Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 539

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 535

←

Archive 537

→

Second opinions

Could a couple of you weigh in on Draft:Caryn Marooney? An editor has declined this submission about the global head of PR for Facebook and while I really do understand their perspective based on the somewhat limited volume of sources, I think the subject's very senior position at one of the world's most important companies might overcome that. Please note my WP:COI disclosure on the Talk page of the article.BC1278 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@BC1278: Welcome to the Teahouse. Here is my opinion. I do not see any significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. What I see are the sort of routine announcements of corporate career changes that are generated by press releases. "Global head of PR" for a big, well known corporation is not a job title that comes with a presumption of eligibility for an encyclopedia article, such as national, state or provincial legislator, Olympic athlete or major league baseball player. Her job may be important to paid Facebook insiders, but those of us who are volunteer encyclopedia editors are likely to insist that the topics written about by paid contributors pass the General notability guideline without question. This draft does not meet that standard, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "senior position" is another thing to add to the list of things that Notability isn't, BC1278, along with fame, popularity, importance, influence, and significance. As I see it, notability as used in Wikipedia is principally about Verifiability - a core issue. If there are few reliable independent sources, then there is almost nothing which can be put in such an article. Sorry. (Thanks for being open about your COI, by the way). --ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine If you look at the sourcing, you'll see a bunch of coverage about her (I think 7 sources) from reliable independent sources over 10 years. The question is, is the coverage "significant" since all but one of the articles are pretty routine. That's a subjective judgment call and I leave it to the independent editors to decide, which is why I submitted it for review.BC1278 (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)BC1278

@BC1278: Those sources are not independent because the coverage was obviously generated by PR efforts by the involved companies. As a PR professional yourself, you ought to know that just as much as experienced editors here do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I sometimes engage with editors who argue that a reliable source is not reliable (or as you say, "independent') because in their judgment the source has been manipulated by a company, or as you say "generated by PR efforts." But that's not the Wikipedia policy WP: RS - a source is reliable and independent if it has an editorial review process, including fact checking. The sources I refer to that confer notability, such as Re/Code (run by two very famous Wall Street Journal journalists), PRWeek, AllThingsD (a Wall Street Journal owned tech publication), Business Insider and Media Life Magazine, all pass the test of being independent reliable sources. These are mainstream media publications. In this case, they ran their own stories about Caryn Marooney after deciding for themselves whether company announcements warranted the coverage. They didn't just reprint press releases. For a tech publication, or a media publication, it's significant news for their readers that Facebook has a new head of PR. If they choose to report their own story on it, as is the case here, then the story is a legitimate source. If we excluded articles as sources where Wikipedia editors decided that they suspected a company announcement or PR campaign was how a story originated, we would exclude most news about politics and business. Every announcement from the White House, every quarterly earnings report, every investment ever made in Uber or Airbnb - these are all generated from PR efforts. That doesn't mean the news is unreliable or the source isn't independent - it's still the job of the reporter to check the facts and use their judgment as to whether a story is newsworthy enough to include in their publication. Again, I think here, this is a close case because there is not much depth of coverage in these articles. The reporting is of events, rather than profiles of the subject. I have a COI so I leave it to others to decide if there is enough significant coverage. But the sources I mention above are both independent and reliable.BC1278 (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)BC1278

@BC1278: I never said the publications are not reliable. That is only one factor to evaluate. We disagree about whether they are independent. But it is clear that they are not significant. They are routine personnel announcements. If notability was already established, they would be useful for documenting career history. But they do not establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I'm not disputing the decision about this article, so this discussion now is purely theoretical. I'd merely remind you as to the official Wikipedia policy on independent sources: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective (i.e., a neutral point of view). Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic." WP:IS The sources I mention above all meet that criteria, and some of the individual reporters are even well known, like Kara Swisher at Re/Code. Whether or not a story in a reliable source had as its genesis a company announcement or PR campaign has no bearing on its independence - there is no such Wikipedia policy. These are real stories, not just reprints of press releases. I have engaged before with Wikipedia editors who refuse to consider as independent the entire mainstream business press, such as Fortune Magazine and The Wall Street Journal for the same reason you articulated. Business journalists at mainstream publications are just as independent as political, cultural or sports journalists, all of whom frequently decide to write stories originating from PR.BC1278 (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)BC1278

Is there a way to limit a "random article" search to only certain topics/portals?

