Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 546

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 540 ← Archive 544 Archive 545 Archive 546 Archive 547 Archive 548 → Archive 550

Biography of a person

How can I write a biography of a person? is there any template I can use? Swijewar (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Swijewar: Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question is answered at the Help Desk. Please don't ask the same question in more than one place. RudolfRed (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure about a template, Swijewar, but I suggest that if you do create an article, you create it as a draft via Wikipedia:Your first article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Swijewar:Actually there is a template, which is also a template (the term "template" in Wikipedia is generally used in a different way that the term you meant, but in this case we have a template which is your kind of template.) Template:Biography.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, How can I clean the red link to a userpage or a username that has been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riswa (talk • contribs) 10:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Riswa, and welcome to the Teahouse.
There are two approaches to changing the color from red to something else. You can unlink the text (remove the square brackets), which will turn the link into ordinary text or just edit the link out entirely. Or, you can change the link to point to a page that already exists. If this was your own user space page, you might be able to recreate the page, depending on why it was deleted.
Or, I guess you could use STRIKEOUT markup, but that's not usually what this form of markup is for.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Riswa: There is rarely reason to remove a red link to a userpage. Where and why do you want to do it? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Issue uploading photos for a historic property

Hello, I'm hoping somebody can help me.

I am an archivist uploading images to a page about a historic house and farm.

Currently, some of the images I am attempting to upload will not. The error message reads "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons."

I am currently reading the guide now, but does anybody have any suggestions? These are images that can be used as my own or within fair use.

Thank you.Pcaserta (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Pcaserta. If you personally own the copyright of the pictures, then you can upload them, releasing them under a suitable licence as you go.
If you do not own the copyright, but your intended use of them will meet all the criteria in WP:non-free content criteria, then upload them to Wikipedia (not Commons), as non-free images. The criteria include their being used in at least one article (not draft).
Otherwise, you will need to get the copyright owner (which may be the photographer, or someebody else if the rights have been transferred, or the photographer was working under a contract which assigned the rights) to license them freely, by the process in donating copyright materials. Just giving you permission, or just giving permission for them to be used on Wikipedia, will not be sufficient. --ColinFine (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this information.

What if the pictures come from the Library of Congress? They are public domain, and I have no read the criteria, so I'm assuming those would also be ok to place onto Wikipedia? PcasertaPcaserta (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Pcaserta, I have reuploaded the image here. The problem seems to have been that the original photo from the LoC was available for public use, but the picture you submitted was a photo-of-a-photo as it appeared in a non-government published work. The file you uploaded will still probably need to be deleted for this reason, but the original I uploaded should be fine. Hopefully this clears things up. TimothyJosephWood 17:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Pcaserta: Not everything in the Library of Congress is free from copyright. Far from it. This image is not your own because you did not take it. This particular image is actually free from copyright, because it is the work of a photographer working for the U.S. Federal government as part of the Heritage Documentation Programs, specifically the Historic American Buildings Survey. Works created by the U.S. Federal government are free of copyright according to U.S. law. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Why my page is deleted?

I am confused why page User:Mohammad.Mesbah/sandbox is deleted from wikipedia, I have also requested to change username is this is the reason of deletion? 119.152.87.200 (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The person who nominated this sandox page for deletion said that "the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals." The contents of sandbox pages must have a direct connection to improving the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
If you click on the link to User:Mohammad.Mesbah/sandbox, the deletion log will show you that the admin who deleted the page said that it also violated criterion G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". --David Biddulph (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
As an administrator, I can read the deleted article, which began Well-seasoned, strategic, proactive, international HR professional who will be a catalyst for inspiring a collaboratively driven performance culture that engages all members of the workplace community in implementing new age, innovative, integrated people management solutions that will drive business success and went on for 1700 words more in that vein. Wikipedia only accepts neutrally written articles on topics which can be proved to be noteworthy through coverage in significant sources; we're not a general directory or a place to post advertising. ‑ Iridescent 17:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
If I had read that, I would have referred to it as marketing buzz-speak in the WP:G11 nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is this place so hard to find?

Why is this place so hard to find? Shouldn't this be closer to the front for new users next to a searchable FAQ? Usename policies (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Usename policies, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Most new users receive an invitation to the Teahouse on their Talk page, especially after they've had an article rejected. It's hard to know where to put notice of the Teahouse's existence where lost newcomers will see it and understand why they might want to come here. Do you have a specific place in mind? You may even be able to make the necessary change yourself – nearly all of Wikipedia is open to be edited by anyone, only a very small fraction is protected.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking for interested editor to review revised entry

Hello, I've drafted a revised entry for an existing entry that has several flags. I've been able to get feedback from an editor on some formatting issues, but I'm having trouble finding an interested editor to review for content. I'm especially interested in having an editor review as I have a conflict of interest (disclosed on my user page) in that I volunteered to work on the entry for the organization the entry describes. Any suggestions as to how to find one?

