Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 389

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 385

←

Archive 387

→

Assistance in review/ Publishing

Hi Tea house,

Thanks for the review and valuable comments on my article. I have added support references, after viewing the help pages. please help by reviewing- is this enough for resubmissionSriram.19 (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sriram.19. I'm afraid not, mostly because you have not yet understood how referencing works in Wikipedia. Every single fact in the article should be individually cited to a reference - you place the citation immediately after the sentence, between <ref> and </ref>, and the Wiki software will handle numbering them and listing them together in the references section.

As to the actual references you have included,judging from the URLs, some of them may well be suitable for establishing notability, but some are certainly not: Wikipedia hardly ever accepts references from blogs, and citations to the subject's own website or other writings are not independent, so can only be used in very limited ways. I have not looked at the sources you cited, so I may be wrong about some of them being acceptable: it requires that the sources contain substantial material about the subject, written by somebody unconnected with them, so if they are all just mentions in passing, or are derived from press releases from Ananthoo they will not help for notability. It is much easier to evaluate references if you provide proper bibliographic information in the citation (title, author, date etc) rather than just a URL. The article referencing for beginners will help with this, as well as with the primary problem I mentioned above.

The other problem is that much of the text reads like a magazine article, not like an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia requires that the text be neutral in tone, and almost 100% based on what people unconnected with the subject have written about them. Just to take a few examples from the first few paragraphs: "crusader" is an emotive word (and, incidentally, one that some find offensive because of its historical associations) - "campaigner" or "advocate" would be better - but the claim should not be there at all unless a source with no connection to Ananthoo has so described him. "He prefers" is not encyclopaedic in tone. "Back in 2006" is too chatty for an encyclopaedia - just say "In 2006". "Realized organic farming to be the safest way" is making a factual claim in Wikipedia's voice - this is completely unacceptable. It is fine to say that he "came to believe that organic farming was the safest approach" - provided there is a cited reliable source to back up that he did indeed come to believe that - but the article must not say, or even imply, that his realisation is the objective truth. Similarly, the section "Power of Organic Farming" is utterly unacceptable. It might be appropriate to have a section listing some of the advantages that he argues organic farming has, cited to reliable published sources - but only if some independent sources have written about his arguments. (As long as independent sources are cited to establish that his thoughts on the subject are notable, then this is a case where the article could cite his own writings for the details of those thoughts).

(By the way, it would help if you would include a link to your draft in your question: User:Sriram.19/sandbox).

Please don't be put off by my criticisms. It's not easy writing a Wikipedia article from scratch, and you're going about it the right way, learning a little, trying to improve it, and asking for feedback. --ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Difference between Task force and Workgroup?

Greetings, I have been doing article assessments on a wikiproject, with quite a few Biography articles. Today, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/Task_forces#Task_forces_in_action I see that it mentions 8 different wikiprojects, some with Task forces, some with Workgroups.

For example WikiProject Biography (14 workgroups). When I look at Template:WikiProject Biography, it shows a mix of related WP as well as only 5 work groups.

So now I'm confused and wondering if another more experienced editor could point me to an article that explains the difference, or are they the same? Before asking here, I did search several archives of previous questions without any luck. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JoeHebda. Given the fact that WP:Work group redirects to the link about task forces, I think that you can consider the two terms to be synonyms and proceed accordingly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong redirect

Hi, I placed a "neutrality" tag on The Viral Fever and wanted to post the reason for the same on its talk page. But the talk page of the article The Viral Fever is redirecting to the talk page of Gulshan Lal Tandon. I doubt if should use speedy "Redirects G8". I have come across this for the first time. So, thought of discussing first. Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Good job finding this! It looks like it was a mistake by the person who created the page, so I've turned it into a normal talk page and added a relevant WikiProject tag. In future you could do this yourself by clicking the link in the "Redirected from..." subheading when redirected from a page, that will take you to it without redirecting you and you can edit it as required. Sam Walton (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Yes, its correct now. And

Thank you for telling the way to correct it in the future. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Best way to have an edit reviewed?

Was hoping a volunteer could help review, vet and consult on edits requested to the Brown Brothers Harriman & Co article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brown_Brothers_Harriman_%26_Co.)

In the talk back section, there are two requests for edits made by Research4Insight, who is the CFA Vice President at BBH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Research4Insight

Kareem "Daigoji Gai" Harper (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Daigoji Gai. I have responded to both talk page posts. I made the changes to the article suggested in the first, and did not make the changes asked for in the second, predominantly because no reliable source was provided that verified that suggested addition. If a talk page post like that one is not receiving attention, a person can be drawn there by posting the template {{Request edit}}. It's really geared for placement by the person who posts the talk page request and has a conflict of interest in editing directly, but I see no reason it could not be placed by a second person for such a languishing post. A {{help me}} request could also be made. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope i am doing this correctly. Fuhghettaboutit, want to sincerely thank you for reviewing and assisting. Greatly appreciated brother. Cheers and have a great weekend. Kareem "Daigoji Gai" Harper (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome and you too!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks

Great Thanks.

