Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 608

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 605 Archive 606 Archive 607 Archive 608 Archive 609 Archive 610 → Archive 615

Invalid nofitications

I got these nonsense notifications (nothing has been linked):

Notifications inside, collapsed for readability by TigraanClick here to contact me 15:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What is going on? Also, am I posting in the right place? --David Hedlund SWE (Talk) 13:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi David Hedlund, welcome to the Teahouse. Your post has been moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse. You must have "Page link" enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. The notifications are a delayed reaction to edits to {{Hallucinogens}}. It's the first article edits after the links were added to a template displayed by the articles. The job queue may not have updated the link tables for the articles after the template edit, so the software first registered the "new" links when the articles were edited. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Page link was enabled.
In this case I didn't find ‪Solanaceae‬ on the 25iP-NBOMe article. I still don't get it. Can you please explain more? David Hedlund SWE (Talk) 14:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

user_talk section

Are we allowed to erase old user_talk posts/replies in our user_talk page? Songuitar333 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, Songuitar333. Yes (except unblock requests regarding a current block), but you might prefer to archive them instead. This can be done automagically by placing a notice and letting a bot do the dirty work, see the link I gave. TigraanClick here to contact me 18:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you so much for your help!! Tigraan Songuitar333 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Bad positioning of notes, in Agritourism

Hiya. could some kind editor take a look at the positioning of notes, in Agritourism?

You'll spot a couple of notes that appear after the usual end of an article.

If you correct it, I'll see how you did it, so I learn.

Thanks in advance, Trafford09 (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your problem was that you had included references (within ref tags) after the references section with its {{reflist}} template. I have turned those references into separate external links in this edit, but I haven't assessed whether they are appropriate external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at your edit, David, & I think I follow your gist. Thanks very much, Trafford09 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to know how many articles there are on Wikipedia?

Is there a counter or something? The Verified Cactus 100% 16:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Try the WP:Magic words {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, which gives 6,839,998. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
It's also displayed at Special:Statistics and the top of Main Page (not in the mobile version). PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 22:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Rajput Barsar clan deleted why ???

Hello bro , i created my clan page Rajput Barsar but it has been deleted one week ago. Please tell me why this is happen. I am from punjab and Rajput Barsar is a forward caste there . So please help me . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rao jesh (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The deletion log shows that Rajput Barsar was deleted twice, not a week ago but in January. The second deletion was after the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Rajput Barsar. Rajput barsar has also been deleted twice. There is no record of any article being created by your current account, but it has been noted, for example at User talk:Badal Singh Barsar, that a number of accounts have been making similar edits on subjects in this area, giving rise to suspicion of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


Rajput Barsar is a clan in punjab . Yes it was not created by me but my family and so many other people are belong to this clan of rajputs. I visited this page once but now it is not appears why ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rao jesh (talk • contribs) 06:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The reasons for deletion are discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajput Barsar, Rao jesh. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

how to post an article

how can i start my first article and be successful in submitting it? Qadar008 (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:YFA might be useful for you. Lil Johnny (talk) (contribs) 08:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Another Search Indexing Question

Hello, this is a follow up to an earlier question I asked about search indexing. I'd like to know if there is a setting preventing the Gryphon Investors article page from showing up in search engines even though the related Talk page does.

I recently participated in the creation of the Gryphon Investors page and it was accepted for publication a few weeks ago as Start Class. On Page Information, it shows "Indexing by Robots: Allowed". Within the page code I see <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>.

The last time an update was made to this page was today.

Any advise would be appreciated. Thank you. Arsenl2017 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Arsenl2017: The page will have the noindex tag which prevents indexing until it has been patrolled (a special software feature) or is 30 days old. The feature to automatically noindex new pages is relatively new and has not been coordinated with the claim on "Page information" which only checks other ways to control indexing. I think the 30 days started 11 April where the article was moved from a draft. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, PrimeHunter. Is there a way to ask for it to get "patrolled"?