The entry is the Committee on Sustainability Assessment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Sustainability_Assessment. I've proposed an article revision on the associated talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Committee_on_Sustainability_Assessment The editor Maproom kindly shared formatting changes that need to be made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maproom#Next_steps_to_revise_existing_article

Many thanks in advance. K.Emanuele (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@K.Emanuele: Your question raises some very interesting implications. In a sense, all Wikipedia editors have some sort of mild "conflict of interest" because we choose to edit articles about topics that interest us enough to motivate us to edit, and choose to ignore the overwhelming number of articles that interest us less. In the case of those who are paid to edit a certain article, experience tells us that promoting the topic of that article all too often overwhelms the goal of improving the encyclopedia . That often leads to problems. However, you say that you are a volunteer. I began editing Wikipedia in 2009 as a volunteer writing biographies of people who were leaders of a group that I am a longtime member of, the Sierra Club. But I edited on my own without instructions from anyone and followed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the best of my abilities. None of my biographies or any other articles I started have been deleted. As long as you place the goal of improving this encyclopedia first, as opposed to promoting the interests of the organization, then there should not be a problem. Defer to experienced good-faith editors lacking any involvement with the topic, and all will be well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

When something is clearly singled out for personal promotion, how to adress this?

I have serious grievance with this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_by_design

It is a about one persons attempt to take the term "Privacy" and "Privacy by Design" hostage for her personal promotion while providing unclear descriptions/evaluation criteria and ZERO solutions that would ensure privacy.

All mentioned examples are with clear security problems and thus NOT abiding to the Privacy Enhancing Principles as agreed at the 2003 EU Workshop on the topic. [See e.g. page 3 here http://blog.privacytrust.eu/public/DG_Justice_Security_Economics_Engberg.pdf]

At the same time, true Privacy by Design solutions and technologies are getting ignored.

I would reject the page in its entirety as every element contains serious problems and the links are selected for the single purpose of taking terms capture for personal PR while ignoring serious science.

How to address this?Sjewiki22 (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sjewiki22.
Using the words "serious grievance" indicates a degree of involvement with the subject that could result in non-neutral editing. Be careful.
Since this is a conflict about the content of one page, the best place to discuss it is on the Talk page of the article: Talk:Privacy by design. You can edit the article to challenge individual mis-statements with the famous "citation needed" tag. But, ultimately, the content of the page will be decided by a consensus of the editors paying attention to the page. You can start a formal request-for-discussion, which may enlarge the circle of interested editors, if you continue to feel grievance, but this may result in consequences for you or the other editors if the behavior exhibited falls outside Wikipedia norms.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I am indeed expert in the field. That is why I am asking as to the proper process to respect the principles of resolution. Our problem is not "citations needed", but the selective choice of (mainly self-referencing) citations while excluding all contradictions in order to assert claim on right to define the field.

Sjewiki22 (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sjewiki22: jmcgnh told you to interact with the editors on the page and/or its talk page. That is how page content is determined on Wikipedia. I don't see any sign that you have attempted to do so. So if you don't like the content, it is your own fault, for you have done nothing about it. (Read also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.) —teb728 t c 09:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Create a new page

Hi

I have created a new page which i would like to get featured on Wikipedia. pls could you let me know how can i submit the same.

Deeps p (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming that you are talking about User:Deeps p/sandbox, before thinking about submitting for review you need to read WP:Your first article, and also read about external links, reliable sources, and referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 12:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

help me in editing

Hello TeaHouse, I recently uploaded my new article i.e Murder of a Tree so I want to know that did anyone read it and if there is something wrong in my editing so please inform me so that i can upload a next episode of this story. Thank you, zeba rasheedZeba Rasheed (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You have not uploaded it as a new article, but to your user page User:Zeba Rasheed. What is there is not suitable as a user page, nor is it suitable as an article. Please read WP:Your first article, and read about notability. If you are writing a story, Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web hosting site. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New contents on already present topics.

If there is some missing content from a topic and i am adding that but after sometimes it gets deleted.. Please help me how to add it so that it last long? MUKUL SACHAN (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I moved this from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Questions (yes it was placed on the redirect). -- GB fan 13:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

How to request for article creation?

