceptable), the primary name of the Wikipedia article should be the name used in the majority of the reliable sources which establish the company's notability. The company's legal department has no authority over what those sources, and hence Wikipedia, call the company. --ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Are there still issues with these sites?

Michael Graversen and Dreaming of Denmark KlausJensen (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KlausJensen. I will comment on Dreaming of Denmark. This article has lots of non-neutral language. We do not describe films as "award winning" in the lead, since most notable films win at least a few awards. That's promotionalism. Consider also this sentence:

"The film provides brutally honest depictions of the transience, isolation and frightening uncertainty he faces."

Which reliable source calls the film "brutally honest" and mentions all that other stuff? You cannot include such evaluative language in a Wikipedia article unless it is attributed to the opinion of a professional film critic, and properly referenced . Please remove all such unreferenced evaluative or promotional language from both articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Cullen. I will change the language to make it more neutral. I just took the text from the official film page of The Danish Film Institute. They are a respeced government institution in Denmark. KlausJensen (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

To expand a little further, KlausJensen, language such as Cullen mentions would be acceptable if it was explicitly quoted and attributed in the article - provided the source was both reliable and independent. I've no doubt the Danish Film Institute site is reliable; but the description of the film is uncredited, and it seems likely to me that it derives from the film's producers (perhaps by a press release). Evaluative language about a subject needs to be cited to a reliable source independent of the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Cullen328 Now I have tried to make it better in Dreaming of Denmark - are there still issues you think? KlausJensen (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

One edit or several?

When making changes to a long article, is it considered better form to make one big edit, or several small ones (e.g. one per section)? One edit makes less noise on Recent Changes and makes the edit history easier to skim, but with smaller ones, people can link to specific changes they want to discuss afterwards more easily. Mortee (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mortee. There is no hard and fast rule on this, so I will give my opinion as an experienced editor. In most cases, I recommend a series of smaller edits as it is easier for other editors to evaluate the significance and impact of an individual edit that way. If edits are utterly non controversial, they may be grouped together. For example, our Manual of Style says that after first mention, we refer to people by their surnames, rather than their first name. So, if you change a dozen instances of first name to surname in a single edit, that should not be a problem. Consider a more complex edit, though, where you combine a series of non-controversial improvements like correcting typos with a possibly controversial change in content. If your edit is reverted, all the minor but clear improvements will be lost (at least temporarily) until consensus is reached. So, my recommendation when beginning to edit an existing article is to start out with the copy editing, the typo correction, and edits to comply with the Manual of Style. Then, move on to the more substantive content edits, explaining clearly in your edit summaries the thinking behind your edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes sense to me. Mortee (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mortee: I agree that there is no hard-and-fast rule. You are allowed to make each little change a separate edit or to apply a great mass of changes simultaneously as a single edit.

From the perspective of a source control system, which the edit history is a form of, you would like to see an approach something like one-edit per "reason", so that the reason given in the edit summary can be readily verified as making the associated changes justified/appropriate/understandable. Making a bunch of small changes, all for the same reason, adds to the burden of interested editors watching over the article. Similarly, making a whole bunch of unrelated changes in a single edit similarly burdens those editors with scrutinizing each change without knowing immediately what the motivation for that particular change is, even if several were listed in the edit summary.

In practice, however, an editor working on fixing one aspect of an article will also, along the way, spot some minor correction and include that with the edit - generally with a small annotation in the edit summary to acknowledge the additional change in case someone looking at it might think it was an accidental change.

I don't think I'm making any different recommendation than Cullen328, but perhaps this provides a bit of motivation: consider the editors who are also looking at the article as members of your team – how what you do may make things easier for them.

One other thing to be aware of: there are certain edit summaries such as "fixed a typo", "added a fact", "corrected what was WRONG" that are like red flags because they are sometimes (frequently?) used by vandals to deflect examination of their changes. As you continue to edit, you'll begin to recognize some of these behaviors. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

its better to do many small edits, not one large edit. Vyvek (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll add that, as someone who often reviews edits, I don't like to see unrelated content edits that cover more than one section. It's usually impossible to cover in one meaningful edit summary, and it's a multi-stage process to back out part of the edit. Meters (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

HELP: 10 days and no one is participating is discussion regarding nomination for deletion

In ten or so days, there has been no participation from other editors, including the editor who nominated the article for deletion, and no response to the substantive changes and additional secondary sources that respond to the reasons for nomination for deletion.

Please see all at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_Academy_of_Construction_(USA)#National_Academy_of_Construction_.28USA.29

I appreciate any help. I don't think the discussion process is working. More importantly, the changes to the article and further information provided demonstrate the reason for nomination for deletion has been overcome.