Is there a way to limit a "random article" search to only certain topics/portals? For example, say I wanted to find only random articles from the "science" portal... is that possible? Thanks Bzzzing (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Special:RandomInCategory function will give you a random article from within a given category (or you can use this site). I'm not aware of anything that will pick a random article from an entire category tree, which you'd need to do to get all science articles; the processing power required would be immense. ‑ Iridescent 19:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Theresia Gouw - Image Usage Question

I reviewed Draft:Theresia Gouw and neither accepted nor declined it, but left a comment about the redlink to an image of a headshot, asking either that a headshot be provided or the placeholder be deleted from the infobox. I then received the following on the talk page from User:Hrasato:

Hi Robert. Per your comment about uploading an image of Theresia Gouw or deleting the headshot box... I uploaded a headshot image earlier and provided permission from Theresia Gouw, the copyright holder, as instructed. The image was subsequently deleted saying that there wasn't permission. I left a message and have received no response. Can you help me and suggest how I should proceed? I would like to use the image I originally uploaded but am not able to re-upload it. Any advice is much appreciated! Thanks Robert!

My question is what the author should do next. I know that situations like this are common because Wikipedia takes copyright more seriously than most of the world-wide web does. Should the image be used as non-free content in Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you looked at the reply which User:Hrosato (without an i) received at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/September#File:Theresia Gouw.jpg? It doesn't appear that the editor followed that advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: We simply cannot use a non-free photo of a living person since there is always a possibility that someone will upload a freely licensed photo. WP:NFCI #10 allows use of a non-free photo of a person who had died, if no freely licensed or copyright free photo is available. The draft now includes a photo, but its status is in doubt since it was not uploaded by the copyright holder. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of a picture which does not have copyright permission

File:Rusty-Liam.jpg.jpg is obviously a television screen grab, but it is claimed as the contributor's own work. Is there some way I can tag this (equivalent to a CSD)? Gronk Oz (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It is at commons:File:Rusty-Liam.jpg.jpg, and at the bottom of the tools menu on the left there is a menu item to "Nominate for deletion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 12:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. Maproom (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Boy, how did I miss that - I thought I had searched all over the page! Thanks for that! Gronk Oz (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft

Hello I was adviced to write an article first as a draft.so i did.who can now review it ?who can tell me wheter its notable or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoran3003 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you have to submit your draft by adding {{subst:submit}} at the bottom. It will be reviewed within few days or weeks by an experienced editor. Fuortu (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If the draft is Draft:Candy Ken, I think that the more important issue will be tone. Your draft has a non-neutral tone that is not formal or encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a bigger issue will be that the article lacks evidence that the subject is notable. It currently cites two sources: one doesn't mention the subject, the other is an interview with the subject and so not independent. Maproom (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

How to modify user's name/title

Greeting everyone. How do we modify/change/edit our names (It says" User:Amir R. Pourkashef For example) to change its color, change the font and etc. Amir R. Pourkashefsky (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amir R. Pourkashef: Welcome to the Teahouse. The guideline on signatures is Wikipedia:Signatures. The shortcut to the section on customizing signatures is WP:CUSTOMSIG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you want to change the page heading on User:Amir R. Pourkashef. See WP:DISPLAYTITLE for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hillier Parker May & Rowden rejected even after it has been considerably improved

Dear friends,

I am saddened by how difficult it seems to be to get a voluntary contribution accepted by Wikipedia. The article is about the history of the commercial property company Hillier, Parker, May, and Rowden. It was a household name in the period 1900-1930, it has a century of history and was mentioned in almost every issue of Estates Gazette, the principal journal for commercial property, for all that time.

It also played a role in the development of shopping centres in the 1960s and 1980s, because it was the first company to have a specialist department to advise New Town Development Corporations and Borough Councils. To research the subject I have looked at the electronic archive of The Times newspaper, and I have been to the University of Reading library to read copies of Estates Gazette from 1960 to 1990.

So I am told, Wikipedia is interested in gathering the world's knowledge. My first attempt was not very good but the version I have now is completely different, yet it has still been rejected, seemingly as if the improvements I have made have not been noticed.

I would like to further improve the article and add pictures but it would be nice to get the article into the main space. So far I have been frustrated by what seems like an inpenetrable wall of semi-automated rejection. It is in my user sandbox. Grateful for your help!

Philjones573 (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently this refers to Draft:Hillier Parker May and Rowden, which was declined by Robert McClenon. —teb728 t c 21:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Without looking into the case in much detail, Philjones573, I would think that trying to create an article in place of one that has so recently been deleted as a result of this discussion is an uphill task. When you say that the draft has been considerably improved, do you mean on the deleted version of the article (I can't see that as I'm not an admin)? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Philjones573. Reading your message above, I was expecting to find what you described—something approximating an "inpenetrable [sic] wall of semi-automated rejection", but that is not what I found. Rather, I found a tailored rejection by Robert McClenon, providing instructions on what you need to do to have this considered (but which as far as I can tell, you have not done).