Hello, Editors,

It was really good to hear from you, and I would like to say, that your advises have been very helpful.

Following to suggestion of Wikipedian Cordless Larry to keep discussions, started in Teahouse, in the same place, not on the personal User page, I’m sending to Teahouse the message, which I previously sent to the talk page of the Wikipedian DESiegel, who friendly welcomed me to Wikipedia and helped to correct in the right way my plan to write about Ancient Corinth. In this message I explained to DESiegel (DES) what happened, when I sent my gratitude, which intended to him, on Teahouse. Here it is possible to read this message:

Hello, DESiegel,

I do not know how it happened, but I wrote UTC, instead of your initials DES! It’s been a day without even smallest break from the hustle and bustle, and I'm sure it was not the only one my blunder during that day, and I'm sure you know how it is, when you found yourself in the middle of ten urgent matters and they all are "first on the list". So, I think, you will understand me. Of course, my gratitude was addressed to you, as your warm welcome and clear explanation was a really good thing; and when (right now) I “went” to the Teahouse and noticed my silly mistake, I just said: “Oh, God.”

I'll be always glad to hear from you and to read your words of approval or criticism on my future article (s), as I know, that it always will be unbiased, friendly and intelligent conclusion.

Best Regards, Chris.

P.S. Should I sent this message to Teahouse to correct my blunder? Here I'm displaying my previous message again, but now written by the right way:

I thank all, who responded to my letter Reliable Sources. To DES I would like to say special Thanks for detailed, clear explanation of how to proceed on the article Ancient Corinth. Yes, I can add some details to existing article, using citations from Elisavet Spathari's book, and also upload several photos, which I made on the archaeological site. Regarding the advice, kindly given me by DES, to write the article about Elisavet Spathari, I have to admit, that I thought about it myself, but I (as well) could not find even a short article, written about her. Of course, her books are the complete proof, that she is an expert in this field, but there is no information about the author even in her book 'Corinth-Mycenae', which I bought in Corinth. Anyway, for the start, I'd like to look at the new articles, proposed by other editors for discussion, to see how these articles looks like in its “unpolished” form, but the new problem suddenly occurred: I simply can’t to find the tool to display them. Can someone tell me how to find a list of the most recent articles for editing?

Regards, Chris.Chris Oxford (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Chris. I did see your previous msg, but it didn't seem to require a response. There is no good single place to see a list of new articles in need of editing. Special:NewPages shows newly created pages, including articles, but it is large and somewhat daunting. Various Wiki projects maintain lists of articles, but do not particularly single out new articles, that I know of. The Community portal includes lists of articles tagged as having various issues and in need of work. Fuller lists of these can be found by starting at Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. That currently list 165 different categories, each with many sub-categories or articles. I hope that these various places to look will satisfy your needs. DES ^(talk) 13:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a tip about using discussion pages, Chris Oxford: there's no need to start a new section such as this one each time you post. Instead, it's best to locate the previous discussion you started, and respond there. That keeps all of the discussion on a single topic together. To do this, just scroll down until you find your original post, and then hit "edit" next to the section heading. Replies generally go at the bottom of a section. The only time you won't be able to do this is if the discussion is old and has been archived, but otherwise there's no need to start a new section to post a follow-up. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Chris Oxford: If you do add to a previous discussion as above, it may be seen by previous participants but you will assure this if you "ping" them when adding material there (just as I've pinged you in this post to draw your attention). For example {{ping|UserName|UserName|UserName}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot automatically creates lists of new articles by topic (and by maintenance issue). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot is now blocked and the tasks are undertaken by InceptionBot. Nthep (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Rugby table

Hi there,

I am planning on making a league table for the second tier french rugby union competition Pro D2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_Pro_D2.

It would be available for inclusion on other pages.

Where is a good place to start? Does it have to signed-off before roll-out? Where would I save it etc?Caveywavey46 (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Caveywavey46, I believe the best place to get specific advice is the talk page of the Rugby WikiProject. However, it may take a while as they are currently rather preoccupied with Rugby World Cup 2015. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to have the edit signed off, although you would need to discuss it if you got reverted. I would just be bold and add the table to the article if I were you. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Is "Gun show loophole" the best title for an article about the gun show loophole?

