Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 703

Archive 700

Archive 701

Archive 702

Archive 703

Archive 704

Archive 705

→

Archive 710

How do I add the template for an award nomination

I'd like to add a recent nomination for Freddie Highmore's page. There's already a section for Awards and Nominations but I'm not sure how to work with the template. This is his first nomination.

It looks like this.

Awards and nominations[edit | edit source] Main article: List of awards and nominations received by Freddie Highmore

When I click on the edit a main template comes up but it's confusing as to how it works. I see other pages that have a table with the date, etc.

Thanks for your help with this. Jean Mjr524 (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. In Freddie Highmore#Awards and nominations it says "Main article: List of awards and nominations received by Freddie Highmore", and the words "List of awards and nominations received by Freddie Highmore" are in blue indicating that they are a wikilink. If you click on that wikilink it will take you to the separate page List of awards and nominations received by Freddie Highmore. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, David

Thanks for clarifying. I went into edit mode first. Didn't realize I should click on the link first. Just curious. Why isn't the awards/nominations table featured on the page Freddie Highmore. Just curious about why they are listed as a separate widipedia entry. I've seen other pages where the actor's awards/ nominations are on the same page as his bio etc. Just curious about the reasoning behind this.

Thanks. Jean Mjr524 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If one section of an article becomes so large that it might be considered unbalanced compared with the rest of the article, it might be decided to split that section off into a separate article. It is often a subjective judgement, and if in doubt the proposal for a split should be discussed on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the awards page for Freddie HIghmore is done differently than others. Instead of one table, there are separate tables for each "award". which makes it really long. They have put them under "Major Associations" and included a lot of lesser know awards. But I checked out Jim Parson's page and he has 41 awards and while, the table is long, there are Freddie Highmore only has 25. The difference is that instead of listing them by year, they are listed by the "association".

For me it makes more sense to put them on his page. I may work up my courage and bring it up on the talk page.

Thanks again. Jean Mjr524 (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mjr524: Actor awards in a section of the main biography are usually organized by work in a single table while a separate awards article is usually organized by award. Freddie Highmore had an awards section before 27 October 2017. I think that was better than the separate List of awards and nominations received by Freddie Highmore. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So, there was an old version of "Freddie Highmore" with the awards listed and then a new version where the awards were separated. Why were they separated? This is rather confusing. It seems to make much more sense to have the old version. In my humble opinion.

Mjr524 (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mjr524: Click the "View history" tab to see the page history. It was done in [1] with no edit summary or discussion. You could contact the editor. See Help:Talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

How to access a deleted page's history?

Is there a way to access the article history of a deleted article? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Verified Cactus. Only administrators can do that. If they undelete a page then everybody can se the page history. See Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion if you want that. Or you could try asking something specific here. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

TIL, thanks The Verified Cactus 100% 01:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Article Acceptance

I appreciate the review process of Wikipedia, but can assure you, the people reviewing our post about Verisurf Software have no idea about the subject and continue to deny its acceptance. The article subject matter is fact and documented by as many citations as are available. The industry in question, Metrology, is very specific and vertical in nature. I have asked for approval, realizing that anyone can add to the article and make recommendations for improvement. But if we can't get it posted in the first place it's a moot point. We are becoming very frustrated and would appreciate any help in getting the article accepted. Is there another classification we should be considering for the article? Thank you – Robert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Verisurf Robertmooers (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robertmooers and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry you are having a frustrating time, but perhaps this is because you think Wikipedia is a directory of all good software. The key to the problem is in your words "as many citations as are available". To be notable in the Wikipedia sense, the software must have been written about extensively in independent WP:Reliable sources. If you have not found such sources, then no amount of improvement can get the article accepted. The people reviewing the post look specifically at the references you provide, and the content of the article should be a summary of what these independent articles say about the subject. Dbfirs 20:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Robertmooers: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first note that you use "we" above; if by "we" you mean that you work for the company that makes the software you write about, you need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID, the latter of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are a paid editor.

Regarding your draft, it has been declined and is unlikely to be accepted because it is a promotional piece for your software. The press releases and similar sources that you offer are not acceptable for establishing notability as Wikipedia defines it on this page. What is required are reliable sources(read about at WP:RS) that give in depth coverage of your software. Those sources must be independent, as in not written by or associated with the company making this software in any way. Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes like telling the world about your software. We don't need to be experts in computer programming in order to evaluate a draft of an article.