The instructions are to go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, and request temporary undeletion of the article that was considered for, and deleted on the merits, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillier Parker May and Rowden.

Doing that should then allow that reviewer, or a subsequent one, to compare the current content against the deleted content. As soon as you do that, and assuming the draft is temporarily undeleted upon your request, you can resubmit the draft for consideration (using the blue "resubmit" button in the pink AFC notice at the top of the draft), and also leave a message at User talk:Robert McClenon. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, the history is already there—this was moved to a draft rather than deleted. (I removed the PR and reminiscences from it last time round, so shouldn't be the one to judge its merits on this occasion, although I in general stand by my comments in the AFD discussion; some topics are better covered on sites other than Wikipedia.) This is the difference between the deleted and the current versions. ‑ Iridescent 22:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, I have followed the steps to "request temporary undeletion of the article that was considered". Philjones573 (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification Iridescent! @Robert McClenon: – given your instructions to first seek undeletion, you must be unaware the page history is already available for comparison. I will leave a an AfC comment in the draft. @Philjones573:. Okay, so now that we know a bit more of what happened, there's no need for requesting undeletion. I will clarify that at the undeletion page, and with the message at the AfC, hopefully everything will be made clearer.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Please may I add that the discussion mentioned by 'Cordless Larry' is old. In that discussion, I mentioned there are 23 references. Now there are 53 references as a result of going to the University Library at Reading to find copies of Estates Gazette. Plus four items of further reading. It would be really nice to see the article reviewed as it stands now. Philjones573 (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

My view is that the company is probably notable enough to justify an article. See, for example, Fisons, another once well-known UK company that was taken over around 20 years ago. But the draft, as it stands, has too many references. The final one, for example, establishes that a junior employee once received the George Medal. That paragraph should be deleted. It will tend to give reviewers the impression that the drafter is "scraping the bottom of the barrel". A much shorter article, including just the best content, is more likely to be accepted. Maproom (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

send message to other use

How do I send a message to another use ? Heagy1 (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Search the username using User:USERNAMEHERE or click on their talk page link in the end of a message they left at a talk page! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In addition, more info is at How to send a message to other editors. Cheers, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

How to make proper player stats for baseball pages

I noticed that when I was doing editing for stats for MLB teams that the letters were all bold while I was typing and after i was finshed, is that how it always is?BaseballBrain2016 (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@BaseballBrain2016: welcome to the Teahouse, you've made a simple but easily fixable error in the formatting. For every cell in the table you have used ! rather than | (the pipe symbol). In the wiki-markup for tables ! is the command to make that cell text bold, so I'd suggest you just use that for row and column headings and for all the other cells use |. There is a full guide to editing tables at Help:Table. Nthep (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Help Me

Good day every one on wikipedia, How can i start with wikipedia, am new here?.--Music Boy50 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Music Boy50, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see that since you asked your question, you have found The Wikipedia Adventutre – that's a good way to start. Maproom (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Music Boy50: This tutorial may be helpful. TimothyJosephWood 19:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Thanks, I really enjoyed the wikipedia adventures its teaches all about wikipedia i think so.--Music Boy50 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:John Robert Mills - Copyright Question

I reviewed Draft:John Robert Mills. I declined it due to ongoing copyright issues that were noted by previous reviewers. User:Moonbouncer54 then wrote:

Hi Robert. You have declined to accept the page on John Robert Mills on the grounds of copyright infringement. I don't think there is any copyright infringement for the following reasons:

 John Robert Mills died in 1998. Shortly after his death an article was put together as the basis of an obituary and for publication in the Institute of Physics (IoP) magazine. The article was a combined effort between John Mills's two sons and a work colleague, Ken Slater. Ken Was a member of the IoP and as such, the article in the IoP was attributed to him. Ken slater has since died.  John Mills's two sons are directors of CCC Trading Ltd (http://cayley.co.uk) and as such have re-published the article on their website  The almost identical text has been used on all published material (Obituary, IoP article, Website and Wikipedia draft) because all have been written by the same team, albeit one has since died.  There is, on the website (http://cayley.co.uk/john-robert-mills/), a permission statement at the bottom of the page that reads: "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In particular, CCC Trading Ltd gives permission for the use of text contained on this page to be used by Moonbouncer54 on the Wikipedia page relating to John Robert Mills. For verification please contact the site owner of CCC Trading Ltd (T/a Cayley Chemicals), Philip Mills by email: cayley@btinternet.com" This over-rides the footer copyright.  So far as pictures are concerned, these are reproduced under the Open Govenment Licence V3 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/)

We are of course willing to make any changes necessary to satisfy your requirements to approve the Wikipedia article but would appreciate any advice as to what we should do. Or, in light of the above, may we re-submit for consideration without further modification.