I've posted this at NPOVN as well [1]. The few comments we have received (on the article's talk page [2]) have been been in favor of keeping the title, but another editor that insists on tagging the article (POV issue) seems to dismiss their impartial views. They also keep insisting that the article should be called "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" instead, which doesn't make sense to me. We are also in the middle of a GA status review, and the timing of this "issue" seems a little bit too coincidental. I sure could use some tea. Darknipples (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Darknipples. A tentative suggestion. Though it could lead to drama in the short term, to avoid more drama in the long term you could start a formal requested move discussion, seeking to put the question to bed with consensus. Okay, so there's already been such a discussion, recently, as well as a request for comment on the same issue. I think, then, part of the problem lies in continuing to bite on the issue when people attempt to flog that dead horse, already settled by consensus. If they're just repeating past discussion, don't rehash it with them and get drawn down the rabbit hole. You might say something to that exact effect: "This has already been discussed at great length, including at a requested move, a request for comment, as well as at __(discussion link)__ and __(discussion link)__. Consensus has been that the current title is proper. Continuously raising the same issue again is not helpful and will not change the consensus already in place – unless you have something truly new to bring to the discussion." etc. You might even refer them to WP:STICK. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: Also, you might add {{Round in circles}} coupled with a FAQ subpage shown through ({{FAQ}}) to the top of the talk page, gathering together and linking all the previous discussions and results and any appropriate summary. Please see Talk:Sega Genesis for an example where the page title was specifically an issue and addressed in this manner.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If the term has widespread usage, which apparently it does, then titling the article by the term would not be in violation of WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all so much for the tea. I sincerely appreciate it. Darknipples (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Support: Short article names. Darknipples, create a REDIRECT# with the longer name to the shorter article name and put this: {{R from longer name}} on the 3rd line of the Redirect. Checkingfax (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk page

Hi, Is User talk:MuanMuneer ok to have ? Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, Peppy Paneer and I have tagged it for deletion as a test page. DES ^(talk) 15:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Got it.

Thank you Peppy Paneer (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: WP:G2 states G2 criterion doesn't apply to userpages. Don't get me wrong, I entirely agree with you that it's a test page. However, I think we should simply blank/redirect the page per WP:USERTALKBLOG. -- Chamith (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

ChamithN, How were you able to blank a User page without leaving a Page History? Checkingfax (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, because although ChamithN was entirely correct and I shouldn't have tagged that for G2, an admin deleted it before I saw this message, so the page history is only visible to admins. Not that it contains anything of significant interest in this case. DES ^(talk) 22:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Frost (film)

Hi there, I am very new to the wikipedia editing community and was taken aback by an article I was working on set for deletion. I assumed if I wasn't finished it was considered private but now I know it's not the case.

Anyway I'm not involved in the film other than being a passionate advocate for local film here in Arizona. I was hoping someone could help me out in the editing process for making a wikipedia article for a film. As I said I'm very new to the site and it's formatting tools; please someone help!

Bkrauser1

Bkrauser1 (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bkrauser1 and welcome to the Teahouse. What sort of help do you want? Do you want a co-editor to do thing that you can watch and learn from? Or do you want to be told how to do things? or some of each? Do you want more or less one-time help, or a continuing mentor relationship?

I see that you have started over at User:Bkrauser1/Jessica Frost (film) after Jessica Frost (film) was deleted. Your sandbox page needs work on the formatting, and i can show you how to do that if you want, but more importantly it needs reliable sources to support it, and more details, drawn from those sources. As an example, a film article I worked on is Mahler on the Couch. Note how references are used there, and formatting also if you like. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh it is a good idea to link to pages when you mention them on a help or discussion page, as I did above. That makes it easier for others to find the pages you are referring to. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bkrauser1, and welcome to Wikipedia. It's great that you're passionate about local film. I had a look in Google to see what sources were available online about the upcoming film Jessica Frost, and unfortunately all I found are what Wikipedia calls primary sources — sources written by the subject of the article, such as the official website, or the casting call information for the film as archived at backstage.com.

If you can find local news coverage about the film in print, however, I would be happy to help you format citations for those sources correctly and make sure your use of quotations doesn't constitute copyright infringement. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

DES for this article a co-editor would be outstanding though I have been a long admirer of Wikipedia and have always been interested in being an active part of it. If you're offering a mentoring-type relationship it would be of great help. Let's just say I am of an older generation so the formatting and citation process is very confusing to me.

Bkrauser1 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Bkrauser1 I am willing to co-edit, and to mentor, within the limits of my availability (I have some off-wiki constraints over the next few weeks). As for being of "an older generation", I am 54 myself. Formatting cites isn't really all that tricky, although it does require some attention to details. But, as GrammarFascist said above, you will need to find additional independent sources that cover this film if possible. Without such sources it will be hard if not impossible to justify an article. I'll continue this on your user talk page in a while. DES ^(talk) 23:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Image in an awkward place

Hi Teahouse,

I was viewing this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay,_New_York and noticed that there is an image to the left of the table of contents in the lead section. This doesn't look right to me, but I don't know how to fix it—or is it OK how it is?