How and where can I request for an article to be created? I am not good in writing an article and I would like to request my fellow Wikipedians that are more experienced and talented in writing and using Wikipedia. I do not want to ask it here because I feel that there is a specific page for that.
Thank you
- Jeth888 (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jeth888. Please see Wikipedia:Requested articles. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Trying to populate a page that keeps redirecting

Hello,

I'm trying to populate Grant Cutler's page with his own information, not have it redirect to Gayngs. He isn't an active member of Gayngs, but he is a noteworthy composer in his own right. I can't move the draft I created because this page with his name exists.

Here is the draft I want to publish: Draft:Grant Cutler

Can you help me? I find this all very confusing.

Thank you! Allegra Aerocreative (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Aerocreative, and welcome to the Teahouse. The way to do this is described here: Moving over a redirect. However, I am not convinced that the composer is noteworthy in his own right (or notable as we say on Wikipedia). Your draft only includes a handful of references, most of which are written by his record label. Topics need to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to be considered notable. The references in the draft do not reflect this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Allegra. I would suggest, if you think that he is notable in Wikipedia's sense, that you start an independent draft using the article wizard. If your draft is eventually accepted, the accepting reviewer will sort out the redirect. --ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I made a Facebook group for Wikipedians. Would it be OK for me to ask in WP:Teahouse if people are interested to join this group? Amin (Talk) 11:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Amin:
It's okay to ask, but the general consensus of WP editors seems to be that discussions between editors should generally occur in plain sight on Wikipedia, usually on Talk pages.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Amin: There are many Facebook pages related to Wikipedia, including an official page run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Another popular page is called Wikipedia Weekly, which was started by Andrew Lih, who wrote a book called The Wikipedia Revolution. There is nothing wrong with discussing Wikipedia editing in other venues, as long as the conversation is constructive and open. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Cullen328: The Wikipedia Weekly FB group seems very active. I have requested to join. Thanks Amin (Talk) 15:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Will my article be approved?

I'm looking to write an article for Wikipedia. The article might mention various examples of this tool, aka products. The intention of the article is not to market any products (hence why I would include multiple types to not show bias) but I would like to provide examples for comparison and explanation. Is this allowed? A.spallek (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid the question isn't answerable without more details about the subject of the article. New articles on Wikipedia are required to meet guidelines for notability, regardless of the topic. TimothyJosephWood 16:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


To add to what Timothyjosephwood said, A.spallek: another way of looking at it is that Wikipedia is not interested in what you (or I) think, or know; and it is certainly not interested in what anybody who is connected with a product says about it. It is only interested in what people have published in reliable sources - and preferably, people who have no connection with the subject. An article about a range of products would probably be acceptable, if there are already reliable independent sources which discuss the range of products, and the article was based entirely on what those sources said. If there are no such comparison sources, but for each product there are reliable sources independent of that product, then it might be appropriate to have an article comparing them; but the comparison should be limited to what these independent sources say, and not draw any conclusions for itself. If the only sources about a product are not independent (the company's own website, or articles based on interviews or press releases) then Wikipedia should not take note of that product even in a comparison article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick addition of templates to Wikipedia pages

I've seen people fire off uw templates very quickly while editing Wikipedia. Is it something I am able to do as well, or is it a poweruser thing? Preferably I'd like to just have a way to undo an edit and select a uw template from a list. Thanks! NOTNOTABLE (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, NOTNOTABLE. Have a look at Twinkle. It requires a certain level of competence, because you need to understand the things that it does on your behalf, since you are responsible for them; but it certainly lets you deliver warnings and add maintenance templates easily. --ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, that looks exactly like what I was hoping for! I'll try it out! NOTNOTABLE (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

How can I get my draft back into my user page?

I redirected for reviewing and now don't know how to get it back to make amendementsPogga D (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can make amendments at Draft:Annette Elizabeth Clark; you don't need to move it back to your user sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Occasionally new editors seem to think that once their draft is declined they have to create a new draft in their sandbox rather than editing it in draft space. This results in multiple copies of the draft. Is there some way that we can make sure that new editors know that they don't need to create a new draft back in their sandbox? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The pink "declined" box at the top of the draft says "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page", so I'm not sure that we can make it much clearer. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing

How do I get to the graphical editor? Sir7 16 (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sir7 16. If you mean the VisualEditor, go to the editing section of your preferences; make sure there is no checkmark next to Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta; click on the drop down menu below that and select "show me both editor tabs" (you could also select "always give me the visual editor if possible", though there are many limitations and bugs in VE so you may need to use wikitext editing at times). You can also add ?veaction=edit to the end of a Wikipedia URL to invoke the visual editor. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I encourage you to give it a try again for regular editing. It's changed a lot since 2013. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

why

why cant I edit open workkkk?????????Allyouedit (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Allyouedit Is User:Allyouedit/sandbox what you are looking for? —teb728 t c 21:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Paul Clark (designer)