First, who is “we”? Second, other than that, do other experienced editors agree that the copyright issues have been addressed properly? If the author can answer who is "we" and other editors agree that copyright has been addressed, I will accept. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Moonbouncer54: @Robert McClenon: Although I am not a copyright expert, I know enough to see some areas of concern. Do we have evidence that the journal which originally published the article has agreed to Creative Commons licensing? Since Ken Slater is dead, do we have evidence that his estate has agreed to Creative Commons licensing? There is also an attribution problem. Supposedly, Slater and the two Mills sons wrote the article, but only Slater is listed as the author in the references. My recommendation is to abandon trying to use the Slater/Mills article word for word, but instead to write original content, summarizing all of the biographical source material. This avoids all of these copyright debates, but the attribution issue should be addressed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that the copyright holders of http://cayley.co.uk are the legitimate copyright holders—which I've no reason to doubt—than this is definitely legitimate for use on Wikipedia per the disclaimer at the end of this page. Although, Moonbouncer54, be very sure this is what you want; a lot of people don't fully appreciate the implications of you irrevocably agree to release your contribution, and it's not possible to restrict the reuse of something once it's released under CC-BY-SA; you're not just giving the rights to Wikipedia, you're giving irrevocable and irreversible consent for anyone to use the material for any purpose, be it using the text in a hatchet-piece about how much they dislike the article subject, to photoshopping the faces from uploaded images into hardcore pornography (both of these have actually happened in the past); while both of those are unlikely in this case, it's extremely possible that the image will be picked up by commercial photo libraries and resold as stock photos over which you'll have no control. (I'm certainly not trying to put you off—we have literally millions of photographs, all of whose uploaders feel the positives of making them publicly available outweigh any potential negatives—but if you have any issues with this it's better you know before you start.) ‑ Iridescent 18:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Response from Moonbouncer 54. Moonbouncer54 created the website for Cayley Chemicals and volunteered to help the two sons of John Mills (Philip and Nick Mills, both directors of CCC Trading Ltd t/a Cayley Chemicals), not that I have ever been involved in any Wiki related activity before, but probably more able to teach self the basics. Its a steep learning curve though and all the advice so genuinely offered really is appreciated. But the reason for volunteering is that having read the original article, the IoP article and the Telegraph Obituary I really believe that John Mills was a great man who made a major contribution to military and navigation technology and deserves an entry in Wikipedia.

I'll discuss the points made above with Philip and Nick. Its a very good point that Iridescent makes and I think needs to be considered very carefully. Clearly we cant change the author of the article in the IoP, so how Cullen328 should we change the attribution? For info, the reason Ken Slater was the named author was entirely because he was a member of the Institute and therefore recognized by that organisation. And thank you Cullen328 for you contribution and advice. It is appreciated.

My personal view is that the Wikipedia draft should be re-written and then remove the CC-BY-SA from the website, but I'll see what the others think. Robert McClenon - would you agree that this both reduces the risk of 'abuse' and avoids any copyright issues? Moonbouncer54 (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Moonbouncer54: If the Mills sons were not listed as authors in the original publication, then they should not be listed in the reference here. Perhaps we can think of them as research assistants rather than as authors. I do believe that writing new content summarizing all of the cited sources is the most clear-cut and cleanest solution to any potential problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Moonbouncer54 hasn't yet answered my question of who is "we". Wikipedia has a policy of one account, one person. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Robert McClenon I didnt make it clear. 'We' refers to myself and the two sons of John Mills. But they take no active part in Wikipedia and have no access to my account. So I am helping them with the page from a tech perspective only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonbouncer54 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon. The text of the draft has been amended so it is not a copy of the original text and not the same as the original article published by the Institute of Physics and attributed to Ken Slater.