Thanks!!MaeInJune (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User:MaeInJune - I have a brief comment, and that is that your comments at the deletion discussion are too long, difficult to read. I will read them. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

MaeInJune: as has already been explained in the deletion discussion, the draft in its current state is unnacceptable because it lacks references that establish its subject's notability. Such references must be to reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. At present the draft has 21 references: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 20 are not independent, 8 merely lists the subject, 10, 15, 19 and 21 merely mention it, 9, 13 and 18 don't even mention it. 18 may be regarded as marginally acceptable. If you want the article to be accepted, someone will have to add better references. You will not help its acceptance at all by promising that you will improve the references without actually doing it; nor by writing at excessive length about why you believe the subject warrants an article; nor by pointing out some existing articles also lack adequate references. Maproom (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Maproom: This discussion has been super helpful. Clarification: When I wrote that I'd add sources, I did (see addition of the section Services). It would have helped if I'd have gotten feedback that said the sources needed "significant coverage." But I got no feedback. When I wrote that I'd add additional details relevant to the discussion and upload in the next few hours, I did. Again, I got no feedback/response. Thanks again. And especially for checking all of the sources and giving helpful and appropriate feedback. I really appreciate that generous effort. Enjoy the day.MaeInJune (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. This is the feedback I've been wanting. If I move to my sandbox, what happens to the article title? (I will read more on drafts.)MaeInJune (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If you move it, you can change its title as you do so. Maproom (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there any difference between moving the article to a draft space versus letting it be deleted (and it may be a draft for a long while)? MaeInJune (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If you move it to draft space, there's a chance that someone else will come along and improve it. Maproom (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Maproom: This discussion has been super helpful. So my last question, can someone please delete the article? Clarification: When I said I'd add sources, I did (see addition of the section Services). It would have helped if I'd have gotten feedback that said the sources needed "significant coverage." But I got no feedback. When I said I'd add additional details relevant to the discussion and upload in the next few hours, I did. Again, I got no feedback/response. Thanks again. And especially for checking all of the sources and giving helpful and appropriate feedback. I really appreciate that generous effort. Enjoy the day.MaeInJune (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest just letting the deletion discussion run its course, MaeInJune, as it looks like it will result in deletion at present. By the way, Robert McClenon and Maproom won't have been notified of your mentions in that comment, as you didn't include them in the edit that you signed. See Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events for an explanation. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cordless Larry!MaeInJune (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Edited version does not come automatically

Hi

I have edited 2 pages 1) Saoli Mitra & 2) Arpita Ghosh. I am their official correspondent.

However after editing when I type their names the edits do not appear. It is the undedited version that I can see. When I go to Revision History |I can see the changes that I made. How can I ensure that if their names are typed we will see the Edited version only.

Regards

Anirban Anirban Pancham Vaidic (talk) 8:40 am, Today (UTC+0)

Hi Anirban, and welcome to the teahouse. As official correspondent, you need to declare a WP:Conflict of interest in editing these articles. Your recent edits are still there, but you need to add references for each statement (see WP:Biographies of living persons). Perhaps you just need to purge the cache of your browser, or reload the page to see your latest version. Your earlier edits to Shaoli Mitra were reverted because they lacked references. See WP:Referencing for beginners. The duplicate page Saoli Mitra has been deleted. There is some advice on your talk page Dbfirs 09:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Anirban Pancham Vaidic. Please understand that if you are an official correspondent for those people, then it is not your job to edit the Wikipedia articles about them. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, employees or associates say about them. It is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have published about them. As an agent of those people, your role in Wikipedia's articles about them should be limited to making suggestions for edits (preferably with references to reliable published sources) on the article's talk page. Also, if you are in any sense paid for doing this work, you are required to declare the fact: see WP:PAID. --ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Anirban Pancham Vaidic - You are edit-warring by repeatedly making edits that have been reverted. Also, the tone of your edits is non-neutral. You are introducing peacock language after it is being reverted. You should stop edit-warring and stop inserting non-neutral language, or you may be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference doubts.

I'm looking to make a wiki page about a popular commentary YouTuber. Do YouTube videos count as possible references if they're well documented. Also will the YouTubers website(about me section) act as a source of suitable references. This individual is very popular, however I'm finding it tough to get well documented references. Last thing I want is to spend a lot of time on this article and then get vandal warnings. Any advice is appreciated. Arkhaminsanity (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Arkhaminsanity and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, a person's statements about themselves (such as YouTube videos and their website) cannot be used to establish notability, which is the very first requirement when adding an article to Wikipedia. Adding inadequately sourced material, at least the first few times, is not going to get you labeled as a vandal, but the edits will most likely be quickly reverted and a page that you create with inadequate supporting evidence will most likely be speedily deleted. Be sure to read the guidance at WP:Your first article so you can become a valued contributing editor. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Arkhaminsanity: I typoed the {{u}} template in the above. Pinging again. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

what else do i need?