I reviewed Draft:Paul Clark (designer) and declined it because it had a copyvio tag. The offending material was then removed, and it was resubmitted, and User:Shadowowl declined it as reading like an advertisement. User:Design Archivist then wrote to my talk page: 

Hi Robert, Our submission has recently been declined again on the grounds that it reads like an advertisement. I contacted Shadowowl the reviewer via their talk page for some advice and clarification, however all the talk has been deleted from their page now and we didn't receive a response. I wanted to find out which language they found objectionable. We are a non-profit, educational archive with nothing to sell for ourselves or on behalf of Paul Clark. Only one of the 18 references is originated from us. So we are confused as to why it has been declined. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, as while little-known, we believe the subject to be worthy of a Wikipedia page. Many thanks.

I first asked who is “we”. I also wonder how a “little known” modern subject is “worthy of a Wikipedia page”. I am aware that promotional language does not have to be promotional in support of a profit-making enterprise, but some new editors don’t know that, or that neutral point of view is applicable to non-profits also. Other than that, do other experienced editors have any comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I got a picture from a site online, says like, this is licensed under the creative commons 3.0 law or something like that. There were copyright signs on the picture, but I though it said I could share/post it. Can I use the picture or not? Here's the link to the page i got it from: http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?enlarge=4444+4444+1106+0437. Just search up kuhlia malo in the search if I tripped a law and delete the picture. Is this a good place to as for help as to improving an article? Just wondering as a side note.Newrunner769 (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Newrunner769, and welcome to the Teahouse. Licenses are never "something like that"; there are very exact terms for each license and not all of them are the same. The license of this image is "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0". Each of those words (right down to the version number) have significance. The problematic term here is this: NonCommercial. It means that the image cannot be re-used for commercial purposes. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons do not accept NonCommercial only licenses. Why? Because although Wikipedia is non-commercial use, some of our re-users are not (eg. people who print, bind, and sell Wikipedia articles as books). This is in line with the definition of free works (works that can be used by anyone for any purpose, even commercially). In short, no you cannot use that picture here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I was very confused about it, but now it's pretty clear. newrunner769 (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:LedgerLite

I reviewed Draft:LedgerLite and declined it as reading like an advertisement. Its author, User:MattyJ44, then asked me on my talk page: “Are you able to tell me specifically which text in the article reads like an advertisement so I know what it is I need to change.” Well, I don’t like to be asked exactly what reads like an advertisement so that it can be changed, because that is the question asked by an editor who is being paid to get an advertisement accepted. (Is the author the developer? If so, that is a conflict of interest.) I don’t see one specific aspect of the revised draft as having tone issues, but I also don’t see that the draft establishes notability. Do other experienced editors care to comment? (I also reviewed and declined Draft: Springs Junction as inadequately referenced. It was about a named place, which is notable under WP:GEOLAND but requires verification, but didn’t have a reference about the named place. User:MattyJ44 also asked me about it, saying that they had added sources. I don’t think that there is any remaining question about it, because I assessed it as a stub but accepted it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The second Draft has now been accepted and in mainspace, and as for the first one, it would especially benefit from actual reviews. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm the author of Draft:LedgerLite and I'm also the developer. I've declared the COI on the article's talk page and also my user page.MattyJ44 (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@MattyJ44: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft article is referenced to unreliable sources like blogs and non-independent sources controlled by your software company. These types of sources do not establish that your software is notable. Your draft is promotional because it does not summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

the article I submitted yesterday was turned down, I wish to know why

the article I submitted yesterday was turned down, I wish to know why, but the ask question page is wayyyyy to complicated for my low coding skills (read nonexistent)

Typhon Antaeus (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Typhon Antaeus - I assume you are referring to User:Typhon Antaeus/sandbox ? - as it clearly states at the top of the refusal:-
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Several of those words on your page are highlit - so clicking on them will take you to the full explanation of the requirements and the "how-to" - Arjayay (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse Typhon AntaeusYou need to establish notability by adding references that show there is widespread coverage of the subject in reliable sources, if there are no sources then sadly we cannot have an article on Wikipedia.Theroadislong (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Image Copy Right

Hello,

If I created the content for images and I am the one trying to create a page related to that topic, shouldn't the photos get approved? If so how do I challenge the copy right deletion of photos on my article?