To have any hope of being accepted, you need to set aside everything you know about this software and write the draft based only on what independent sources (which does not include press releases, republished company statements, or advertisements) state about it. If there are no independent sources, then it will not be possible for there to be an article about the software here at this time. Not every product or service merits an article on this global encyclopedia. I'm sorry. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

One doesn't need to be an expert on metrology to see that Draft:Verisurf is written from the point of view of the vendor, and has no inline citations. Maproom (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and advice; just to be clear, I am not an employee of the subject company, but do have considerable experience in manufacturing, metrology and quality reporting, which is the basis of my interest in submitting the article. The subject covered in the article is very relevant to manufacturers today, especially in aerospace where precision and quality assurance is paramount. In the most recent re-submission of the article I deleted specific product descriptions and focused on the concept of Model-Based Definition (MBD) as a strategy and how the development of the Verisurf solution brought concept within reach for manufacturers utilizing the PC platform. I contacted the most notable source on the subject of metrology and quality inspection, the Coordinate Metrology Society (CMSC) to see if they could supply additional scholarly articles, but due to poor data management over the years they very little historical information. This leaves the sources I have already provided in the article.

I did utilize company and industry published information for the basis of the article as I felt is provided the most clarity on the subject. If recommended, I can go back and rewrite the article, but this will not provide additional citations.

I would appreciate any further direction. If the advice is to rewrite I will definitely reference WP:your first article as a guide.

Thank you.

Robertmooers (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Robertmooers: When you state "We are becoming very frustrated", who is "we" referring to? 331dot (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly submitting this topic since July, and it being rejected several times as not having appropriate citations, and it appears from your Contributions that except for a few edits, this is the only topic you have been editing. Perhaps time to end this Sisyphean task and turn to other topics. David notMD (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

why are my articles not approved?

why are my articles not approved yetOnyinyechiNwankwo234 (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

OnyinyechiNwankwo234, Draft:Uche Modum was rejected because, as it says in the rejection notice at the top, "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." Since it was rejected, you have done nothing to improve the referencing, and have resubmitted it for approval; that is a waste of everyone's time, as it will be rejected again. No wonder the Articles for Creation process is severely backlogged. Maproom (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I want to update of my company picsoam on wikipedia How?

how to update my articles on wikipedia? 42.107.21.143 (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi anonymous IP address, and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't have any articles on Wikipedia under that IP address, and your company doesn't own any wikipedia article, though there might be an article about your company. Since you appear to have a WP:Conflict of interest, it would be best to tell us which article needs updating, and what update is required, then an independent editor can make the edit for you. Dbfirs 11:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

how to create an article

Hi I'm new here and I'm really eager to create my first article! But I need some help. Can you help pretty please😚. Thanks a bunch 💋 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiqueenie (talk • contribs) 12:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wikiqueenie: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your eagerness is appreciated. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is actually one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. New users that dive right in to article creation often edit up disappointed and with hurt feelings after something they spent a lot of time on is mercilessly edited and even deleted by others, because of a lack of knowledge by the creator of what is being looked for in articles in terms of style and sourcing. It is possible for a new user diving right in to article creation to be successful, but it is uncommon. I don't say this to discourage you, just to give you an honest assessment of what sometimes happens.

New users who are most successful at creating articles started small by making minor edits to existing articles and working their way up to more substantive edits, which helped them learn how to use Wikipedia and learn what is being looked for in articles. I would suggest that you take this road; find existing articles in areas that interest you and see if they need to be fixed or improved in some way.

Whenever you feel you are ready, you may wish to read Your First Article which describes what is being looked for in new articles; then, I would suggest visiting Articles for Creation where you can create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This will let you get feedback before the article is created instead of after. You may also wish to use The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial of sorts for using Wikipedia. Good luck, and if you have any other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Creating a page from a blue link because the link gets redirected

I want to create a page that does not exist, but the topic is a blue link on the related site, not red. (It gets redirected to the home site.) Hints? The page would be about the Geological Society of America Bulletin. Thanks. Keagiles (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Keagiles. When you get redirected, there should be a little link in the upper left that says "redirected from TITLE". If you click on that you will be taken to the redirect itself, and you can edit it to replace the redirect with an article. GMG^talk 18:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This link will take you directly to the redirect. ~ GB fan 18:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I messed that up; someone already fixed the redirect. So I build the page first and then fix the redirect? But how do I build a page from scratch rather than by clicking on a red link in the article? I know you may not want to go into detail here, but I'm having trouble finding the answer on the help pages. This is my first time trying to build a page. Keagiles (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You can create the article as a Draft and then when it is ready move it over, Draft:Geological Society of America Bulletin. ~ GB fan 18:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks GB fan! Keagiles (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new article is not easy, Keagiles, but I strongly recommend starting by reading your first article, and using the article wizard to create a draft. When you submit it for review, and a reviewer accepts it, they will handle the redirects.--ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I suggest that a page be created? Keagiles (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Keagiles: You can request an article at WP:RA RudolfRed (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed Keagiles (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Finally (I think) — how do I get a draft approved? It's not in my sanbox but on a draft page created for me by ~ GB fan Keagiles (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Keagiles: Place {{subst:submit}} in the draft when you are ready to submit it for review. RudolfRed (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all! Keagiles (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

About a sentence in philosophy of science

Hello, folks. I'm basically asking the 2017 April question on Talk:philosophy of science again:

The current sentence reads:

However, there remain difficult questions about what precise probability any given evidence justifies putting on the general statement.