I just got another deletion notice for my article. What else do i need to keep it or fight the deletion?Parwaaz hasan (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Parwaaz hasan and welcome to the Teahouse. Your article, Hazrat Shah Sufi Khaja Abul Hasan Chishty has no sources as references for what the article says. You have a list of books the subject has written. What you need are references that have been written ABOUT him, not by him. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. For a subject to have a Wikipedia article he must have already been written about elsewhere, in reliable sources independent of the subject. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

adding an image

How do i add an image to my page? Blaney j (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Blaney j. There is a very good answer to a similar question here: #Adding a image to my page. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit another members Draft or create my own?

In short, I came across a draft of an article that's currently been rejected twice for lack of 'notable' references. My question stems from that. Do I update this other members draft to include more references, then give it a major content overhaul to bring it in line with other 'similar' articles, or start my own draft and push from there. I don't want to step on this other members toes, so to speak, but I also don't want there to be two efforts running in conjunction. Any advice would be helpful and appreciated. - NsTaGaTr (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi NsTaGaTr. I assume you are talking about Draft:The Dollop. It is fine to improve an article by another editor when it is in Draft space rather than their own user space. Many Draft articles have been rescued and improved by other Wikipedia editors. See all the rescued draft articles at User:Anne Delong/AfC content rescued from db-g13. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I just didn't want to cause any drama if/when the original author came back to it and saw it in a different state than when they left. - NsTaGaTr (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:NsTaGaTr - No one owns a Wikipedia article or a Wikipedia draft, and changes to them should not cause drama. The objective with any draft should be to improve to where it will be accepted. If a user wanted to be the only editor of a work in progress, they would and could keep it in user space, where it is still not exclusively theirs, but they are its steward. Go ahead and improve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

NsTaGaTr, it would be polite to drop the other editor a note on their user talk page to tell them that you intend to work on it, and se if they want to discuss anything with you. But you don't have to. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Both are very valid points. I'll shoot them a message, and if I don't get a response in a certain amount of time, I'll start drafting up changes, for the greater good. - NsTaGaTr (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

accepted protocol for dealing with Requested article?

Hi again. There is a request for an "HY antigen" article (#36 under "Uncategorized" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences/Biology/Genetics). There in fact is H-Y antigen. I always learned the term without the hyphen. I know how to move H-Y antigen to HY antigen, but I'm thinking it may be better to simply create an HY antigen page as just a redirect to H-Y antigen. What does the community think about this sort of issue? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, DennisPietras. The first step is to determine which is the most common name in the majority of the high quality English language sources that discuss the topic in some detail. See WP:COMMONNAME for details. If necessary, move the existing article, and then create a redirect at the other name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You could also move H-Y antigen to HY antigen if you find it's warranted, which will automatically create a redirect. Justin15w (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks folks! Much to my surprise, HY is only slightly in the majority on medline, so I'm going to leave H-Y as is and make the redirect to it from HY. DennisPietras (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

drafting

how do I make a draft? L.S. inc. (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello L.S. inc.: You can do it two ways. Enter Draft:<article name> into the search bar above and create the page (I.e. Draft:Teletubbies) or create it in your sandbox by clicking on the Sandbox link at the top of the page or by creating User:L.S. inc./sandbox/<article name>. Let us know if you need clarification. Justin15w (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

thanks.L.S. inc. (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Or the third way, which I would recommend (since it gives you the header with useful things like a button to submit your draft for review when it's ready) is to use the Article Wizard, L.S. inc.. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Will recommend in the future. Justin15w (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding a image to my page

Hello please can you tell me how I can add images to the page I am creating Thank you Christine Bedwellty Union Workhouse, Tredegar(Christin5P (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Christin5P and welcome to Wikipedia!