Arsenl2017 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Arsenl2017: There is no official procedure to ask for an editor with the required permission to patrol a page. Users are not expected to worry about it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
And to explain why that is.. If your motivation is to end up in Google search, then we consider that a bad motivation to write a page :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Writing about a new service

Hi,my name is Jessica. I was about to write about a new service which I came across recently that similar to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickBooks and my article was quickly be removed by wikipedia as its suspected to be a commercial write up. May I know how should I customise the content to fit with the guideline? Please advise. Jessica7989 (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jessica. Your first article will give you a lot of useful advice about how to approach the difficult task of creating a new article. Please be aware that Wikipedia may not be used for promotion in any way: it has little interest in what a subject says about itself, and no interest at all in how a subject wishes to be portrayed. Articles should be based close to 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

using a professor's faculty webpage information as source for biography

Can I use the information a professor of mathematics provides on her website for my biography on her?

thanks MauraWen (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MauraWen. Her website does not contribute to her notability. Please read our Notability guideline for academics for what is needed to establish her notability. If this professor is notable, then her website can be used for non-controversial biographical details such as her degrees, previous academic positions, and similar things. The shortcut to the relevant policy language is WP:SELFPUB. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This person is notable because of a professional mathematics award she received. She is on the women mathematician redlists of notable WikiProject Women that I am working thru.

MauraWen (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

A template didn't edit

I edited Template:Barcelona Metro Line 2 route map because it was showing old/outdated names of the open L9 Sud stations that Line 2 will share with Line 9 when the extension opens. However, when I checked the article (Barcelona Metro line 2), I found that the changes I made to the route map hadn't carried over to the article. Do you know what's going on? Thanks, DraconicDark (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@DraconicDark: It takes some time to rebuild a new page structure with all the newest template changes included. You can request that be done immedately by the 'purge' command. It appears as a link along edit/history/watch above or below the whole page. It can also be presented as an asterisk – try hoovering the mouse cursor over it and see the tooltip text. --CiaPan (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@DraconicDark: This is a link to force purging: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barcelona_Metro_line_2&action=purge --CiaPan (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@CiaPan: Thanks. DraconicDark (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File moving from en to commons

Hi! I am an Active Tamil user! I would like to use all files related with Wikiproject Scout in my wikipedia. So Please move all files to commons which are in Scouting category. Such as logos of Scout association and etc shold be moved. Hope you'll reply. Thank you.--Shriheeran (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Shriheeran. Only files which are public domain or released under a licence such as CC-BY-SA may be hosted on Commons: Logos are nearly always copyright protected, and can only be hosted on individual Wikipedias, not commons. (I haven't checked those particular ones, but I would be surprised if itwere any different). What I suggest you do is look at the file descriptions in English Wikipedia, and you will probably find URLs showing where they were uploaded from - then you can upload them to tawiki (assuming tawiki's rules on Non-free content are satisfied). --ColinFine (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I like it FranciscoQ001 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Advice Requested - On Multiple Non-Neutral Articles