I tried hard to comprehend what it's saying, and here's what I got:

for any given evidence, you put it on the general statement, and it will justify a certain probability; and "what precise probability we can get" still remain as difficult questions.

I'm finishing up translation of this into Chinese (zh.wiki), so I really want to hope what is this tongue-twister supposed to mean. Thank you everyone! -- SzMithrandir ❈ Ered Luin ❈ 07:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it's a problematic sentence; the sentence I would put in its place is more like No satisfactory approach has been proposed for converting the evidence from repeated observations into a probability that the general statement is true. That is, the problem of induction is still an unsolved problem.

I'll confess that I don't understand everything in the SEP article being referenced in this section, either, so I may be getting it wrong myself. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that bold paraphrase! Your paraphrase does clarify this sentence for me quite a bit; now I suddenly realize what the word "general statement" is referring to; rings a bell of a long article by Nancy Cartwright (philosopher) about analogy between physical laws and fable morals, from a first-year seminar course. It basically means, laws and correlations (so-called "general statements") in science are often evidence-based, so it is fundamentally agnostic how much probability these general statements can be causally "true" (realism), and that is quite a headache for people. Anyways, I'll go ahead and clean that up! -- SzMithrandir ❈ Ered Luin ❈ 16:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I help with translations in Tamil and Hindi?

Hi,

I've been trying to figure out how and where I can help contribute content in other languages such as Hindi and Tamil on Wikipedia. But I only find myself chasing links. Can someone here help me with this?

Bhairavi25 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Bhairavi25, Tamil Wikipedia and Hindi Wikipedia each have their own language versions of the site (as do the other Indian languages). The full list of every language which has its own version of Wikipedia is here. ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bhairavi25, welcome to the Teahouse. See also Wikipedia:Translation. It has a link to the Hindi hi:विकिपीडिया:अनुवाद अनुरोध but no Tamil page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent Thanks for the help.

Bhairavi25 (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.

Bhairavi25 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking for advice about writing a page about a recurring software feature

Greetings, I was advised to look at this essay on software notability however it appears to be oriented towards programs not features of programs; features are only mentioned in the footnotes.

I have added a prototype of my work-in-progress on this page and I would appreciate feedback.

Thanks, Phedrence (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Phedrence, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you can't find a specialized notability guideline for the topic you had in mind, see the general notability guideline which is applicable to all topics. By the way, article's shouldn't use "you". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Phedrence and welcome to the Teahouse.

To me, this looks a lot like an assemblage of facts from primary resources in a way that makes it original research rather than a report on facts that are covered by independent sources. I predict an uphill struggle to get an article like this accepted on Wikipedia. There are other venues where this kind of report would be welcome (unfortunately not as many as there used to be in the heyday of personal computing magazines). If several different people wrote about this topic and published their coverage in suitable places, we might then have some basis for a WP article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Phedrence. At the moment, my view is that the article violates guidelines such as WP:OR and WP:NOTGUIDE. Unless you can find discussion of status keys as a generic topic in reliable sources and base the article on what these say, cutting back on the amount of technical detail of how individual implementations work, you're not going to get the article accepted. Sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but it is very difficult to produce acceptable articles for Wikipedia. Neiltonks (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Doc in the house?

The article Physiological functional capacity is a dead-end except for one link. It needs more outgoing links. It also has only one incoming link. I tried to fix it, but couldnt do much. Somebody familiar with the human anatomy, and/diseases would be familiar with the concepts/phrases. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 04:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Usernamekiran, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've added some outgoing links and removed the tag. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Finnusertop —usernamekiran(talk) 17:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

What are sources to almost never, or never at all cite on articles about video games and video game conventions?

I am searching for sources to cite on an article about a video game convetion in the USA, and am wondering what sources about video game conventions should almost never be cited, or should absoultely never be cited. On Nintendo articles, you should almost never cite Nintendo Life, and I was wondering if there is any sources like that, that should almost never, or never at all be cited on pages relating to video game convetions. I was also wondering if the specific sources Comicbook.com (a.k.a WWG a division of Comicbook) and Playstation LifeStyle are good sources and if there information can be trusted most of the time, or if either of them should be avoided most of the time, or all of the time as sources for information. Greshthegreat (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Greshthegreat: Hello and thanks for asking this question here, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games might be a better place to get help for this question. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll ask there instead. Thanks. Greshthegreat (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)See Identifying reliable sources and simply apply that to video games sources. It's difficult to answer this question because there are many more sources which are not reliable than sources which are. The basic rule of thumb is; if it's a large, professional publication with a reputation for fact checking (an example of this would be IGN), it's probably good to cite them. If it's a blog, self-published book, corporate publication or anything of the sort, it's probably not okay.