This topic is covered in depth at the following links: WP:IUP and WP:NFC. If your file is in the public domain or you created it completely by yourself, you may upload it using the wizard at c:COM:UPLOAD; if it is not free to use but you can write a proper fair use rationale, you may use WP:UPLOAD. Since you are a new user, I highly recommend that you use the WP:FFU (files for upload) process (click the link to get started and follow the instructions). This will allow more experienced Wikipedians to help you find out if the file you wish to use can be used on Wikipedia, and they will also upload it for you and tell you the filename. After that, all you have to do is include it in the article. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you I am waiting for permission to use some images if my page is successfully used on Wikipedia can I upload an image at a later date? Christin5P (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Definitely! You can always add to an article - a Wikipedia article is always a work in progress. :-] --Slashme (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Christian5P. Could you clarify what you mean by "my page"? Are you referring to your user page or are you referring to something else? Technically, we as editors do not have a "my page" when it comes to Wikipedia as explained in WP:OWN and WP:UP#OWN, but whether you can add an image often depends on where you want to add it. Non-free images are only allowed to be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9, which means you cannot add such an image to a draft, a user page, a template, a talk page, or any page that is not in the article namespace. Even for articles, you have to clearly establish how the image's use satisfies WP:NFCCP. It's easier to use freely licensed or public domain images since such files are not subject the NFCCP. Even in those cases, however, image use is not always automatic and you may need to discuss adding it on the article's talk page as explained in WP:IUP#Adding images to articles if other editors do not feel the image should be added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

why are we being deleted the next day ?

Hi - my name is Debbie and I am helping my dad Karl.. on page: VPB 121.

I logged in and went to vpb 121 - edit - added our note - preview - save.

logged out/logged in and it was there but the next day - it had been deleted.

I don't know why.....

We want to add under Aug.7:

CORRECTION ON DATE AND EVENT: As noted above, Aug 7th, one on the squadrons were shot down/with no survivors is incorrect. On August 11, 1945, PB4Y-2 Squadron 121 Crew 3, was shoot down in the Sagami Wan Bay (aka Tokyo Bay). Unbeknown to the other plane, there were eight survivors and four were lost at sea. All eight survivors were captured by the Japanese and incarcerated in the Ofuna Camp. All eight P.O.W.s were released after the war. This note is made by one of those survivors: Karl C. Gaber. For pictures and story see Ref: Sheet #721003 PB4Y-2 Privateers insert.

THANK YOU FOR ANY ASSISTANCE, DEBBIE AND KARL KARL G. (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi KARL G. and welcome to the Teahouse. You added a comment to an encyclopedia article rather than rewriting a section. A correction suggestion should go on the talk page of the article, not into the text of article itself. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

KARL G., has the story been written up anywhere but on a reference sheet that comes with a set of decals as described here? The men got medals which are recorded. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, KARL G. and Deb. Two things. First, Wikipedia's terms of service clearly state that an account is intended for the exclusive use of one user. You cannot share it. Secondly, it appears Dad may be writing about something he is directly connected with. KARL G. = Karl C. Graber, ya? Although not forbidden (unlike two people using the same account), it is highly discouraged. See WP:COI. The reason for this is quite simple. In an encyclopedia, you do not actually write about the subject as you would in an essay or a thesis. Instead an encyclopedia is a summary of what has been written about a subject in reliable sources. It is hard for a person who has been involved in something as traumatic as a battle to seperate themselves enough from the event to be able to accurately paraphrase whatever the sources say about it. To state it another way, if you have a book and an eyewitness describing the same thing in different ways, we are going to include what the book says and discount the eyewitness completely. John from Idegon (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

needs help on improving article

He wanted to know how to improve the article based on the comments at Luca Litrico (it's an orphan and needs more links to other articles). I reposted this for him as he is having trouble getting the formatting right for his question.Justin15w (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Justin15w (talk) Thank you very much for helping me. I am a beginner and would not want that article retired I want to leave it, to improve, Luca Litrico https://www.instagram.com/sartorialitrico/

See this Italian fashion designer, his uncle Angelo Litrico dressed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy https://www.instagram.com/p/BDzpxeivHfC/?taken-by=sartorialitrico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev https://www.instagram.com/p/BNWgZfbAV_W/?taken-by=sartorialitrico https://www.instagram.com/p/BLgKn5llOg5/?taken-by=sartorialitrico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin https://www.instagram.com/p/BEGHJ8KPHcX/?taken-by=sartorialitrico Andrey Malahov https://www.instagram.com/p/BLIrHOpAzI9/?taken-by=sartorialitrico

Help improve the article Friend , I do not want to remove the article

How to add a picture of Luca Litrico https://www.instagram.com/p/BO-tIWfAOEX/?taken-by=sartorialitrico — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klimgeran (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Klimgeran: Please see the response above about what needs to happen with this article. Unfortunately, you've chosen a difficult task for yourself, as a new editor, to create a new Wikipedia page. Don't be discouraged. The Teahouse is here to help. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

my page

I had made my article And i get that it will be dealted , i want to solve he problem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasmen Al-MeQdamy (talk • contribs)

I have answered on your talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

requesting review of new article

Hi all!

in the past years I contributed sparsely here and there, and since 2016 I decided to work regularly both on new articles and on expanding existing articles (specifically on performance art, sci-fi, writing and technology). So in December 2016 I created my first article from scratch to hone my editing skills [1]. Despite the article having been edited (without any negative comment) by other, more experienced editors, it remains unreviewed. As a result, it is not indexed by search engines and essentially invisible on the Internet. My question:

Is it possible to request a New Page Reviewer to review the article?