I am not entirely sure where I should be asking this. I don’t want to take a good-faith editor who is violating Wikipedia policy with good intentions directly to a drama board. User:AngelicBeaver has created multiple articles in article space, one on each of the principles of the Black Lives Matter movement. They have put the following comment on each of the talk pages: "I am a part of a group of two people attempting to create articles for each of the guiding principles, defining how the guiding principle is understood within the context of Black Lives Matter, as well as how it is or is not implemented within the movement. Edits or suggestions are welcome to improve the article." I have replied on their talk page that this appears to be a violation of Wikipedia is not a web host, and of neutral point of view. My thinking is that the articles should be replaced by redirects to Black Lives Matter, and that an article on each principle is of course fine on the movement’s own web site, and the Wikipedia article can and should link to the web site. However, I am not comfortable just arbitrarily changing articles to redirects. Should I nominate the articles for Articles for Deletion, not on notability grounds, but as incapable of being made neutral in their current form? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This should definitely be brought up on WP:ENI, it's a course project issue. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:; also pinging @Seraphimblade: who G11'ed everything created by one of their classmates. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like these need to go too. Either G11, or AfD, or if they would be plausible redirects (which I kind of don't think they would), we could do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I contacted the article author and they've agreed to deletion, so they can now be done under G7. But given this issue, and a similar recent issue I was involved with, I think we need to very carefully consider how we engage educational organizations. I don't want students and instructors to end up having an experience like this. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
One of the three articles had been deleted by G7 (author request). There were still three remaining, for which I have submitted a bundled AFD. In my view, they aren't candidates for any of the speedy deletion criteria. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a matter that should be discussed with the Wiki Education Foundation. I know a couple of their staffers and they are good people who take these issues very seriously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
These issues seem to pop up al the time when it comes to school projects and have been discussed before at WP:ENB. Basically, students are working on their drafts with what looks like very little input from their instructors. Most of the feedback they get seems to come from other students in the same class. Lots of these drafts are then directly moved to the article namespace without any sort of formal review, which in turn means that many end up being tagged/nominated for deletion for one reason or another. I understand the principle of allowing anyone to create an article at anytime, but I feel there might be some merit in encouraging students to not move their creations to the article namespace themselves until they can be approriately reviewed. The student's grade should not depend on whether what they create is in the draft namespace or the article namespace. If the draft has merit, it will eventually be moved; if not, it will still be there for the instructor to evaluate before it's eventually be deleted. Just my two cents on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that these issues are now happening more often with educational projects than they should, and they don't do anyone any good, not the instructor, not the students, not WMF, not the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm as a general rule one of the people who is contributing to this issue (as in creating the problem) and I know others at my school, while not creating random pages, have created [problems for Wikipedia]. Is there some way to propose a block on educational institutions at the first case of WP:Vandalism or WP:NOTAWEBHOST violations? It could be considered in violation of WP:AGF but it's a chronic problem and there should be a policy for student abuse of WP. Creeper Ninja (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please assist in one simple edit

James Washington Humphreys https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Humphries&action=edit&redlink=1 regarding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_Inter-Allied_Games

by James Blair Humphreys (Grandson and namesake)

Please correct (or reply with simple instructions) the spelling of the last name (Humphreys) and add middle name (Washington) Jashumph (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I have changed "James Humphries" to "James Humphreys" in the article Athletics at the Inter-Allied Games. It would be good to have some published evidence for this change: the cited source in the article refers variously to "James Humphries of Texas", "Humphries, U. S.", "James V. Humphries, U. S.", "Humphreys, James W.", and "Humphries, James W., Pvt". Maproom (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Protecting

How do o protect a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvjkyitfudrtdfgudyfgfthdxhft (talk • contribs) 21:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gvjkyitfudrtdfgudyfgfthdxhft: Only administrators may protect a page. You may make a request at WP:RFPP, if the page is being persistently vandalized for example. RudolfRed (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Creation of an Article

Hi there ,just wondering if there is a way to submit the articles so that they get self formatted ,like a template ,i love to research on various subjects from varied sources and i can get the wiki pages updated or created if need be. Thanks Wiki for all the helpful articles a great source of reliable knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greendevil1356 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Greendevil1356. When adding new content to existing articles, the most important thing is to provide one or more references to reliable sources. Please read Referencing for beginners to learn how to create properly formatted references. As for new articles, please read Your first article, and you can use the Article wizard to assist you through the process. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Changing page title

Hello, I'm trying to change a business page title (we've rebranded), but I don't appear to have the rights. Any suggestions? Or can someone assist?

Link to page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_University_College

The business is now called CU Coventry. As you can see here: http://www.coventry.ac.uk/cuc/

Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks, Adam.