The "John Robert Mills" page has also been removed from the Cayley website (http://cayley.co.uk) to avoid and conflict/copyright/plagiarism issues, even though the authors are the same

I hope this is sufficient to meet the needs of Wikipedia, but please let me know if any other changes are required

Moonbouncer54 (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Robert. Would you be happy for me to re-submit? Moonbouncer54 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In this case, I think that I may have too much history with the draft. If there is agreement that copyright has been taken care of, another reviewer will probably approve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandal repeatedly adding inappropriate links

In List of Jewish prayers and blessings, an IP user pipe-linked the translation of the general blessing opening to Bismillah, then changed the target to Basmalah. I removed the link as inappropriate, since this article is about Jewish, not Muslim, blessings. Now a user with another IP in the same range, probably the same person, has undone my edit, linking to Basmalah again. Would semi-protection of the page be in order? If so, how is it done? --Thnidu (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu:. Welcome to the Teahouse. They just did it again, and I reverted. Report it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The shortcut is WP:RPP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks. Will do. --Thnidu (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

How do I edit

How can I edit on Teahouse can you help me please? 16:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.163.57.234 (talk)

Hello, IP editor. You were successful in asking one question. Now, ask a question about how to edit Wikipedia. That is the purpose of the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

CAN YOU PLEASE HELP TO PUBLISH NEW CREATION TO WORLDWIDE?

Please, if I have create something new that is in the world system and want to submit my article or biography, can you kindly help or allow me to send you my videos with everything about me to publish worldwide? I will be very grateful if you can help! Thank you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realpen pencil (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. Read the original research policy. Wikipedia is not the medium for publishing something "new that is in the world system". Read the autobiography guideline. Wikipedia discourages its use to publish autobiographies. If you want to use Wikipedia to publish a biographical summary of someone whose biography has already been published, read Your first article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

hello everyone

how can I put more information and images to the following wikipedia pages from respective links : 1.Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation 2.Vinod Mishra 3.Dipankar Bhattacharya Thanks :) Samyab502 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Samyab502: Welcome to the Teahouse. Any changes you make to an article must comply with the neutral point of view and must be verified by providing a reference to a reliable source. Please read Referencing for beginners You tried to write a draft article about Vinod Mishra but we already have an article about him: Vinod Mishra. You should work to improve the existing article not try to write another one. You also included large blocks of text copied from elsewhere. Instead, you must write original prose summarizing the sources, with the exception of brief quotes in quotation marks, and referenced to the source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Are lead actors in a film automatically notable?

Are they notable enough to be listed in an article about film (Tum Bin II, or only those with Wikipedia articles should be included? Cotton2 (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cotton2. People can be mentioned in an article if they are relevant to the coverage of the article; they don't need to be the subjects of their own articles. (The case where people need their own articles is in lists of "notable" people.) —teb728 t c 07:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cotton2: Adding to the good answer above, I think that it is safe to say that an article about a notable film should always list the Leading actors. There should not be more than three or four who can truly be called leads. As for how far down the cast list we should go, that depends on who professional reviewers discuss when writing about the film. We should not list actors in minor roles, especially unnamed roles, unless it is a cameo appearance by a famous actor, and is discussed in reliable sources about the film. We should avoid attempts to promote the careers of lesser known actors by listing trivial roles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

How to change logo of organisation

Hello, Can anyone explain how to change a logo in the infobox government agency of page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Foundation_for_the_Improvement_of_Living_and_Working_Conditions. This logo is no longer current. What file format and size should it be in? Thank you Sylvie Sylviemonks (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sylviemonks,

Done TimothyJosephWood 16:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Search

Schenck House 1823 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

I am having a problems with both the categories and having the page show up on google searches.

1) For the categories I read the help page, but am doing something wrong. I am trying to use three different "categories" that are listed as usable by wiki. But am not getting them to appear properly.

2) I can get to the wiki page through the picture and through a wiki link on the "Buffalo, NY" page, but not simply by typing in " Schenck House 1823" on a web browser. What am I doing wrong?

Thank you for your time, Optimumhunger (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Optimumhunger. The categories weren't spelled correctly. I have fixed them. As far as Google or other search engines finding a page, that is up to Google, et al. It takes a while for their web crawlers to find new pages. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As for the page not showing up, according to Wikipedia:New pages patrol "pages that are still not patrolled are not indexed and cached by Google or other search engines".
The Schenck House 1823 article has not been patrolled, so Google are not looking at it. When a new page patroller does look at it, provided they think it is up to standard, they will mark it as patrolled - it will then depend how soon Google crawls it, usually somewhere between 2 hours and 2 days. - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Optimumhunger: Another potential problem is that "Schenck House 1823" is not a standard title for a Wikipedia article. You should not capitalize "house" and there is no need to include "1823" in the title unless we had an article called "Schenck house" about another house. We do have Jans Martense Schenck house about a house in Brooklyn, but that is clearly different. In my opinion, your article should be moved to Schenck house if that is the common name for the house. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

How do I change the Title from "Schenck House 1823" to "Samuel Schenck house"? "House" was capitalized because I copied it from other sources. But I understand for searches it is different. There are 4-5 houses with the name "Schenck" that are historic so differentiation is important. It is known locally and in historical documents as "The old stonehouse" and "the Schenck Estate". Is there a way to title it "Samuel Schenck house" (Buffalo, NY)?