Thanks! Mechanic1c (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mechanic1c, and welcome to the Teahouse. I tried changing it, but didn't save any of my previews. The image could be put to the left of the lead section, but IMO that is even worse. It could be in the history section, but it is not at all relevant to that section. Honestly this short article has perhaps more images than it can comfortably hold. Discuss at Talk:Clay, New York, I suggest. DES ^(talk) 01:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DESiegel. The article has too many images for its length, and some are uninformative, like the highway image. The best of them could benefit from judicious cropping, since large expanses of grass and pavement offer little encyclopedic value. If I had an interest in this city, I would cut the number of images significantly and display them better. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

When I was reading it, I did think that was a problem too, but I wasn't going to be the guy to judge which ones should get the ax, because I don't know what's important to that city. In fact, when I went to edit it, I was going to move the image to whatever the end of the lead section was, and I discovered that's already where it was placed, but it still looked strange—so I came here to see if you have any secret tricks that would change its position. I suppose not. Thanks for the input! Mechanic1c (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Mechanic1c. The best editors of place articles know nothing about the community. Then, all you write about are things that are verifiable like we are supposed to. As far as editing the excess imagery, if there is no relation between the images and the copy, then remove the image. We should only use images to illustrate something in the copy. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, W.carter moved most of the clutter-y images into a tidy four-image gallery. (IIRC image galleries are deprecated, but in this case it seems a decided improvement.) Way back in 2007, IP user 71.232.97.239 noted on the article's talk page that one of the images, of North Medical Center, did not belong as it is located in another municipality; as my research indicated this to be correct, I removed the North Medical Center image from the gallery and replaced it with the image of the local mall, reducing the image clutter further. I also did a general cleanup on the article, including moving the Notable people section to the bottom of the page (which is where I have seen such sections in other articles). I'm not sure the Portal bar should be under a See also section, however. Thoughts, @Mechanic1c, DESiegel, Cullen328, and John from Idegon:?

Pst! If you don't sign your post with the four ~~~~ the 'ping' to all those editors will not work. The mentioning and the signing has to be done during the same edit, or the system won't register it. I was in the neighborhood anyway and saw your post. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 19:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

D'oh! Just when I thought I'd solved the problem of constantly fudging my indentation, too. Here we go: @Mechanic1c, DESiegel, Cullen328, and John from Idegon: —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 19:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My thought is that it's fantastic. It was obviously overkill before. I was particularly concerned with the image stuck to the left of the table of contents, but that's no longer there. Mechanic1c (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Notable people inclusion

In article about a city or town, in the "Notable people" or "Famous residents" section should state representatives be included? Technically they have a wiki page, but since they are local representatives they are clearly going to be from the city itself or the surrounding area. Should they be included in the section? Thanks. WolverineOfTheCascades (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, WolverineOfTheCascades. The answer is maybe. If there is referenced content in the representative's bio stating he was born in, currently resides in or resided for a significant time in the community in question, then you include him. If you can add references showing any of the above to his entry in the notable list, that works too. If his only connection is representing them in the legislature, then no you don't include him. Thanks for stopping by. John from Idegon (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Where can I seek knowledgeable help about the current actual symbols for Kyrgyz and Kazakh currency?

In List of circulating currencies, the symbol for both the Kyrgyzstan som (Cyrillic: сом) and the Kazakhstan tenge (теңге) is given as лв, the same as the symbol for the Bulgarian lev. These seem highly unlikely, as neither л nor в appears in either of the K*stan currencies' names.

I have written this up on Talk:List of circulating currencies, and asked for comments there on the Wikiproject talk pages for Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia, but all three of those projects are dormant. Any ideas where I could ask and be more likely to get valid info? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just asked at Talk: WikiProject Finance as well. --Thnidu (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely not an expert in currency symbology, but XE.com uses an image that resembles T̅ (a capital T with an overline) for the Kazakh tenge.

XE.com lists лв as the symbol for the Kyrgyz som, though, and every other site I looked at either gave лв or just referred to the som as KGS. It may be that, like there's no 'S' in dollar and no 'L' in pound, the som just has a symbol unrelated to the spelling of the word. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, FYI, the dollar sign $ was (i believe) once an 8 struck through, a symbol for "piece of eight", the old Spanish Peso or 8-real coin. The L in the pound symbol is from the Latin Libra (pound) -- this unit of money once represented a pound of silver. DES ^(talk) 17:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

DES, that information might be off-topic here, but it's also fascinating. Thanks for teaching me something new! —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 03:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, GrammarFascist. I see that we have that image, File:Tenge symbol.svg, and I'll substitute it for лв in that row of the table. --Thnidu (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My Google-fu is at your service, Thnidu. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 04:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

article

article about how to become an ideal personAKASH S KUMAR 11 (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

To what article do you refer, AKASH S KUMAR 11? And please don't add the same question or comment three times. DES ^(talk) 00:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a guidebook or instruction manual. Even without WP:NOTHOWTO, the diversity of religions and philosophies in the world demonstrates that humanity cannot agree on how to be an ideal person. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Although complete, detailed agreement is not possible, Ian.thomson, the Golden Rule enjoys remarkably broad support among cultures, religions and ethical teachers worldwide. That is a good basis for agreement among diverse people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Questions