Thank you! Henry.raether (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Henry.raether: all your image uploads were deleted from Commons for copyright violation. The likely cause for this is that the images are all available online and you need to show that you haven't just uploaded images you have found online and that you are the copyright holder of the images i.e. you took/created the original image. The most convenient way of doing this is to go through the Interactive release generator but do not use this for the logos. Even if you represent the company whose logos they are you should not release them under a free licence as by doing so you are giving anyone the right to do anything they want with the logos - this includes any commercial competitors you may have and I suspect this is something you don't want to do. Instead once there is an accepted Wikipedia article, not just a draft, about the organisation you can upload the logo to Wikipedia, not Commons, under the non-free content criteria. Nthep (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Question About Draft Moved into Checking Area

my draft, for submission, is moved to a checking area for submission. It is no longer in the user space, bye bye.
and then it gets deleted. After I get around to hinting about it and want to re-edit it ...
so, how to get it back ? Dave Rave (talk)
Hello Dave Rave. Ask the deleting admin to give it back. Unless it was deleted as a copyright violation, they will probably restore it or email it to you. —teb728 t c 21:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Dave Rave - I have looked over your edit history and talk page. I see no evidence that anything that you submitted was deleted. You have created a number of user pages that are not ready for submission, but are still in your user space. I don't see that anything was deleted. What do you think was deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I made a small rail station one for Warialda Rail. It was moved to the submissions area (procedures? I don't know them all)
Might be because I used the draft templateing from the creation page rather than start with a blank page, it was moved to AFC and that draft: no longer exists
"The page will shortly be deleted.", hmmm, I was warned. still, would have been nicer to leave the user page alone and copy it to the afc rather than move it. oh well Dave Rave (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Dave Rave - I finally see what happened. The problem is that it happened so long ago that I didn't search back that far. You created a draft, Draft:Warialda railway station, in July 2014, more than two years ago. You submitted it for acceptance. It was declined. What then happened is that in January 2015 you were notified that it had been nominated for speedy deletion as a stale draft, left alone for more than six months. It was then deleted, because speedy deletion can be, well, speedy, in this case, after six months of being in limbo. You say it would have been nice to leave the user page alone. That wouldn't have really mattered. Regardless of whether it was in user space or in draft space, it would have been deleted in six months. I could say that it would have been nice if you had followed up on it in less than six months, but that is what happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dave Rave: as it was deleted under this abandoned submission process, it can be reinstated for you to continue work on it now. To avoid unnecessary bureaucracy by getting you to make a refund request, I have restored it on the basis of your original post here and it's at Draft:Warialda railway station. Note until you edit it further it is at risk of redeletion for lack of editing. Nthep (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I translate an existing article?

I'm from Romania and the wikipedia article about derivatives in romanian is not well done. Is there any problem if I translate the english version of the article to romanian?

Ciocan.Cosmin98 (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ciocan.Cosmin98
Provided it is properly attributed, there is no problem - please see Wikipedia:Translate us for the do's and dont's - Arjayay (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Different Wikipedias have different rules, so you should really ask there. I believe German Wikipedia, for instance, requires that the history be imported (e.g. by importing the English article to your sandbox and moving it to main space after translation).--Boson (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Challenging notability for section within article

On the Romeo Dallaire article, there is a section titled "Song" in which people who have written songs about this person have included their works. None of these songs have citations or ref of any kind, and seem promotional rather than actually legit. How do I proceed? Do I remove the section? Or tag it?Aphra (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Aphra, I moved the section to talk. It is definitely 100% unsourced, may be original research, and is very likely WP:TRIVIA even if it were source. If whoever added it wants to talk it out and maybe find a way that this would be appropriate, that conversation can certainly happen. But if not, I don't think the article is going to suffer without it. TimothyJosephWood 19:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Timothy, agreed. Thanks.Aphra (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:SWARM project (energy)

I reviewed Draft:SWARM project (energy) and declined it as not having enough independent sources (one) and saying that German Wikipedia should not be used as a reference. User:MUC-Panda then asked: 

Dear Robert, meanwhile the SWARM project ist listed in the DOE's Global Energy Storage Database. In addition, the project (better: the project partners) was awarded with the Bavarian Energy Award. This gave me two good independent references. Please be so kind as to check whether the draft is worth to become an article now. Otherwise please give me a hint for further improvements. Many thanks in advance,