With all of that being said, the most important question here is what claims are you citing to that source? If you're claiming that RipoffThePlayer Studios, which is known for frivolous lawsuits against people who give negative reviews of their games and for making wildly inaccurate claims in public publishes a flyer claiming their new game will follow an always-connected model because NPC AI is handled by a Watson-esque remote server, you could cite that flyer for claims that they said that, but you couldn't cite it for claims that their new game will actually have a Watson-esque supercomputer handling NPC AI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check the article Identifiying reliable sourcs from now on, and only ask questions about sources if that doesn't help me, or if some editors have said things that go agains what that pages information says. Thanks for the information about the sources, and I'll try to remember some of that information in the future.

Greshthegreat (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Greshthegreat, you shouldn't ever be afraid of asking questions. If you get a snippy response, just ask somewhere else. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't feel like that was a snippy responce, I just don't ask questions on Wikipedia very much, so I assumed that would truly be a better place to ask, full of users who knew alout about video games. I'll always ask questions where I feel they should be asked, and ask someone else, if no one is of any help Also, don't worry, I am not afraid of asking questions, I just don't ask questions on Wikipedia very often.

Greshthegreat (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ntwaetsile

What Is All About This Page I'm A First User — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwaetsile (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Nwaetsile. This is the teahouse, a forum for new editors to ask questions and seek feedback. If you want to start getting better acquainted with the way Wikipedia works as a whole, a good place to start would be our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. GMG^talk 20:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

How to remove an orphan tag?

Hello, I recently created an article and it has been flagged with an orphan tag. I have now linked the article from other pages, and it is no longer an orphan, but the tag still remains. How can I remove it? Airgum (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Airgum. It looks like you've pretty well figured it out. Sorry we were a little late in responding, but as you might already know, the orphan tag just adds the article to a category of article that need cleanup to better integrate them into the encyclopedia. Once there are links added there's no need for the template and you can just take it off with no problems. Thanks for helping up build an encyclopedia! GMG^talk 20:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Airgum. If you have translated this article from the German Wikipedia, as it looks like you have, then you need to credit the source article by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate (it's too late to make a statement in your first edit summary, but you can make an edit to the article and note in your summary that the first revision was translated from the German Wikipedia). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Creating articles, categories, etc.

I notice that i am unable to create an article. I wonder why. 185.43.229.5 (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You have to create an account and log in to create an article. The account also needs to be at least four days old and you need to have made at least ten edits to other pages. – Joe (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Joe Roe:, is this a new or revised policy? Because, if i am not mistaken, i remember that i was able to create articles as an anonymous. 185.43.229.5 (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-12-05/Page creation restrictions restricting to registered accounts, and then WP:Autoconfirmed article creation trial restricting to auto-confirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@David Biddulph:, thank you. So i should request the article there? 185.43.229.118 (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You can write a draft version of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. You don't need a user account to do that. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop:, thank you. The link is really helpful. 185.43.229.129 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

My article was declined by BRADV, because he did not deem it relevant.

I am writing about a surgeon who is specialised in transgender operations and actually able to create penises that are good looking and sensitive and he can make the whole transformation woman-man in 9 hours. I think this is a relevant skill that should be mentionned on wikipedia. The article is the translation I made of the same article in German. How can it be improved to fit the English speaking wikipedia demands? Drakegreune (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In the feedback box at the top of your draft, and in the message on your user talk page, there is an explanation as to why the draft was declined. The words in blue in the explanation are wikilinks to places where you can find more detail. One obvious problem is that all your references are written by the subject, whereas what is required is coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware, Drakegreune, that the word "notable", in its special sense as a minimum requirement for an article on English Wikipedia, does not mean any of "important, influential, famous, virtuous or popular". It simply means that enough material about the subject by people unconnected with the subject to make it possible to write a neutral article about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Archiving bot

Hello all. How can we add or request archive bot for talk pages? 185.43.229.129 (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Look at WP:ARCHIVE for different methods of archiving, including instructions for configuring automatic archiving via the bot. RudolfRed (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, RudolfRed. How can i see the list of all bots, by the way? 185.43.229.129 (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll find them listed at Category:All Wikipedia bots. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all. 185.43.229.129 (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Russian speaking editor

Hi. My submission was declined by Bradv (talk). He was nice to talk about it, but we came to the conclusion that he doesn't have enough information to be able to accept the submission because it has Russian sources. Bradv suggested to find Russian speaking editor, so here I am. Are there any?