How to use the single reference more than once? Article talk pages have notice at the top: This is a part of Wikiproject food and drink, This is a part of Wikiproject Japan. How are they added? NewMutants (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi NewMutants, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use a reference multiple times by giving it a name. There are instructions in this guide to referencing. Here's an example: on the first instance, use <ref name="Example">Details of reference...</ref>; on subsequent uses, just use <ref name="Example"/> to cite the same reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As for the WikiProject details, each WikiProject has a template for placement on article talk pages. These follow the format {{WikiProject Food and drink}}. You can usually find more details of this on the project's page, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink, and there is often an abbreviated version of the template text, such as {{WPFOOD}}. Just add that text to the article talk page and the template will appear. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks To All Editors To Helping Me in My First Article

Dear All, First of all, I would like to thank you all to guide and helped me in to improve my first article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shriram_Automall_India_Ltd. in a good way. I'll do my best to improve it further with all your support. Also, I would like to know what is the best way to make it improve further and what else can be added in this article? Thanks once again.Rwadhaawa (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Rwadhaawa, I moved the article to Shriram Automall India, as we don't generally include "Ltd", "Inc" or other such corporate designators in article titles (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)). If this article is to stay as a standalone article, more information on how the bidding process works would be good, if it can be cited to a reliable source. So would information on how the public has reacted to the company, if that can be sourced. The proposed merge might be a good idea, in which case such additional info might or might fit into the merged article. DES ^(talk) 12:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

need help on getting my article verified

Resolved

could you please help me get my article verified please? i feel really lost when it comes to this wikipedia stuff. please help me. the article name "A1kellz" 65.75.108.87 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

IP's request for help was in regards to Draft:A1kellz. He contacted me on my talk page, and I answered him there. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The general principle is that all articles ought to have references to significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources showing that the topic is notable. For recent biographies of living people, this is mandatory by policy, and no draft lacking references can be approved. The current draft lacks references, so must be declined. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

HELLO have you submitted your article as draft to article for creation project. sorry your article need to be substential enough too, or else wouldnt get verified.John roger1 (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

why my content: page/subpage was edited and deleted

Hi everybody can anyone please help me to fix the problem. Actually some Anonymous user has edited all of my pages/sub pages and deleted them. Can I know how to contact that person to find why he deleted the content. And will please anyone here tell me cant I add any topic to wikipedia or is there something missing from me. Help needed thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.216.234.206 (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello 101.216.234.206 and welcome to the Teahouse. There are no edits other than this question made by your IP account. Did you forget to log in? Please log in and make a comment here so that we can see what account and subpages you are talking about. w.carter-Talk 11:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

But in answer to your last question, no you can't add any topic (or more accurately, if you add an inappropriate topic it will get deleted). Please see what Wikipedia is not and Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 101.216.234.206 did you submit your article to article creation for project or rather laid down the article to be viewed and talked more on by other users. you must be a substential one with vital information, not that am in any way saying it was not. But just for correction purpose. John roger1 (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

How to Deal With a Notability Warning Tag

The article I am currently editting has had a Warning Tag added thus: {{notability|date=September 2015}}

I believe I have now added sufficient information to establish notability. What is the procedure for having the tag removed? (I suspect that removing it myself isn't the correct course of action!) PS: I asked this question earlier, and didn't see it appear. I don't know whether that was due to a network outage, or a delay in approval. Apologies for any duplication. Arfisk (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Arfisk:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for asking the question. In theory, any editor (including you) can remove the notability tag once they "are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues" (quote from Template:Notability#Removing_this_tag). However, if you are the author then it is better to ask for a second opinion because it is so difficult to be objective about one's own work. In this case, I assume the article is Jamais Cascio, and I am not sure that there is enough yet. The award and coverage by Foreign Policy Magazine is a good start, but that is about the only independent coverage. His bio on Worldchanging is hardly independent, since he founded that company. Links to the papers he wrote don't contribute to notability: that is a matter of what other reputable sources say about him, not what he has to say himself. Similarly, belonging to various organizations is not the same as other people writing about him. You're on the right path, but personally I don't think you're quite there yet. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for the feedback @Gronk Oz:. Yes, that is the page I'm editting (it's been around since 2005, but I suppose it's a case of improving editting standards catching up with a stationary target). I think I'll need at least one other article from a notable source about the man himself? Arfisk (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Arfisk:, I would feel more comfortable with that (for whatever my personal opinion is worth). --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

How to change a large number of redirects at once

I'd like to redirect 39 redirects from Doug#Characters to the main article List of Doug characters. How would I go about this quickly? Banak (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Banak. I guess you mean that you want to change redirects like Patti Mayonnaise to target List of Doug characters instead of Doug. Just do it manually one at a time. If you don't know how to edit a redirect then see Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article. If you have AutoWikiBrowser and experience using it then you can maybe do it a little faster but installing and learning it will take much longer. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Flowing text around a table to the left of a paragraph