Do any experienced editors want to comment on whether the draft is ready for acceptance? Do any experienced editors have any other comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The subject is a joint project between two businesses – so it's unlikely to be notable. Of the four references in the draft, (1) confirms SWARM's existence but has no significant discussion, (2) is not independent, (3) shows that it has a record in a database, and (4) names it as a winner of a non-notable award. I see no evidence of notability. The issue is not a need for "improvements", it's that the subject lacks notablility. Maproom (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

bot keeps labeling page as an orphan

The entry I have recently created, Murray S Hoffman, keeps being labeled as an "orphan page" by a bot. I have linked it to other pages and when I click "what links here" under Tools on the left all 5 entries which link to Murray S Hoffman show up in the list. So, why does the bot keep putting a notice at the top of the page?LungImaging (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello LungImaging! That bot you keep reverting was only adding the date to the {{orphan}} template which had been added by a different bot. You have now successfuly removed the template, and the bots shouldn't bother you about it anymore. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 19:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

How to cite a US District Court decision?

I cannot find out how to cite a US District Court decision. I have found {{cite court}}. And I know the decision is labeled 15-cv-421-bbc, from the Western District of Wisconsin. But after that I am at a loss.

The case is Whitford v. Gill, by the way. It is the one in the news this week striking down a partisan gerrymander, relying on a relatively new statistic. M.boli (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@M.boli: the final decision in Whitford v Gill (formerly Whitford v Nichol) is so recent that it may not have been formally reported yet. Some of the preliminary decisions have been reported hence the citation 15-cv-421-bbc. Until such time as it appears in a Reporter I'd tick to citing it with a link to a reputable news source covering the case. Nthep (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Righto! I'll put in some minimal text for now, update it in the future. Thanks muchly. M.boli (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

can't get the page curator up

I have looked for it everywhere, but i can't seem to find the page curator tool in the tools section, even when i did all it wanted me to do. Please help! Newrunner769 (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Newrunner769. Just to be clear, you have 1) traveled to an article that is in the NewPages feed (because you will not be given the option unless you are visiting an article that is); and 2) the Curation Toolbar is not open on the upper right of your screen when visiting one of those articles; and 3) when you look under the tools menu while still there, you do not see a link for "Curate this article"?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I can't seem to find it at all. I went to a new, completely unreviewed page, and it still din't say "curate this article". newrunner769 (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Newrunner769:! After a recent Request for Comment, a new user right is needed to use the Page Curation toolbar. Please read WP:NPR, and then you can apply for the user right at WP:PERM/NPR if you meet the criteria. This change was implemented on November 16. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 01:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Newrunner769: Thank you for sorting this, AntiCompositeNumber. I have updated the instructions at Wikipedia:Page Curation, in this edit, so hopefully, this will be less likely to confound other users in the future.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked Pages

Is there a way i can access a page thats been blocked to "prevent vandilism" or is it there for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RekdRhymes (talk • contribs) 01:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@RekdRhymes: some pages are protected indefinitely, others for a set period of time. Longstanding editors can edit any page. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. If you want to edit a page you presently cannot, see Wikipedia:Edit requests. (I have moved your question to the top as the instructions say: "Please place it above the last question asked, so that it will appear at the top of the page!") – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, you will be able to edit semiprotected pages when your account is autoconfirmed, meaning it's 4 days old and has more than 10 edits. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Warning template edge cases

So I've been confused a few times by the templates vs edits where multiple apply. The one that confuses me the most is is deletion of (sourced) content as well as unsourced content or badly sourced content. Do I add the deletion of content template? Do I add the badly sourced content template? Is there some combo template I don't know of? The real issue is the combo of both, and not one or the other specifically, as removing content is bad but usually test editing, and adding of unsourced content is bad but likely good faith, but replacing content entirely is a whole different animal in my book. Anyway, I'll stop rambling. Basically, is there a priority of warning templates or should I just make a combo template? NOTNOTABLE (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings NOTNOTABLE and welcome to the Teahouse – Article Board game contains an example of template {{multiple issues}} which allows tagging of any combination of individual templates. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@JoeHebda: I'm confident this is about User talk warning templates. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

what is considered sufficient content for an article

I have been editing an English language article on coop@home (Draft:Coop@home), working on making it as encyclopedic as possible. I think I may have gone a bit too far now, as I focused on making sure every statement in the article could be backed up by a reference. Is it possible to get an idea of what would be considered long enough to be sufficient for an article, and also is the language in each sentence too brief now or is it okay? Thanks a lot for your feedback! Jrbleprg (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Jrbleprg. The main thing we are looking for is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. That is how we determine if a subject is important enough for an article. As far as I can tell none of your sources provides such coverage. You should consider the possibility that coop@home may not be important enough. —teb728 t c 10:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback teb728, I really appreciate it :-). I've added more references so that five of the top six newspapers in Switzerland are referenced, plus one of the biggest English language news network in Europe (The Local). In most cases these are stand alone articles about the subject, rather than just paragraphs in an article, but any thoughts on how many stand alone articles by reliable references you prefer to see would be great to hear. I'll continue to work backwards through the news stacks to dig up previous coverage. It's an interesting challenge! Jrbleprg (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Learning To Write