Antonzaitsev (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Antonzaitsev. I don't speak Russian, but I just wondered why the "retrieved" dates for some of your web references are from 2013 and 2015, when you only just wrote the draft. Have these references been copied from some other article? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry. Perhaps Antonzaitsev wisely re-used references from the Russian Wikipedia article for Topface. --TinkleBear (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like that is the case, TinkleBear. If you have translated the article from the Russian Wikipedia version Antonzaitsev, then you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate to give proper attribution to the source article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry and TinkleBear. Yes, they are re-used references from the Russian article. Should I go to Contributions, then Translation section (beta-feature) and start over? Or should I edit the current draft: 1) make another edit with the summary saying it's translation and linking to the original, 2) place the template on the talk page, 3) and then re-submit? --Antonzaitsev (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the beta content translation tool is operational at the moment, Antonzaitsev, but the second option with the edit summary and template will satisfy the requirements. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Antonzaitsev (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You could try looking at Category:Translators ru-en. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, David Biddulph! --Antonzaitsev (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Antonzaitsev. I made a number of edits to your English Topface draft. A couple of them introduced new sources written in English, and I also found that a couple of your original Russian references had English versions.

By the way, the draft currently says that Filatov & Co started off by buying a VK app called "FaceRate", and then the draft goes on to say that the name of that app in Russian was «Лицемер». My understanding (please correct me if I'm confused) is that «Лицемер» means "Hypocrite"! So is "FaceRate" just a semantically unrelated English name, or something? Just curious whether you knew what's up with that.

On Topic: Just to be clear, I'm no ace Russian-English translator. Just a random struggler. Good luck finding what you seek! --TinkleBear (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

God, you're very helpful! Thank you, TinkleBear.

It's debatable. The literal meaning of the Russian word «Лицемер» is "the one who measures/tries on faces". This play of words, I assume, was the reason the app had its name in the first place. It's awful naming anyway, the more so as "Hypocrite" doesn't make any sense to English speaking person.

You did great job! --Antonzaitsev (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you please help me find a mentor?

I have checked the list of available mentors and most of them are busy or are not qualified to help me. I would like to learn about counter-vandalism. Please could someone help me. Pablothepenguin (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pablothepenguin: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you may be able to find assistance in learning about counter-vandalism at WP:CVUA. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Pablothepenguin. I am willing to help you with the basics, if you wish, having found it personally quite rewarding to help out in addressing issues of vandalism here. You say that you've found some mentors are not qualified to help you, so perhaps I might also not meet your specific needs. Whilst I have not had any mentor training, do feel free to drop me a line on my talk page and discuss any issues, question or concerns you have. I will try to help or guide you in any way I can. If I can't help you, I will tell you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I need an assistance from expert like you

Hi Good day! This is Karen Divinagracia, Author, Editor and Marketing Coordinator, Auxlem Philippines. Our Page was rejected to Review (for publish) by user:Kostas20142. We have understood that our page "Auxlem Corporation" was rejected at this moment. Our Company is new in the Field of Digital Marketing and does not have many sources so far that is on (web). Only our Corporate Book and guidelines is our major source to publish our Page in Wikipedia. May I ask where should we get our sources if our company is NEW.

Best Regards Auxlem PhilippinesACTLD Karen (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@ACTLD Karen: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, if there are few or no independent reliable sources that have in depth coverage of your company, it will not be possible for there to be an article about it here at this time. It is too soon for an article about your company, please read WP:TOOSOON. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. Only those that have third party sources about it that indicate how it is notable per WP:ORG merit articles.

Also note that Wikipedia has articles about companies, and not pages for companies. Your company has no more right to edit an article about it than any other user, please see WP:OWN; nor is Wikipedia social media for you to publicize your company. I'm sorry that this probably is not what you want to hear, but it doesn't seem that Wikipedia fits with your purposes. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, ACTLD Karen. You seem to have a misunderstanding about Wikipedia's purpose. This is not a directory website where every company in the world can create its own page. This is an encyclopedia that contains articles about notable companies which have received significant coverage in reliable sources which are completely independent of the company. If no such coverage in reliable sources exist, then there can be no Wikipedia article about your company. In addition, your draft contains highly promotional language that is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The next thing that you should do is read and comply with our mandatory requirements for paid editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Am I an editor now?