The business of "... pages that are still not patrolled are not indexed and cached by Google or other search engines" is a very recent change. There are 11983 pages listed at Special:NewPagesFeed as waiting for New pages patrol, the oldest being 4698 days. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't find out how recent it is, but in the header of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NOINDEX it states "I can confirm on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation that we will start working on this as soon as possible." That was in April 2012 (So it could well be a "very recent change") - Arjayay (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Not indexed?, Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 October 19#Problem in my page, and Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC#A little bit of progress - David Biddulph (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That wording was added to WP:NPP in this edit about 3 weeks ago. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Above question, and my group wanted to thank everyone for helping us with this page. Thank you !

Citing California Penal Codes

Hello. I asked this question at WP:HD, but the question got archived after being ignored for several days. Here's the archived query I need help with. Thanks.--Nevé –selbert 22:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Often, there is no single right answer regarding which citation template to use. The answer is "any template that contains the fields you need to cite the source properly". One good technique is to look at Good articles and Featured articles on similar topics, and check to see which templates were used to cite similar sources. In this case, Template:Cite act may work for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Neve-selbert! Does Template:Cite California statute work for you? -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks replying, AntiCompositeNumber. I'm not quite sure. Clicking on those two external links, isn't really that enlightening.--Nevé –selbert 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm still not sure how to correctly format the citation, given the lack of info those links provide. Could you please try?--Nevé –selbert 18:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of websites like amazon for referencing product listing

Hi there, I was wondering if it was possible to use websites such as amazon.com or brand websites as references in order to list the products one may have. Thank you for your help KiwiFrenchTouch (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@KiwiFrenchTouch: Welcome to the Teahouse. External links do not belong in the bodies of articles, although they are allowed in references as links to reliable sources. A separate section listing a small number of external links is allowed at the end of an article. Visit the shortcut WP:EL for more information. Linking to external sites like Amazon which sell things is almost always inappropriate. Please read Wikipedia:Spam for more information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@KiwiFrenchTouch: In most cases amazon.com is not a good reference for a product, for they profit from the sale of the product; so they are not an independent source. —teb728 t c 07:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for both answers. In that case, I wasn't intending to promote websites that amazon, but I understand that it is inappropriate. Thanks for your help! KiwiFrenchTouch (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

can't ask my question

excuse me. I am a new user, my user name is میتراداست I can`t ask my question in section ask a question. please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by میتراداست (talk • contribs) 18:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've looked up your name on Google translate, and it seems to translate to Mytradast.

If this is correct, have you considered requesting a username change to change it to the English version?

If it's not correct, then I sadly can't exactly help you. I could redirect you to an actual host, though.

The Phase Master (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, میتراداست. You did ask a question (you appended it to an existing section, but somebody has created a new header for it. But you haven't told us what help you need. Please edit this section to specify what it is you want. --ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, میتراداست, and welcome to the Teahouse! You may be having issues because you have to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Type out your question, and then put the tildes at the end, and we can help you! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 22:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Chala, Peru – Request to explain in Spanish

User:Inca12 has repeatedly submitted a draft that is now at Draft:Chala, Peru. There is already an article Chala, but that appears to be about a region of Peru, and the draft appears to be meant to be about a town. However, the draft doesn’t have enough information to be even a stub on a named place. I am guessing that the editor doesn’t understand my efforts to explain that the title needs to be disambiguated from the region. Can someone please try to explain to User:Inca12 in Spanish that we will accept an article on a town, but the town has to have at least one reliable source, and has to have a title to distinguish it from the region? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The town certainly exists; it's at 15°51′07″S 74°15′00″W / 15.852°S 74.250°W and clearly labeled on online maps. As for the title, I'd leave the article on the town at Chala, Peru and move the existing article to Chala (region). Deor (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I never doubted that the town exists. The only questions were how to disambiguate it from the region, and how to source it. Named places are considered notable, but, like everything notable, must be attributed. As it is, the draft has one reference, which appears to be for the population, but no reference for the location. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Help with review of a draft and final publishing of the article