Hello Teahouse, I've just been editing Waterbury, Connecticut, and noticed that the text butts right up against the "Mayor | Town Clerk | City Sheriff | City Clerk" table in the Government section, with no buffer space like Wikipedia normally has around images and tables. Is there a way to fix this, or should I just move the table to the right, above the "Aldermen" table? —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 08:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi GrammarFascist. I have added the same margin as the table to the right.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter! I see now how simple that was; I find tables daunting and had just presumed it would be more complicated than it was. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I Believe I'm Wiki-worthy and Know I can't submit for Myself

I've searched for the best place to ask and there may be a better one but I feel safest with "friendly" at this point. I've seen other artists I've shown with have their own page, have had a tremendous about of publicity with "Free Katie", credits in Hollywood, and a solid run as a visual artist with mentions in LA Times, Huffington Post, New York Times, etc. I would really like to have a page but know I can't write my own. I tried to figure out the best way to submit my name for inclusion but even there I feared I was doing it wrong. I have some links, info, and even hard copies of stories written about me but could really use a pro to help me with a no conflict of interest article and where I best fit. My process, work, and notoriety bridge the gap between visual fine art and entertainment.

In this instance, I think a stranger would be best even though I have plenty of friends and fans that are skilled in wikipedia norms. SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this you? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes that is my web page. I'm not even sure I'm responding correctly. Please let me know if this isn't correct.SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I was also known as Sheila McLaughlin and credited as Co-Producer on the first season of Project Greenlight. SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It's fine. Can you provide links for those references in papers etc? I would do it myself but it's 20:00 and the wine is getting cold. Your work looks great, though being 'Good Art' is insufficient for an article; if this were the 1880s, Van Gogh wouldn't have his own article! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SheilaCameronArtist. It's great that you understand why you or someone connected to you shouldn't write the article about you. Helping out notable people and organizations that don't yet have Wikipedia articles is actually one of my hobbies around here, but I'm a little backed up at the moment. It would probably be 3–5 days before I would be able to start on your article. Alternately, you can formally request an article about yourself, but that would probably take even longer. Are there any print sources you have access to that you feel strongly should be used as references for your article that are not available online? —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 19:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Sheila, and welcome to the Teahouse. Well done for asking, rather than going ahead and trying to create an article: as I think you've discovered, autobiography is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.

One point I'd like to make, that might sound picky, but I think is important to understand what is going on here: nobody in the universe "has their own page" on Wikipedia: Wikipedia has articles about people, but those people do not own the articles, and have no control over their contents (they can, of course, make suggestions). If we end up with an article about you, you will not be able to get things put in or removed from the article, except by consensus in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, one of which is "No promotion of any kind".

If you have indeed got stories written about you - written independently of you, not from an interview or a press release - then you are in a strong position for enrolling somebody to write an article about you. It doesn't matter whether they are on line or not (though of course they're easier to work with if they are online) as long as they have been published in reliable places. This is a big deal, because a Wikipedia article should be based nearly 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have published about the subject.

The recommended method of requesting an article is to post your request - with references to sources independent of you - at WP:Requested articles. However, there is a long backlog there. Another possibility might be to post the request at WikiProject Women artists, as you are more likely to find somebody interested among those who watch that page. --ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Completely understand ColinFine (talk). Thank you for the distinction and the time to respond. Please know, I completely understand even if my language says otherwise. I have the utmost respect for wikipedia and what it does. I'm not even sure I'm responding or asking correctly! I have had many outside outlets write about and interview me with no press release. SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to add the links as requested. I don't think I'm doing it correctly. Apologies. SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

SheilaCameronArtist, you can just paste the URLs here, one per line, and that should work. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to create an article but I'm struggling to find any reliable sources independent of you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have had articles written about me, mostly in 2005 but there aren't links. I have also done television and radio interviews interviews in the US, UK, Germany. NPR was a good one. Not sure how to credit all of that. I'm having a hard time with this format of communication. Apologies again. Thanks. SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, again, interviews are not preferred as sources for Wikipedia articles (they are considered too close to the subject, like press releases) so i wouldn't worry about those. If you have had profiles about you in print or broadcast media that were separate from interviews — that is, the source might have done an interview, but also did an article or segment about you separate from the interview — that would be very useful for a Wikipedia article about you. Also, it would be better if you didn't include an extra line break at the ends of your comments here; doing so is making your signature break onto new lines and making it a little harder to follow who is talking where. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can give us the bibliographic information about those articles (publication, title, date, author) then it's quite likely that somebody can track them down, SheilaCameronArtist. But as I said, interviews with you, while they can be cited for uncontroversial factual information, do not contribute to notability in the Wikipedia sense. --ColinFine (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Katie may be a relevant consideration as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure what articles or citations would be most helpful but you've given me a place to start. I have very lamely tried to post links. I will dig up the authors, dates. As far as Free Katie goes, Iggy Pop mentioned it in an interview with Terry Gross, it has been in novels where characters wear Free Katie t-shirts and I was mentioned in the Tom Cruise Biography by Andrew Morton, Would those dates and authors be helpful?