Am I an editor now?Balawiki12 (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Balawiki12 and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you have been an editor since your first edit, and you will become WP:Autoconfirmed after two more edits. This status mean that you can create articles, move pages, edit semi-protected pages, and upload files or upload a new version of an existing file. Please be careful, when you make edits, to avoid adding unnecessary links that we call WP:Spam. This project is an encyclopaedia, so does not allow advertising or promotion. Do ask again here if you need help with editing. Dbfirs 09:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

An article needing attention

Hi, going through random articles while solving DAB, I came across this article AnonCoders. It has several issues including MOS, footnotes, wikilinks and many unreliable sources. The article history has been quite disruptive with many reversions and maintenance tag deletions, while those adding actual content have been IP users/accounts with few edits, several of them (including the creator) blocked. What would be the best course of action to proceed? Would an extendedconfirmed page protection be approved? Thanks, MT Train^Discuss 09:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted to before the recent edit by the now-blocked IP 185.112.82.43, the edit having been grossly malformatted (capitals on every word) & with no footnotes & no explanation of the removal of the previous content. The article had been stable for some time, but if it suffers from repeated vandalism in future it can be protected via a request at WP:RFPP. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Death dagger

Hello, folks. I'm hoping you can shed some light on a question that doesn't seem to covered by our Manual of Style. I've been noticing that some articles that contains lists of people are starting to get those "death dagger" symbols placed next to some of the names to indicate that the people are deceased. But there's never any sourcing for that fact and, in many cases, the person doesn't have an article here (so there's no opportunity for double checking at the article). I'm of the opinion that these should all be removed, but I haven't been able to find anything in the MoS that I can cite.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the birth/death dates that usually appear in the first sentence of an article about a person. Nor am I talking about special cases, such as indicating killed-in-action in the infobox for a military article. And I'm not so sure that I'm talking about situations contemplated by WP:MOSBD, which seems to limit itself to cases where the year of death is given for the person in some other article's list.

Any thoughts you have on this will be greatly appreciated. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• @NewYorkActuary: I would say that in the situation you describe the relevant policy is WP:V. Whatever the manual of style says, we certainly should not include nontrivial unsourced information. Sourcing the status for a large list of people could be done by the source for the list, or by individual articles, but if there is no source out there, we should not indicate such status, IMO. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Museum boards attendance of finances

almost the museum articles with management sections are years if not decades out of date can the Wikipedia community delete them as they are completely Irelevant the management sections need to be updated yearly or deleted Flamingoflorida (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Flamingoflorida: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there are specific articles you have concerns about, feel free to comment on the talk pages of those articles about any information that is not correct. You don't mention any specific articles in your comment, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "management sections", but if you are referring to the staff of museums or budget, I would think that it would be easy to update that information from museum websites. Please understand that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and people do what they can when they can do it. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Flamingoflorida. Welcome to the Teahouse. Before answering your question I must declare an interest, in that I have a professional background in museum work. Firstly, raising concerns here over general issues about content in a whole genre of articles isn't really something that the Teahouse can address. It's best raised on the Talk Page of the individual museum articles themselves. Obviously, if content is a little out if date it's helpful to raise it there so other editors are aware of deficiencies to be addressed.

I have had a quick skim through some of your recent edits to a few museum articles, and I do not think some of the edits you have made have been at all constructive. In fact, some seem quite damaging. Whilst you are right to point out that some content is not up to date, removing properly cited statements about museum governance and major funding sources because it uses sources that are five or more years old is unhelpful. In the main, you should leave such well-sourced statements in place, but you could contribute positively by simply ensuring they're all put in the past tense. As an example, this removal of 2013 visitor figures from the Infobox of the Museum of Modern Art and the statement that it ranked 13th in the world for visitors is not acceptable. Had you taken the trouble to research and replace them with more up to date stats then that would have been fine. But you didn't.

Blanking valid content because it doesn't meet your idea of being up to date is, put frankly, liable to be interpreted as disruptive, although I think you made them all in good faith. Equally, this edit to the same article has removed perfectly good and apparently well-referenced content on the history of the museum's structure and funding which is perfectly relevant to the article. So, please take this as a polite warning to be a little more careful, and less gung-ho in your approach to wanting to see slightly out of date articles improved in future. Add to them, don't just delete stuff you don't like. I applauded you desire to see articles brought up to date, but not the way you appear to have gone about it in some cases. I'm sorry to come across so critical here, and don't be surprised if you see quite a few of these edits being reverted. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Further to the comments from Nick and 331dot above, I would suggest that if you have suggestions applicable to museum articles in general, rather than any specific article, the place to discuss them is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, May I know? That How to publish my first article on Wikipedia? Because my submission have cancelled.