Adam.Hartland (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adam.Hartland. When I look at the web page that you linked to above, I see a copyright notice for "Coventry University" at the bottom. It does not say "CU Coventry" as the copyright holder. Wikipedia does not change article titles based on an organization's "re-branding" efforts, but rather we give titles to articles based on what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic. So, in this case, far better sources would be those independent of the university which report on the name change. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Another point, Adam.Hartland. When you write "we've rebranded", that implies that you may be trying to edit this article as part of your job duties. If this is the case, then you must comply with our disclosure policy for paid editors. This is mandatory. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Boxes

How do you make boxes, like the kind barnstars appear in? WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  Teahouse Reply
Hi WikiSquirrel42. Looking at code and grabbing and modifying it, playing around and so forth is often the way to do things. Here, you could go to Wikipedia:Barnstars, navigate to a few of the many provided on that page, once at one of the barnstar's template pages, click edit, and then copy the code, just as I did to make this reply. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Still learning how to edit and create pages. Have just created EdenTree. Hope it's right? I'd like to upload the logo for EdenTree and Allchurches Trust How do I go about uploading the logo in infobox? Seems really fiddly process. Is there a page on this somewhere? Can someone talk me through ... Thanks for your time. Joelionheart (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Joelionheart See Help:Files#Uploading files. Yes, it's kind of "fiddly", because we have to be very careful not to violate copyright. --Thnidu (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

publish

how to publish my pageSriganesh123 (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sriganesh123 and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to know that Wikipedia is not a social network that allows editors to publish pages about themselves, but it is an encyclopaedia that publishes articles about many topics, including notable people. Please read WP:Autobiography and WP:Biographies of living persons. If you have been written about elsewhere in multiple independent reliable sources, then perhaps you could request that an article be written at WP:Requested articles. Dbfirs 06:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Request Editing Ideas

Hello! I am new here, I am really glad to join the community. I will try to give out the best information I could provide to the world. I don't really know where to start. So please give me some topics I might be able to cover.

Thank you ✓ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theerockzz1 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Theerockzz1 and welcome to the Teahouse.
My most emphatic piece of advice is that you spend some time learning how Wikipedia works before attempting any ambitious projects, such as creating a new article on a new topic. I've placed a welcome message on your talk page that has a number of helpful links. I don't see that you've gone through The Wikipedia Adventure yet, which is a worthwhile thing for new editors to do, even if it seems a bit childish.
Spend some time improving existing articles. There are organized lists of suggestions on the WP:Community portal page that are a good way to get your feet wet on small edits before you start to tackle bigger projects. It looks like some of your first edits have been reverted – I realize this can be discouraging or frustrating, but we at the Teahouse would like to see you succeed and become a valued contributor to Wikipedia. Ask us questions. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

conflict of interest

I'd like to write a page with information about a particular poetry festival that is notable - a fact-based page with dates, names and a history of its development. Would it be a conflict of interest issue as I am the chairman of trustees?Belatrovapete (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Belatrovapete: Yes, it would be considered a conflict of interest. We discourage editors from creating articles about subjects where they have a close connection, but it's not disallowed outright.
You could try creating a draft article. Drafts exist outside the main article space and are at less risk for deletion. It would give you more time to develop the article, and then submit it for review by other unaffiliated editors. If satisfactory, it will be published - if not, you will receive feedback for further revisions.
There are some important considerations that you should know about:
  1. A proper disclosure of your affiliation is recommended. In fact, if you are receiving compensation for your work here, it is required.
  2. You should review Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines - there's also a simplified version.
  3. Note that topics must be notable, with more specific guidelines for events at Wikipedia:Notability (events). You will be expected to provide links to reliable third-party sources to establish this event's notability.
  4. Avoid using copyrighted text as this would constitute a copyright violation, and will be swiftly deleted. This applies even if you are the copyright holder.
  5. Be aware that an article must be neutrally worded and cannot be used for the purposes of promotion or publicity.
  6. You won't have any right of ownership or editorial control over an article you create. Any editor acting in good faith may make changes at any time. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and article content is arrived at by consensus.
Hopefully this hasn't frightened you off, but rather informs you of the care and consideration needed to craft an article that will be accepted. You certainly did the right thing by coming here first and asking for our advice, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Good luck to you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thank you --Drm310, very useful information, and helps clarify my position. I shall take the draft route and submit it for review.81.129.202.111 (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Article on Aurangzeb