Hello, I was trying to publish an article about this Indian personality Draft:Shantanu Maheshwari. I made the changes that were suggested, in a more formal tone. Could anyone please review how to improve it and help to get it published? The sources mentioned in the draft are published, reliable, recognized and independent in India. There seems to be a citations issue, which I couldn't figure out. The article has been in the making for quite some time and would really appreciate any help on getting it published. Looking forward to hearing from you. Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phosphenes296 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Phosphenes296. Looks like the page was protected by @Amatulic: so that the protection level will have to be reduced in order for anyone to accept the draft. Looks like it was deleted per this discussion in 2012, but judging by the content of the discussion, the draft you have submitted, and perhaps the notability of the person itself has changed significantly. We can see what Amatulic has to say about the matter. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Normally I would say that you should request temporary undeletion of the deleted article for comparison, but in this case it is obvious that much of what is in the draft could not possibly have been in deleted version, because the draft was deleted 4 years ago, and the draft refers to 2015 and 2016. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: @Timothyjosephwood: @Phosphenes296: there is no history in the deleted version because I merged it all with the draft, which can be seen in my edits on August 15. The entire history of the original deleted article is now in that draft and can be used to compare with the current version. The draft is currently waiting for review. If the reviewer approves, I or any other admin can move the article to main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The statement by User:Amatulic that any administrator can move the article to main space implies that the title was salted after the repeated attempts to re-create the article after its deletion after the deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Since Amatulic seems to want to defer to AfC, any thoughts Robert McClenon? The sourcing seems fairly good. Poking around finds a few thousand stories on news, so there seems to be plenty more available. Given, a chunk of the coverage seems a bit fluffy, but that can probably been expected for a teen pop personality. Sourcing could be improved on the filmography and awards sections, but I don't see anyone trying to take it to AfD over that. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've made a Technical Movement Request. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the draft article got moved to Shantanu Maheshwari. I've been working 20 hour days and wasn't comfortable with my mental clarity and the near-zero time available to me to review the article, so I deferred to others. I'm glad it worked out. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The article was moved to the main space. Thank you all for the assistance and help! ~Phosphenes296

Getting a document on Wikipedia without outside references

I posted a document on an organisation which was rejected because it lacked references from outside the organisation's country. There is no writing about this government based organisation, apart from an act of parliament which established the organisation. How do I get it on wikipedia Sarurai (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If the topic has not been written about other than in the act of parliament which established it, then in my view it isn't notable in Wikipedia's terms, so for now it won't have a Wikipedia article. If in the future it receives significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the organisation it could then have an article. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

How long does it take for a template change to show up in an article?

I inadvertently saved Template:Islamism sidebar with a magenta test color. I changed it back to green, but it doesn't appear to be propagating to articles. It is green on the template page, but magenta on Sayyid Qutb#Political philosophy. I tried viewing on two other browsers, but it is still magenta. Any suggestions, or just wait? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The solution in such cases is at Wikipedia:Purge#Purge request to server. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

User logs

Hi, is there a way to see how much time I've spent on Wikipedia? Just a little point of curiosity, but it would be interesting to know. Does Wikipedia have a tool for this or is there an external application that I should use? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Icebob99. As far as I am aware the answer is no. There is no official status on Wikipedia similar to "being online", and a user is instead tracked by their activity rather than simply their presence. You may however check out this tool for a range of statistics related to your activity on Wikipedia and related projects. TimothyJosephWood 14:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Thanks for the link! Icebob99 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WAM

Reply here 36.253.254.27 (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

bam-a-wop-bop-a-loo-lop-a-lop-bam-boo!

You might get more takers if you gave readers at least some inkling of where that link goes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewer desired

Hi there! Decided to jump into making some edits and creating a page for my favorite resource (have a couple of kids entering school age and found it to be really valuable) - GreatSchools.

Think I created a really good, in-depth and cited article!

There was a tag on there that was something like this is a new page. After the article was up for awhile and had one drive-by user clean up some language, I decided to get rid of it.

However wondering if a new page reviewer could take a look and give any suggestions or an "all clear - approved" type status for it.

Thank you! Cbattleb (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Cbattleb. I haven't done an in-depth review, but I've taken a look. It's quite reasonable for a first attempt (and kudos for managing to write a draft that good in main article space. I always recommend people to start in Draft space). My concern is that the page is too promotional. The thing to realise is that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody, or any organisation, wants to say about themselves. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them. I've looked at several of the references, and while they are all in reliable sources, they are all pretty clearly substantially based on interviews or press release; i.e. a lot of them is not what independent people have said about the organisation, but independent people quoting what officers of the organisation have said about themselves. I haven't looked at all the references, so I may have missed some that are more independent.