{Hello, May I know? That How to publish my first article on Wikipedia? Because my submission have cancelled. } SURENDRA LEGHA (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SURENDRA LEGHA. You appear to have been trying to create an article at User:SURENDRA LEGHA, but that is your user page and not the place for an article. Wikipedia:User pages explains what user pages are for. For more information on creating new articles, see Wikipedia:Your first article. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Creating an Article for a reknowned retired women's college basketball coach

Hello. I am a fan of the University of South Carolina. Their women's basketball team won the national championship last season. This season, their head coach Dawn Staley just became the program's #1 coach in history for career wins by her team beating Temple yesterday. She passed a former coach named Nancy Wilson, and due to the achievement, I searched for Wilson's wiki page, but found nothing about her.

Wilson not only was SC's winning-est coach (until yesterday), but she was also head coach for the College of Charleston, and is their winning-est coach as well. So she's had a fairly notable career as a collegiate head coach of 30 years (she was also asst. HC of the ABL's Seattle Reign, a professional team).

Anyhow, I decided to create a Wiki page for her. I have never tried to do this before, but I think I've mostly gotten it fleshed out on my sandbox page. My question is, what do I need to do now in order to publish it? Should I have someone review it, or just go ahead and publish it? Thanks for your help.

CLEaddy CLEaddy (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

We already have an article on her here Dawn Staley. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Theroadislong. I see that you chose not to read my question. You linked the article for Dawn Staley. I'm referring about creating an article for Nancy Wilson.

CLEaddy (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Whoops my apologies! You can create an article here WP:AFC if there are sufficient reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ethics?

Hi, I suspect my question will come across as whinging, and it is, actually, but here it is: I posted a query here regarding writing my first entry, and no sooner had I done so than someone else wrote and published an entry on the same subject. Me thinks twas not a coincidence. Is there no honour among Wiki authors? P. Tobie B. (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi P. Tobie B., and welcome to the Teahouse again. It does seem a bit unfair that another user creates an article the day after you ask about writing one, but Wikipedia is a collaboration, and there is no ownership of articles. Perhaps Damian Vo took your question as a request for an article, or perhaps he was already working on the text. I don't know. You are very welcome to add the information that you have found to improve the article. Most editors here try to work together to improve the encyclopaedia. Editing here shouldn't be a competition (though I admit that occasionally it degenerates into argument). Dbfirs 08:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@P. Tobie B.: Josh O'Connor had his biggest role in God's Own Country (2017 film). It opened 25 October 2017 in the US which has the most editors. Damian Vo edited the film 26 October.[2] You mentioned Josh O'Connor here 15 November. Damian Vo has never edited this page and created Josh O'Connor 21 November. Wikipedia has thousands of discussion pages and only a small part of editors read this one. A coincidence seems very likely to me, and I would call it a minor coincidence. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Dbfirs. One day only. Like a shark tank! Well, I've learned my lesson. I do think the entry that I wrote is much better :-), so perhaps I'll insert a sentence or two. I've been doing that here and there and find it quite enjoyable. Happy Christmas!2604:2000:E0D3:3500:8090:12F0:AEAD:7DBF (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

What do the bar and the VTE at the bottom of the page mean?

Keagiles (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Keagiles: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The "V" is a link to the page for the template that appears on the page you are viewing. The "T" is a link to the template's talk page, and the "E" is a link that opens up the edit window for that template. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. And what how do you add links in that bottom area, or are they related to links in the text? I hope I am making sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keagiles (talk • contribs)

@Keagiles: The usual way to add links to such navigation templates is to click "E" for edit and follow the format of the existing links. We can say more if you say which links you want added to which box. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at that. Keagiles (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Template

May I know if there are good templates for wishing Christmar and/or New Year? :P Thank you very much in advance! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adityavagarwal. If you consider posting to the talk pages of others then see Category:WikiLove templates. Note that editors have different religions or no religion. For something you could display in your own user or talk page, see {{Merry Christmas Banner}}, {{Happy Holidays}}, Category:Holiday user templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks a ton, PrimeHunter! :D Have a great day! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

How long does it take to get a re-review done?

Hi,

I have resubmitted an article for review and my submission is still pending for 23 days. Is it normal for a review to take these many number of days or have I missed any steps before submitting it which is causing the delay? How can I confirm?

Thank you for help!

Huma.hamid (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Huma.hamid: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you properly submitted your draft. There are over 2700 drafts awaiting review, so please be patient. Reviews are done by volunteers who (like all of us) do what they can when they can do it. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

While you are waiting for it to be reviewed, it would be wise for you to remove the numerous misplaced external links from the body of the text. Where relevant you may wish to replace them by references. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for a prompt response and a very helpful advice!

Huma.hamid (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

How to take a page I am making in the page creation editor/window and put it in my sandbox instead?

I created a page, and created a large part of it, but I don't think I want to share it just yet, until more info is out and it better fits Wikipedia policies for a page exisiting on this site. How can I take a page created in the page creation editor/window that the page being created has yet to actually be created, how can I put that in my sandbox so I can save it without sharing it as a page on Wikipedia just yet? Greshthegreat (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Greshthegreat and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your sandbox would also be visible to other users. If you want to save a copy of your page offline, you would need to copy the edit window contents to a text editor on your own computer.