Also I was in this group show that was mentioned in many press outlets but I have no idea if that would be considered promotion? LA times had it pick of the week etc. Here is a quote from Rafael Reyes entry who was also in that show with me "He has since shown in Los Angeles [9] at Coagula Curatorial with John Fleck (actor) and John Roecker as part of successful "Two Johns and a Whore" group show.[10]" SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"To hell and back: The tale of an artist" by Brett Bentley June 13, 2013 The Union - a Northern CA Newspaper. There is a live link but I'm having trouble posting it.

Cover of 2012 Style Magazine, Northern California magazine with artist bio inside.

Sharing schadenfreude, from Katie Holmes to The Star Wars Kid By Alana Semuels Pittsburgh Post-Gazette August 5, 2005 12:00 AM

Artist, blogger and mom finds voice, opportunity to share it in Nevada Count By Tom Kellar The Union March 25, 2012

Art in LA: Recommendations for May 2015 for my show Women Written by Anise Stevens

THE Wallbreakers

 / JULY 16, 2012  BY JAMES

Sheila Cameron: Watching The Paint Dry

'Free Winona' to 'Talentless,' Celebs Let T-Shirts Do the Talking By BUCK WOLF ABC News Go Aug. 23, 2005 SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Posting an article

What if I repost the article while disclosing conflict of interest. This is for the CEO of a local pizza chain. Rotelli Corporate (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarnel rotellicorp (talk • contribs)

Hi, Yarnel Rotellicorp. You are discouraged from working on articles where you have a conflict of interest, but not forbidden. If you understand our policies on reliable sources, on neutral point of view and on original research, you may have a chance of success. I strongly recommend that when you think it is ready, you submit your draft for review by adding {{subst:submit}} at the top.

In the meantime, some suggestions about how to go about it:

Assemble your sources. Ignore anything published by the the CEO or the company, or anybody associated with them. Ignore any wikis, blogs, or social media. Ignore anything that is based on an interview with the CEO or a press release from the company. Ignore anything that has less than three or four sentences about him. See if you have anything left.
If you have, he is notable, and you can try writing an article about him.
Forget absolutely everything you know about him, and write an article strictly from the sources you have (in your own words: you must not infringe their copyright). If you know something about him but you cannot find a source, don't put it in. Be especially careful of putting in any kind of judgment, evaluation, comparison, or conclusion, unless one of the sources explicitly makes that judgment, evaluation, comparison or conclusion. Cite the source of every single claim you write.
Make sure you don't put in any marketing speak (eg "solutions", "innovation", "leverage") - again, unless you cite an independent source which uses the words.
If there are gaps in factual information (such as dates and places), you may fill them in from non-independent publshed sources, such as the company's website - still cited.

If you follow these suggestions, you have a good chance of getting an article accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Article submission declined, due to insertion of " Marathi " in parts.

Hi ! ,Saumiguel (talk) here.I am creating an article for my Grandfather, Late Mr. Michael Mathew Colaco- a recipient of " Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice " award. I created the info box in English and entered some of the main contents viz. person's intro; marriage; death; external links in English. As for the Biography, I entered the content in " Marathi " ( Indian language ), because my grandfather wrote his Biography in his own words, in his local language. I wanted to keep his personal touch, here- I didn't want to translate that in English, as it would lose the flavor- because of my inexperience in translation. I understand, that it is precisely because of this ( Marathi insertion ) that the article was not approved. How do I go about this ? If the English Wikipedia requires English translation, about my grandfather's Biography, I'll do that to the best of my ability. But, I also wanted my grandfather's original text , side by side on the same page.So that, native English speakers as well as people from India could read the information on the same page.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saumiguel/sandbox ] I hope I have put my question in clear words.Saumiguel (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Saumiguel. If you want to write an encyclopedia article mostly in the Marathi language, then Marathi Wikipedia is the place to do that. This is the English Wikipedia, and all acceptable articles here are written in English. Occasionally, we will include a brief passage from another language in an article, but that passage must also be translated accurately into English. Another problem is that you say the the Marathi text was written by your grandfather. Accordingly, that text is a copyright violation because we have no evidence that your grandfather consented to its use in Wikipedia in any language. If your grandfather was notable, then you must write your draft article in English, in your own words, summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about him. You can't just translate or paraphrase his words, because Wikipedia does not publish autobiographies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Cordless Larry: Thanks for your reply.

I agree with Wikipedia guidelines- that article should be written in English and if passage from other language is used - it's accurate translation must be given.

As for the copyright violations of my grandfathers consent: If Grandfather was alive, he would certainly give me his consent. Regarding this, I have my grandfather's family' consent. If I were violating his rights, he( grandfather ) wouldn't have given his Biography to all the family members, to freely use it.

Cullen328
— said : " If your grandfather was notable, then you must write your draft article in English, in your own words, summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about him. "

About " Notability " and " verifiability " I read the guidelines. But, I don't seem to understand it in this case.