Hi There, My name is Jemmy and I am on Wikipedia to see if I can learn some good points about writing. Do you have any suggestions for good learning tools?Jemmy2006 (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

HiJemmy2006 (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jemmy2006, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can read: Wikipedia:Writing better articles and Wikipedia:Your first article. Just about any question you have on style will be covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It's always worth to look at some of Wikipedia's best articles, found here: Wikipedia:Featured articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

How to get a Wikipedia page to show up, in a Google search?

Hi,

I set up an English wiki page for the actor, Richard Flood,

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

This is most based on his Spanish page,

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Flood.

The problem is, the English page, doesn't show up in a Google search. Is there some kind of keyword section in the Wikipedia edit area, that I should be filling in?

WikiWhatthe (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiWhatthe: I don't think there's anything we can do. There's a tag that could be added to prevent (or at least deter) Google from indexing the article, but not the reverse. Google's spiders have a mind of their own. Maproom (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles sometimes take a day or two to appear in a Google search, but they are typically near the top of the first page of results when they do appear. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@WikiWhatthe: There is a recent feature some editors don't know about. New articles automatically have noindex added to the html to prevent search engine indexing until they have been reviewed by Wikipedia:New pages patrol which can take months. It varies how long it takes Google to index an article after they are allowed to but so far they aren't allowed. No wiki code can affect whether an article is indexed by search engines. The relevant codes are disabled for articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi WikiWhatthe. For future reference, you should provide copyright attribution when your perform a translation of existing content through an interlanguage link in your edit summary. I have fixed this for you (see the article's history). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Damn, I feel helpless. How do you actually reply, to specific people? Maybe just point me to a tutorial on this.

Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for the attribution tip.


PrimeHunter, there is indeed a meta tag, visible by viewing source in the normal manner, from Chrome. This is probably the reason.

<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>

Thanks for all the suggestions, I'll spend more time learning about the rules and techniques. WikiWhatthe (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to understand what's going on with this issue, but I'm having trouble following the comments above. This is not a particularly new article: it's been around since 29 October which should be enough time for indexing. And I have looked at the source, current and old, but I can't find the meta tag described above: where is it? --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
It's on line 19 of the source code. Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I have done some copyediting and marked it as patrolled and the code has now disappeared. Theroadislong (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
and already, Google is listing the article. Maproom (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

One last attempt to understand this before I admit I'm beaten: Firstly, I have been assuming that "viewing source in the normal manner" means clicking the Edit button - correct? When I do that, using the version before Theroadislong's changes, line 19 was the first line of text under the heading "Biography", and it does not show anything like the meta code above. Am I looking in the wrong place? Can you give me a hint of what was before or after it, because Find can't find it either and I would like to learn how this works... sorry to bug you again. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: 'viewing the page source' in this case referred to inspecting the webpage html, not just the wikitext for that article. In Chrome, for example, you can right click on any page, click View Page Source, and a tab will open showing the HTML code that is rendering the entire page you're looking at. Hope that helps! Sam Walton (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Aha! Thanks, @Samwalton9: I can see it there. One day maybe I will learn how that bit of code got there, and how Theroadislong fixed it. But for now at least I know I have not gone completely insane.   --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: Something was recently fixed that makes it so that when a new article is unpatrolled the software adds the noindex tag in the html. Once someone has patrolled it (as Theroadislong did), the tag is removed and the page can start showing up in Google :) Sam Walton (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz:: the html that gets delivered by Wikipedia's server does not depend only on the wiki source for the page. (I too thought that it did, but it obviously doesn't: redlinks are red and bluelinks are blue, something has checked to see if the linked article exists and done the appropriate coloring.) Maproom (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all that, everybody - it all makes sense now. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Holy sht, Batman. It's out there now, in a Google search.

Thanks, @Theroadislong, @Gronk Oz, @Samwalton9 and everyone, for the assistance.