The same approach would work for saving your draft to a sandbox, though. Start by creating your sandbox in a separate window and simply copy the draft edit window contents into the sandbox edit window. Be sure to leave the {{user sandbox}} template at the top. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It's alright that the sandbox is visibile to others, I don't mind that at all. I just want to save the page without having to create it and make it an official page on Wikipedia since I am not finished making it just yet. I'll do as the two of you have suggested, and save it in a sandbox, and then a page later on when I am ready to make it an actual page, unless someone has beat me to it, since the pages topic is a fairly popular event happening next summer.

Greshthegreat (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually only one person responded to my question, not two people Greshthegreat (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I make my own Wikipedia article?

I want to make my own articles. Jtarvin (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to contribute. Creating a new article is not an easy task for a newcomer. The usual advice is to get some experience by working to improve existing articles. If you want to proceed on creating an new article, then read the guidance at WP:YFA and use the article wizard there to create a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your interest in creating articles is appreciated, but I would caution you that successfully doing so is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. New users who are most successful at creating articles first started small by spending time finding existing articles in areas that interest them and making small, needed edits to them. This helps them to learn how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in articles. New users who dive right into creating articles often end up disappointed and hurt after their work is mercilessly edited and possibly deleted by other users, due to being unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. I don't want to see you or anyone disappointed. I would strongly suggest that you work in existing articles first before attempting to create new ones.

However, if you still want to attempt it, you should definitely first read Your First Article. Then, you should visit Articles for Creation where you can create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way, you get feedback while the article is in draft form, as opposed to a full fledged Wikipedia article. I hope this helps you. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't get any answers or suggestions at the Idea Lab.

Two times I have proposed something on the idea lab and got a response from the same user which pointed me to a link that wasn't helpful as I brought up ideas and arguments that weren't mentioned. Also I couldn't say anything there because the discussion was saved and you weren't supposed to edit it. (it was translation ideas). What am I supposed to do? YuriGagrin12 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@YuriGagrin12: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think there's much you can do. You cannot force people to respond to your posts, and if you find the responses you have been given insufficient, the only thing you can do is wait for another. If the discussion is closed, it is best to try to move on. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

why Did my Article being declined

What i was Trying to do was to help the people who are poor but if my article was not the part of Wikipedia its Fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphesihle Luthuli G (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sphesihle Luthuli G: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Helping poor people is a worthy cause, however, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media or other forum to connect with people in need. If you go to WP:OUT you may find a more appropriate forum to do what you wish to do. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

So tell me can You give me some suggestions how to write the article that are the part for Wikipedia because I'm truly lost now— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphesihle Luthuli G (talk • contribs)

@Sphesihle Luthuli G: Please understand that creating an article is very hard. You can read Your First Article to learn more about it, but I would strongly suggest that you first find existing articles in areas that interest you and make small edits to them, which will help you learn how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in articles. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

YOU MUST ACCEPT MY ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!

Why did my article(Al Marar Tribe) get canceled and my cousins made an article about there tribe ( Al Bu Muhair Tribe) and you guys accepted it?

Then you must accept my article BaniYas (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't have to accept any article. ~ GB fan 14:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey BaniYas. First, please don't shout. It's generally considered rude. Second, your article was declined because it includes no sources whatsoever. Content on Wikipedia needs to include references to sources that meet our standards for reliability so that content may be verifiable for readers. You may want to review our tutorial on referencing for beginners, which can help explain this in more detail. GMG^talk 14:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

BaniYas please read Other stuff exists; the existence of one article doesn't automatically mean any other article needs to be accepted. This is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can, and sometimes inappropriate articles get through, even for years. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, the article Al Bu Muhair existed since 2006. The first versions were full of WP:PUFFERY and were eventually trimmed down to a stub, and I just decided to redirect the whole thing to the confederation of tribes, since I found no indication of "notability" (i.e. no reliable source has described at length this tribe). (Should I get reverted without the addition of a reliable source, I will take the article to WP:AFD.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Again - Bani Yas exists as an article. In it, Al Marar is listed as one of the branches. I recommend that rather than try to create Al Marar as a new article, you add content WITH CITATIONS (yes, I am speaking loudly, to get your full attention) to that article. The citations do not have to be in English, but they do have to exist as credible, independent, PUBLISHED sources of information about Al Marar. You and your family being members of the tribe is not enough. In time, if there is enough content about Al Marar Tribe, it can be used to create a separate article. Note that per T's action, the separate article about Al Bu Muhair Tribe no longer exists. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that BaniYas was blocked a couple of hours after posting this question. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)