I am new here. I observed that in the article on Hinduism in Wikipedia, a sentence, "destroyed Hindu temples and persecuted non-Muslims", with a link to, "Persecution of Hindus" is mentioned. I want someone to add that same sentence (or better still, it could be, "persecuted Hindus", with the link to "Persecution of Hindus") to the article on Aurangzeb, using the same references 476, 478 and note 33 in the lead/introduction. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvankaTr (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello IvankaTr and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like we failed to respond to your question the first time around.
The best place to make a suggestion like this is on the talk page of the article in question. You could title your section "Edit request". You could also just be bold and make the change yourself – that's what Wikipedia is all about. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding a photograph

How can I add an image to a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaywardSoul (talk • contribs) 05:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, WaywardSoul! Hopefully Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images can answer your questions. :) --CiaPan (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability.

Firstly I have drafted this article with same contents then it was contested for copyright or plagiarism. Now that I have gotten official email from the website owner where this profile was already published, it is rejected once again due to not notable resource. I want to reassure that the author, whom this article is about is a genuine scholar and have a plenty of publications on said references websites. It is worthy to be published in Wikiepedia. I will improve and update sources if any in future. Thanks. Me.en.mine (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of your text seems to be an unattributed quote from Ellen Gould Harmon White. Is it plagiarism by the website you used? Dbfirs 18:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Me.en.mine, presuming this is about Draft:M. A. K. Aurangzaib Yousufzai, the subject might be notable but you need to demonstrate this by citing multiple independent sources that discuss him in depth. Sources are also needed to meet the requirement that article content is verifiable by readers. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
... and all of the plagiarised content, and the unreferenced opinion needs to be removed. Dbfirs 09:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources for film and TV plots

What constitutes RS for this? I have seen the "show itself" and "need secondary/tertiary sources". Is there policy on this? It seems that the vast majority have no citations. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The common practice seems to be that the work itself is a sufficient "primary source" from which an editor may briefly summarize the plot. There are more details at Wikipedia:Plot summaries. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, jmcgnh! Jim1138 (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ken Ham Article

Hi, I was just wondering why it says in the Ken Ham article:

[Ken Ham] "believes that the Book of Genesis is historical fact and the universe is approximately 6,000 years old,[n 1] even though scientific evidence shows the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe about 13.8 billion years old.[2][3]"

To me, that sounds biased against Ken Ham (no offence) especially since it is at the very beginning at the article. I think it would be better to move the statement about how old the earth is to somewhere else in the article, but I'm a new user and I don't want to make a rash edit without more opinions.

Please let me know what you think! MollytheMouse (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It says he believes that on the basis of the book it cites as reference 1. There is also a footnote titled "Explanatory notes", which quotes his (and his co-author's) views on the age of the earth. Personally, I would be in favour of removing the clause starting "even though". I don't think the article on Ham is a suitable place to be told what scientists believe. Maybe that clause could be replaced by "a view incompatible with the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth." Maproom (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, MollytheMouse. Ken Ham is notable only as a supporter of a fringe scientific theory, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which reflects the broad scientific consensus. It is not proper, in my view, to describe Ham's fringe theory without making it crystal clear that his theory is not accepted by mainstream science in any way. The beginning of the article is called the lead and it should summarize the whole article, and the article should summarize what high quality reliable sources say about Ham. Since reliable sources make it clear that his theory is fringe and far outside the mainstream of science, then I believe this clause summarizing the well established scientific consensus about Ham's theory is appropriate. Perhaps the wording can be adjusted a bit. The relevant content guideline is Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which says that we should not denigrate the advocates of fringe theories. A brief statement of the scientific consensus is not denigration, in my view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! MollytheMouse (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Confused as to why my article was rejected.