I'm happy to follow any suggestion in regard to possible edits. I put a lot of work on that article, so it would be great to see it available to the larger WWW. Having this article reviewed and accepted also helps me moving forward onto other articles (editing or newer ones, I have a list of them).

Thank you in advance,

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Donnarumma The pages is unreviewed as you can see by searching it on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPagesFeed

Blackpaleskin (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your page was created only in late December. You will have seen from Special:NewPagesFeed that there are 16195 pages awaiting new page patrol, with a backlog to early October. If the backlog doesn't continue to get worse (which it has been doing since the new system was introduced) your article will probably be reviewed within the next 3 months (though of course you might be lucky and get reviewed earlier). Your article looks OK at first glance, but the "new page patrol" user right is now restricted (from about the time that unpatrolled pages became NOINDEXed). --David Biddulph (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Since other editors have made minor changes to the article and not tagged it, I have reviewed it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks David for the clarification and Robert for such a prompt response! It is much appreciated, I'll move on onto my other articles in the TODO list. Re: amount of pages to review, I'd be happy to lend a hand, but not sure I would fit the requirements to become a New Page Patrol yet. Anyway, this is a bit off topic. I'll have a look and post a separate thread if needed. Thanks again.

Blackpaleskin (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Need to Rewrite Article "Endoca"

Can anyone help to rewrite this article Endoca? Wikibaji 10:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaji (talk • contribs)

review oroantral fistula page

Hi. I have made a draft for a page titled oroantral fistula page link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oroantral_fistula_(2) and waiting for submission. The current reviewer have to pass it on to someone else due to having too much history with the page. Can anyone help me with the review of this page? Justryingtohelp (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Justryingtohelp: Draft:Oroantral_fistula_(2) is in the queue of drafts awaiting review, which is badly backlogged. When it is eventually reviewed, it is likely to be rejected, because, as explained in the comments at the top. there is also an older draft Draft:Oroantral fistula. Reviewers are overworked hard-pressed editors, who have better uses for their time than sorting out the mess of two rival drafts for the same subject. Maproom (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Maproom I've already cleared up all the copyright issues and merged both drafts (as indicated by the previous reviewers) together into the link that I've posted. I guess for now I'll just have to wait until it is time for it to be reviewed. Any estimation of when it will be reviewed? Justryingtohelp (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

my article draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._Keyur_Parikh is rejected

The reviewer has stated lack of notability. I've given enough references that establish notability.

Niyu13 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Parikh is probably notable, Niyu13, but I can't see that the current references establish this, as I don't think any of them is both substantial and independent. I would also reject the article on the basis that it doesn't really say anything about him, just lists his awards and fellowships. And that is itself a symptom of the notability problem: if you haven't got substantial sources about a subject, there's nothing that can go in an article.

Also, though it isn't grounds for rejecting an article, the references would be much easier to evaluate if they had proper bibliographic details, rather than just plain URLs. See Refencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Template

Hello I am back hear for seek Can anyone explain me about the template used in wikipedia Like {{ ...}}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by SawOnGam (talk • contribs)

Hello, SawOnGam. Templates are used for inserting common bits of text (or more complicated things) into articles. There are thousands of them. See Help:Template. --ColinFine (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Article

Hello How can I create a page or article on A celebrity,place or something ?? Sawongam (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SawOnGam. Wikipedia is a big and complicated thing to work on, and creating a new article that is accepted is one of the harder tasks. I would very strongly advise you to spend a few weeks, or months, learning about editing Wikipedia by making improvements to some of the many articles we already have that are inadequate before you attempt to create a new article. But please read your first article to get an idea of the task. --ColinFine (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Need help with adding publication dates to references / reflist

Newbie here. refs for article have retrieved date but I'd like to add publication date. Thought I WAS able to edit that section before but since other changes and added references to that article it seems like editing is different now. Thanks in advance. Suemactal (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Suemactal. The parameter to add the date is simply |date= 7 February 2017. You should be able to paste that inside the cite template and it should work its magic. So instead of using:

{{Cite news|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/03/got-hulu-netflix-need-app-search/|title=Got Hulu and Netflix? You Need an App to Search It All|last=Pierce|first=David|newspaper=WIRED|access-date=2017-02-07|language=en-US}}

...you would use:

{{Cite news|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/03/got-hulu-netflix-need-app-search/|title=Got Hulu and Netflix? You Need an App to Search It All|last=Pierce|first=David|newspaper=WIRED|access-date=2017-02-07|language=en-US|date= 10 March 2016}}

.