Secondly, (again on a cursory look, so I may be wrong) it looks to me as if a lot of the detail of what they do, and especially their products, is not backed up by indpendent sources. In my view, one of the things that a corporation should be least trusted about is which of their products merit mention in a Wikipedia article - very rarely should there be a complete list. Rather the question should be which products have independent people chosen to write about - reviews, or other articles. That should determine what gets mentioned (and if there happen to be any which have been written about unfavourably, that should also get a mention).

I've edited the lead to specify which country in the world the "national" refers to, and to wikilink the to-me meaningless phrase "PK-12". --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look and offering your feedback! I'll do some drafting work and see how I can incorporate what you've mentioned. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time! Cbattleb (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cbattleb. Just a minor point. You should probably use an {{Infobox organization}} template and not an {{Infobox company}} template. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Looks like that change is already in place. Wahoo! Cbattleb (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

My article has been proposed to delete as multiple problems existed. How could I know my problem fixed properly after modified my article?

Please see here my article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockplus. Would you please help me on giving advice about how to edit an article more suitable for Wikipedia?

Thanks and best regards, Grace Grace Jia (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not with the article itself; it is that the subject of the article appears not, by Wikipedia's standards, to be notable. If your objective is to help improve Wikipedia, you should choose some other topic. Maproom (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Although only an essay, and not a guideline, it may help to read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability - Arjayay (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Without addressing the question of the nomination for deletion, I see that the history of the article is a little strange, in that it appears that it was created with multiple tags already included in the article, presumably because the author used an existing questionable article as a template. If you create an article directly in article space, don't leave tags that were left over from a previous article on it. They may be a magnet for negative viewing (which, in this case, may have been appropriate). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Error - warning about using wiki as a promotional vehicle

Got this warning but don't know what item in the article caused the warning...? Beatnut88 (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Beatnut88: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are talking about Kim Carpenter, then please be aware that unreferenced biographies of living people are subject to deletion. This article has no references to reliable, independent sources, which are required. Instead, it has a few external links, which do not belong in the body of an article. I suggest that you read and study the excellent essay called Your first article and the similarly useful Referencing for beginners. Once you understand those essays, you will have the necessary skills to write a Wikipedia article that will be kept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Beatnut88, if you want to make changes about Kim Carpenter, do them at Kim Carpenter, not at the redirect page Kim Carpenter AM, where I see you have been editing. Any changes you make to the redirect page will be lost. —teb728 t c 07:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you like to have the article moved into draft space so that you can work on it without having it deleted? I can move it into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Peridon and I are working with the editor. I think the subject is notable and I am going to help them rewrite/restore it. I think we have this situation under control. --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying from sandbox to production environment

Hi, I wrote my contribution in the Sandbox but now when I try to copy it to the production environment it shows all messed up. What am I doing wrong?Panthersilea (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You're probably going to have to move the whole sandbox by using the more button at the top of the page. It's easier than copy-paste moves and won't mess up the formatting. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Panthersilea, welcome to the Teahouse. Your account cannot move pages because it has less than 10 edits so please ignore the above advice. I have copied the source from User:Panthersilea/sandbox to Draft:Wolfgang Römer with the source editor. I see you use VisualEditor. I don't use it and haven't examined how to copy source with it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing Semi-Protected Articles

I want to edit a semi-protected article. I do not wish to create junk or anything but I can't because I don't have an account and don't want to make one since I am doing only one article. What should I do? 205.189.194.203 (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You can't do it unless you create an account and it's autocomfirmed. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Paste {{request edit}} on the article talk page along with your specific request, and references for your preferred changes, and it will be added to the list of pending requested edits. There is usually a backlog, so it may take some time, but someone will eventually pull it either form the list or it will be answered by one of the regular editors on the article in question. TimothyJosephWood 19:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You can also click the "View source" tab and follow the instructions. Lots of users create accounts to edit one article or use some of the account features without editing at all. That's perfectly fine. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:David Breskin

I reviewed Draft:David Breskin and declined it, noting that large portions of the draft were unsourced, and that the draft appeared to be written to promote his web site. The author, User:Cahadley, replied at length on my talk page. I said that I would request the comments of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The concerns that I have about the draft are tone issues rather than notability issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Just looking into this concerns, I think I can help the article but i hope the creator is not here to promote.--Music Boy50 (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)