WikiWhatthe (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Joe Fournier

I reviewed Draft:Joe Fournier and declined it as having a non-neutral tone. Its author then asked me: 

Hi Robert,
You declined my submission citing it was "written to praise".
That certainly is not my intention - i've would really appreciate an example in the text that I can correct before I do another draft.
Many thanks for your time
Ric

On further review, I don’t see any one place in the text that contains peacock language, but the draft is clearly “working” at establishing the notability of someone who doesn’t satisfy boxing notability and doesn’t appear to satisfy general notability. Do other experienced editors want to comment? Did I make a mistake in declining the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I am an experienced editor but I am not experienced in AFC having avoided it for some years after being horrified by its poor standards of reviewing. I think the draft should not have been declined. The article is clearly none too satisfactory in some ways but marginal decisions like this should be community decisions and not left to individuals. I think (1) the tone is reasonably formal (but "Joe" is not) but substantial content is too personal (and so, I suppose, too informal) for my taste. (2) Multiple independent reliable published sources are referenced (and GNG has been met). (3) I'm not bothered about NBOXING because the subject is not solely a boxer. (4) I don't see the article as being written in praise. (5) I can't readily judge whether the material is NPOV without investigating to see if other sources express differing facts or opinions. What I have said merely expresses my opinions and they are not necessarily more valid that your opinions. I would not expect everyone to agree with me at an AFD. I think it wrong when AFC arrogates to itself higher standards than AFD would possibly apply. However, thank you for asking and thank you for the considerable beneficial work you do at AFC. Thincat (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

How can I access a wikipedia page thats been blocked for vandilism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RekdRhymes (talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You haven't stated which article this is affecting. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi RekdRhymes, welcome to the Teahouse. If you cannot edit a protected article then you can click the "View source" tab and follow the instructions to submit an edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

How to get a copy-edited article reviewed?

Hello! I recently took up an article to copy-edit. I'm very near to completion of the edit (it includes quite a change in the structuring and organization of information on the article). I wanted to know how I could get in touch with someone who's an expert at copy-editing and can review the version of the article I wrote and decide if its worthy to replace the original one. The copy-edited version of the article is currently on my talk page. Jiten Dhandha (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think that your copy-edited version is on your talk page; you may have intended to say that it is in your user sandbox? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Jiten Dhandha: it seems to me that the changes you have made are improvements. But I have one comment, about an apparent error which was there when you started and is still there. The first sentence of the article says "The Brigade of Gurkhas is a term for units of the British Army ...". I don't think this can mean what it says. Does this mean that each such unit is called a Brigade of Gurkhas? Or that all such units, taken together, constitute the Brigade of Gurkhas? Maproom (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
David Biddulph, the copy-edited version is indeed in my sandbox, not on the talk page. Sorry about that; I should've checked my question properly before posting it.

Maproom, I'm not quite sure about it since history isnt my area of expertise. From what knowledge I gathered while copy-editing the article, I think the term "Brigade of Gurkhas" refers to all the units together. I gather this from a line on a page about them that said: "The major units of the Brigade today are...". If you have more suggestions on how the edit could be made better, feel free to post about it on my talk page (it would also help in documenting some of the changes so that I can improve in future).Jiten Dhandha (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what it's intended to mean. If I did, I'd have edited it accordingly. Maybe add a "clarify" tag to the sentence? Maproom (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The earlier version of the lead is clearer; "Brigade of Gurkhas" is the collective name which refers to all the Gurkha units in the British Army. ‑ Iridescent 18:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Iridescent. "collective name" suits the sentence best and gives the correct meaning as well. I'll make the change in my sandbox.

Also, I'd like to know if there are forums for discussion related to copy-editing. I added my name in the Guild of Copy Editors list but I was unable to find a place where queries like these could be answered. I want to be an active member of the guild and contribute to the best of my skills, but I'm not yet confident of them. It would be of great help if there was a place specifically for copy-editing purpose (either a forum or someone's talk page, preferably one who deals with similar edits) so that I could put up articles for review. Jiten Dhandha (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The copy-editing brigade should have a talk page where you can ask questions and get second opinions. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Pardon me, I didnt quite understand the "copy-editing brigade" part. Do you mean the talk page on the "Brigade of Gurkhas" article? Also, thanks for reviewing my article; I highly appreciate it. 21:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiten Dhandha (talk • contribs)

Adding images to Wikimedia Commons

I'd love some tips on the best way to add images to the Wikimedia Commons. I've read Wikipedia's guidelines on copyright and images, but I don't understand how to learn if an images meets these standards. As a result, I get stopped at the "Release rights" step in the Upload Wizard.

How can I determine if an image I found on the internet is acceptable for the Wikimedia Commons (and Wikipedia articles)?

Can someone offer some tips for finding this information and adding images using the Upload Wizard?

Drstvnld (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello to Tea House
You can find information here
Best wishes
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 02:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_546&oldid=1089516311"