As to why "editing is different". I'm afraid you'd have to be a bit more specific for us to figure out exactly what you mean. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are saying that you don't see the date field when using the "cite web" template from the edit toolbar, you can use the button to "Show/hide extra fields". --David Biddulph (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I was looking in the wrong place. I got it now. BUT (allways a butt) I notice now with the 5 cite dates I just added that the order in which the data (author/pub/title/etc) appears differs a bit. Is this in the cite web template itself? Can the order be changed on the fly? If I need to go back to school, do tell me.. Thanks again. Suemactal (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which order the parameters appear in the wikitext, the template will decide on the display order.--David Biddulph (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok Thanks. Suemactal (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

COI edit request - no response

Hi, If you look on the Nova Science Publishers Talk page I am a COI editor who made a request almost 2 weeks ago to have 1 line added. It's very neutral and sourced. I have not heard anything. Yet every other time I've made a request it's been denied within hours. I understand there is a backlog but I am also aware there are at least 20 editors watching this page. I do not know why no one is helping me but I would like to know how long I am supposed to wait before requesting this edit again? And if I am suppose to make the request again, do I simply go to the talk page and ask someone to look at it for me or do I re-enter the line I want added with the reference again? Thank you for your assistancePrplns (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Has now been addressed by Voceditenore on the talk page, IMO correctly - this is in the manner of a press release. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

delay in the review process

I submitted a draft article for review on Jan 15th (draft: operations management for services). It has a yellow review box added near the bottom that said the review would take a week or more. Since it's been more than three weeks, I am wondering what has happened to it? Is this article currently under review and do you have any idea how much longer it will take? I am afraid it may have become lost in the system or is delayed for some reason.Thanks.Rgschroeder12 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it Draft:Operations Management for Services? It helps, when asking a question here, to provide a link to the draft or article in question. One reason for the delay in review may be that the draft is very long. I would also comment very briefly that there is a stray heading between the "References" heading and the list of references. Also, we don't normally end a Wikipedia article with a "Summary". It hasn't been lost. Review may be taking a long time because it is long. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

what is parsing another editor?

Hello, I've been told I am parsing another editor and that this is a form of disruptive editing. I read the page on disruptive editing and it is definitely something I don't want to do, but I didn't see parsing on that page and am not sure what it means... is there a page on parsing in the context of other editors I could read to make sure I am not messing up? Thank you!G1729 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, G1729. One definition of "parse" from Dictionary.com is "to analyze (something, as a speech or behavior) to discover its implications or uncover a deeper meaning". Accordingly, my conclusion is that the editor who made that comment believed that you were trying to discern some hidden meaning in another editor's comment, and that effort of yours disrupted the conversation. I am not saying that is true but rather, I am trying to help you understand the comment. In general, it is best to interpret another editor's comments based on the plain meaning of their words, rather than engaging in amateur exegesis. This is an aspect of assuming good faith, which is an important behavioral expectation here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

G1729: you were not accused of "parsing another editor". You were asked, at Talk:Executive_Order_13769, to "stop parsing other editor's talk page posts". I believe that this referred to the way you were interspersing your responses with what they had written, making it hard to understand, instead of placing them all together below it. Maproom (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Maproom: Thanks, I agree. I replied to Cullen's user talk page with something similar as what you describe and think I fixed the problem before your reply, but thank you for looking into this; I should've provided a reply here, too. If you think "parsing other editor's [sic.] talk page posts" still appears to be an issue, let me know what I could do to correct it. Thanks! G1729 (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing For Neutrality?

Is it unethical to edit articles for neutral wording? Such as changing pronouns in religious articles that are not in direct quotes? While I understand that this may be seen as disrespectful by those who view their own version of faith to be the absolute truth, because this is an encyclopedia and not the sister-site "Conservapedia", my own personal belief is that all religious articles be treated with a certain degree of neutrality.Risky shift287 (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Risky shift287. I can assure you that Conservapedia is not a sister site and has no connection at all to either Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. As for your question, it is always appropriate to edit articles to bring them into compliance with the neutral point of view. However, be sure that you are not inadvertently imposing your own point of view. As for the use of pronouns, a specific example would be helpful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Risky shift287 and welcome to the Teahouse. Whether a pronoun for a deity should be capitalized is covered in Wikipedia's manual of style. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake Cullen, just spent an entertaining half hour reading some "articles" on Conservapedia... And absolutely will comply about inadvertently inserting my viewpoints.