The verifiable sources are the people of my town,and the Religious priests and Nuns and Bishop with whom he worked. But could that be counted ?

Next, I have the certificate of Papal Blessings with my grandfathers name written on it. Further, I have the certificate of honor given by Pope paul VI viz. " Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice. "

Could this be counted as reliable source ?

Then , there are websites created by my town folks, where they have acknowledged My grandfather, among the "icons of the town"- for their notable deeds.

Further, there is an article published by East Indian Community, which is to my grandfather's credit : http://www.east-indians.com/beiaeibassein.html

This is all I have , to begin with. Please suggest me any verifiable source , you'll need in particular reference to this case.

Could this be counted for reliability ? Saumiguel (talk)Saumiguel 04:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Saumiguel. Just to highlight that, as Cullen328 has mentioned, as well as dealing with the language issue, you need to demonstrate that the subject of the article is notable. Put succinctly, articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Also note that Facebook is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles as pretty much everything on there is user generated. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Saumiguel. Your assumption that your grandfather would consent to his writing being added to an online encyclopedia he never heard of is very kind on your part but of no value here on Wikipedia. We can only pay attention to what is verifiable in writing. If his heirs want his writings to be freely shared, then they can release them, in writing, under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Otherwise, we can only quote a few sentences of his writings, citing a published source. If they are unpublished, we cannot use them at all. Unpublished autobiographical writings do not establish notability, and the vast majority of autobiographical writing is not suitable for an encyclopedia.

The memories of the priests and nuns and bishops are of no value on Wikipedia, unless they have been published in a reliable source. If unpublished, we call them original research and we do not allow that kind of material on Wikipedia. Readers have no way to verify the accuracy of such unpublished memories.

The Papal certificates are primary sources and can be mentioned on Wikipedia only if reliable published secondary sources have discussed them.

As for websites, most are not acceptable for use as references on Wikipedia, but a few are. We are looking for websites with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and correcting errors. In general, these are websites built on the model of professional journalism, comparable to the best of 20th century newspapers and magazines.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes what has been published previously by reliable sources about various topics. Only if your grandfather has already received significant coverage in such sources should Wikipedia have an article about him. Please be aware that there are many other websites that would be happy to have an article about your grandfather. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

revision deletion and oversight

Hello again Wikipedia Teahouse can you please provide me some specific examples on how oversight and revision deletion works?Truckmanbeginner (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Truckmanbeginner. I will try to answer both of your related questions. Oversight and Revision Deletion are similar, but Oversight is more stringent. Both remove highly objectionable or illegal content from view by ordinary readers or editors, even from the history of the article. Revision Deletion can be carried out by any administrator, and the removed content can be viewed only by administrators. It is for what I would call moderate but significant infractions: cut and paste copyright violations, garden variety but vile personal attacks and excessive "dirty talk". Oversight is carried out by a more select, pre-qualified group of editors who must be administrators. A hypothetical example subject to Oversight would be a user page on Wikipedia that calls for an editor to be killed in the middle of the night, including their home address, a photo of the intended victim, a pornographic photo of their partner, and details of their home security system. Not even ordinary administrators can see oversighted content once it is removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

oversight and revision deletion

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse my question is do administrators have the authority to use both oversight and revision deletion or can a Wikipedia user with lots of experience in the Wikipedia field do the same method?Truckmanbeginner (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see the answer immediately above, and please refrain from posting two highly related questions, one after the other, before a volunteer has had the chance to answer. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit source

What is the difference between 'edit source' and 'edit'? NewMutants (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Stonecutter The title is italic?--NewMutants (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"Edit source" appears if you're using VisualEditor, to distinguish between the VE editing interface and the standard code one. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have unchecked the visual editor, 'edit source' is gone.--NewMutants (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason why an italic title is chosen for The Stonecutter is explained in Wikipedia:Article_titles#Italics_and_other_formatting. Technically, it is achieved by an editor slipping the hidden template {{italic title}} into the page's code.

This template is one of the relatively few cases where the source code editor ("edit source") is necessary for altering the formatting of the page. The "Visual Editor" (which you access by clicking "edit") is very good, and is pretty much WYSIWYG which is a great feature. However there will always be some aspects of Wikipedia that can only be accessed by the source code editor.

You can be an A+ Wikipedia editor without ever worrying about the source code editor. It's probably worth pointing out that the Visual Editor (also known as "VE") is relatively new, and some folk who have been here for a long time (like me) have got used to the source editor and occasionally forget the Visual Editor exists.. You may get advice which assumes that you use the source code editor - so if your using VE and you ask a question and get an answer which includes a lot of weird symbols, just politely note that you use VE and you'll get a more appropriate answer.

--LukeSurl^{t c} 09:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

LukeSurl, The Stonecutter is stated as a Chinese folk-tale, but the categories added are Japanese.NewMutants (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, NewMutants. WP:SOFIXIT! --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)