Thanks for the tip, StarryGrandma!Risky shift287 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Stuck in the Incubator

Please can someone tell us why the Kabiye (kbp) Wikipedia is still in the incubator? This Wikipedia was initiated in June 2014, and since then has been steadily growing with daily contributions from a small group of dedicated volunteers. It now has over 850 articles], many of which have graphics, infoboxes categories and links. The 500 most used interface messages have been translated. The Kabiye Wikipedia has many more articles, and more depth than other minority African languages that have made it onto the real platform. Ghiutun made a Request for a new language in May 2016 which I seconded, but there's been no reply. Kabiye does not even appear on the scroll-down list on this page. What more do we need to do? We're feeling invisible and fed up. Gnangbade (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems like something that should be handled at the Incubator project, not on the English Wikipedia. You should be able to find the help you need there. Sam Walton (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks Gnangbade (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

User pages / areas. Place for lists of articles

Thought I saw a sample of this...just a list of Wikipedia articles (so I don't have to have tons of browser bookmarks!) Now all I can find is the Book area. Is this the right spot for these? Would like functionality of grouping or re-ordering if that is an issue. Thanks Suemactal (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Suemactal, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to keep a list of articles that you are planning to work on, for example, or a list of articles you have created, you can start a page in your own user space for this, such as: User:Suemactal/Article list or User:Suemactal/Articles I have created or that sort of thing. You can put any text on your user pages that you like, as long as it's not a copyright violation, not promotional and is related to your Wikipedia editing.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Anne Suemactal (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OOPS! I clicked on the text in your response (User:Suemactal/Article list) and created a page (I think). I take that it's now an orphan & I should started from my existing/main user page right? I only added one thing...suggestions for next step before I muck up anything more? Suemactal (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It does no harm to have extra pages in your user space, Suemactal; but if you want rid of it, just stick {{db-author}} at the top, and an admin will be along to delete it for you.But I see that you're using it at present, which is fine. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Suemactal (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"Major app reviews" needed for page approval. Where to post and how many?

Wiki editor says the page I created needs "Major app reviews" before it is approved. Where should I post links to these? Do I need to link them within the content somehow? How many should I post? MelodyCS (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, MelodyCS. With regards to Draft:Melody Composer Squared, I'm confident they meant that you need to cite reviews of Melody CS in major technology magazines and websites. The ideal way is to pick up information about the app form these reviews, and after everything you write, you cite the review you read it from. For how to do this, see Help:Referencing for beginners. There isn't a fixed number you need. You need enough to 1) prove that the app has received significant coverage, and 2) have everything fact you write to be verifiable from such reviews. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. I've got various technology Web sites that have reviewed the app. Do I need to cite them within the article with a separate paragraph or or do I just add links to the references?

MelodyCS (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MelodyCS. Please follow the instructions at Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem with dead link

Over at Treeing Walker Coonhound there's a new user trying to cite the Continental Kennel Club (unreliable) site in order to prove weight. I rewrote most of the TWC article and hunted all over the web for sources a while back, and I sourced the weight from Dog Channel.com (the website for Dog Fancy magazine). The link's dead now and the site seems to have changed domains. I thought it was OK to leave a formatted dead link as such if somebody vouched for the content being in that source. The user did also try to cite a book, but it disagrees with the AKC by about 20 lbs, and I'd trust the AKC more than the book (I've seen just enough false statements in those breed books not to trust them implicitly). I have a problem citing the AKC, though, because for some reason my phone can't seem to copy or capture the url for a PDF, which is how their standard is available. Anybody got comments or suggestions? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @White Arabian Filly: Welcome to the Teahouse! I would recommend checking if the dogchannel.com article is available on the Wayback Machine. A tutorial can be found here: Help:Using the Wayback Machine. If you have any questions, feel free to reply, or leave a message on my talk page! Daylen (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

How to upload phpto

Wikimedia Commons licensing tutorial

I was able to easily upload one photo a few days ago that went into my infobox. Now I want to add a photo into the text of my draft article and I am getting warning: We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. I have made more than 10 edit in Wikipedia, and I am a user 4-5 days in . . . I did not take the photo, but it is from a family album. Jami van Haaften https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamivanahaaften/sandbox Jamivanahaaften (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jamivanahaaften: I have linked an image to the Wikipedia Commons licensing policy below. In simple terms, users cannot upload a photo taken by someone else to the Commons, unless if the photographer grants permission. The full policy can be viewed here: Commons:Licensing. Happy editing! Daylen (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a file from a family photo album more than 50 years old - is it not public domain after 50 years?

Jamivanahaaften (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Jamivanahaaften the short answer: most likely not. The long answer: it depends. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

As a general rule, copyright begins when a photo is first published, which means reproduced for public distribution. Putting a photo in a family album is not publication. If the photo is first published now, then copyright starts now, and belongs to the photographer, or their estate if they have died. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issues (text in an online source supplied by our organisation)

An article on the Scarborough Art Gallery has not been accepted because it includes text which has been supplied by the Gallery (and is copyright to Scarborough Museums Trust which runs the Gallery) but which been published online elsewhere by a tourism organisation. How much of an edit is required to make the text acceptably different? 185.4.159.12 (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

As clearly stated at Draft:Scarborough Art Gallery (with my bolding for emphasis)

Not all of the article appears to have been copied and pasted, but all parts that were will need to be totally rewritten to comply with policy.

This does not mean just changing a few words here and there, but totally rewriting it in your own words - this is not as easy as it sounds, as you will tend to keep close to the original - try reading the original and then writing your new text without referring to it, (other than to check facts at the end), rather than altering the existing version - Arjayay (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't get Infobox to display properly

Can someone take a look at the infobox on the page for Anice Das. I have copied it from another page for a speed skater and it seems like everything is structured properly. If I make a (visual) edit to the Infobox and save the changes it displays correctly. Then when I save the changes to the page itself, only the name and the medals section display, the rest doesn't show.

Tomdejong14 (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tomdejong14. I must admit this has me perplexed as well. I managed to fix the issue with this edit, but...I'm not sure why it worked. I cut the infobox out, pasted it back in, and it was suddenly working right. Maybe one of the other editors could elaborate as to what, exactly, I did? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks as if there may have been some strange characters before the = signs for the various parameters, but I don't know what the characters were. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

There were non-breaking spaces instead of normal spaces. Firefox converts them to normal spaces when I copy them but Opera was able to copy them so they could be examined in the "Characters" field at https://r12a.github.io/apps/conversion/. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually glad it wasn't just me who struggled with this :-) I made the edits in Firefox but copy-pasted the complete Infobox from the source of another skater's page, so I have no idea how the strange spaces were added. Either way, thank you very much Howicus for fixing this! Tomdejong14 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Facing problems to create the page.

Hi everyone! I am facing difficulties with the fleet section of Atrak Air. I am not able to make the table perfect. Can someone take a look on that full page and tell me how to create the fleet table and what other things do I have to add? Because of this problem from the past 1 day, I had to do continuously editing which I don't want to do anymore. That's why I'm asking for help. Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid your question is not clear enough. 'I am facing difficulties' may have many meanings. Are you asking how to technically add more data rows to the table? Or are you asking for sources with data to be added in more rows? Or may be you're asking what categories of data should be added to the table as new columns? Please state more clearly what your specific problem is. --CiaPan (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@FlyJet777: Oops, forgot to ping. --CiaPan (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Good morning. I've looked at your table (*they can be a pain*) and made two changes that should get you where you're looking to be. First of all, I changed the rowspan from 4 to 3, and that stopped it from attempting to create an extra column after the Business/Economy/Total section. I also added in the table cell definitions for the rest of the cells - you can either leave them blank as they are, or continue to fill them in. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@NsTaGaTr: Thank You very much for your help! Now the whole page is looking perfect. I will add an image to the fleet section very soon. Well.... Do you think that the article: Atrak Air does not need more sources? Because there were very less sources available on Google. Once again.. Thank You!! FlyJet777 (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to help with the fleet section issue. As far as sources go, the more the merrier. With the airline being around for a few years now, there should hopefully be some mentions in flight/commercial air publications. You can probably also look towards IATA and it's associates for data, as well as flight tracking websites and photo consolidation sites (*flightaware.com, airliners.net, etc*) With Iran being 'isolated' as it is, who knows what data is out there. Best of luck! - NsTaGaTr (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@NsTaGaTr: Thank You very much for your complement! Ummm.. Can you tell me What should I add to show that the Atrak Air page is created by me? FlyJet777 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The article's history page shows you started the article and have done 49 of the 52 edits to date - that is all the "credit" you get, we do not include editors names in any articles - although you can include it on your user page in a list of "articles I have created" or similar - Arjayay (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

As stated above, this is an encyclopedia; as such, articles are not attributed to specific authors, and are a piece of the community as a whole. Keep an eye on it, and have an internal pride in your creation, but also watch it bloom as others add their findings as well. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 16:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)