Hello, I wrote a piece on a company I had come across but it was rejected for not being notable. However, the article has a plethora of outside independent sources. Can you help me understand what is wrong?

Draft:Inflectra

Nicacedric (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nicacedric: If I take a look at your "references", the first doesn't mention it at all, the second gives it a one-liner mention in a table (and that table doesn't even confirm the fact the reference supposedly supports, the number and location of customers), the third doesn't lead anywhere but to a 404, the fourth only mentions "Inflectra" in a couple of footnotes, and the fifth only name drops it without going into any detail. In order to demonstrate notability, it is necessary that the subject of the article (itself, not the area it operates in, not its general principles, etc.) be substantially covered in detail by multiple reliable sources independent of the article subject. If such reference material exists, you need to rewrite the draft to use those references instead, and stick carefully to only facts those references actually do confirm. If such reference material doesn't exist, Inflectra is not a suitable article subject at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How to capitalize all characters on an article

Hello! I've been researching and seem to have run in to a dead end. Musical group LOCASH has an article that has incorrect page title capitalization. They are listed as "LoCash" which is not correct. It is always stylized uppercase. I attempted to use {{DISPLAYTITLE:LOCASH}} but it returns a warning: "Warning: Display title "LOCASH" was ignored since it is not equivalent to the page's actual title." But it does seem to be equivalent to me. Thank you in advance for your help. Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoCash Peterstormer (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Peterstormer, and welcome to the Teahouse. The page was moved from LOCASH to LoCash on 14:41, 9 January 2015 by TenPoundHammer, with a reason stated of "per facebook". You could ask for it to be moved back at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Or if there are reliable sources which indicate that LOCASH is the preferred form of the name, i could do it for you. (Since a redirect will need to be deleted, an admin will need to perform the move.). If you want me to do this, please reply saying so and indicating the sources which demonstrate that "LOCASH" is the proper form. DES (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#General rules. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! The band's PR agency has their name in all caps on all press releases: http://websterpr.com/locash

And the band demonstrates it in all caps in the display name on all social channels: https://www.facebook.com/locashmusic/ https://twitter.com/locashmusic https://www.instagram.com/locash/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgBFV7xhOXo

If it's not possible to change it to all caps, it should at least not have a capital C in the name. If you don't mind, would love your help making the change! Peterstormer (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Advice for a returning rookie.

Hi all. I don't know how long it's been since I've made any useful contributions to Wikipedia. But I've had exams and IRL stuff happen for 3 months. But in any case, I've returned to continue my journey on becoming a successful Wikipedia editor & I'd just like to get some advice for my return.

When I first started, I was told by Gronk Oz (I think that's the right person) to start out small and make little edits to pages with mistakes and such.

So, what new advice would you give me? Cypher7850 (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back, we can certainly use your help.
If you see a WikiProject that covers an area you are interested in, joining that project and working on its "To Do" list would be a great way to start contributing. Check out the WP:WikiProjects page, particularly WP:WikiProjects#Finding a project. You can also find projects by looking at the talk pages of articles you are interested in to see if there's a banner for a WikiProject that's looking after the article.
To get more diversity in your life, you could go to WP:Community portal and select from the organized lists of articles needing particular kinds of edits. There's always lots of cleanup needed and making these smaller edits will build up your experience and exposure.
And if you run into any difficulties, the Teahouse is here to help! — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back, Cypher7850. You can very easily check when you last made contributions by going to Special:Contributions/Cypher7850 (which there is a link to in the top-right of the screen when you are logged in). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How is album art added when we only allow CC-BY-SA images?

I want to add album art to some album articles like I have seen for other articles, but isn't most album art copyrighted?

Scarkrow03 • Talk 19:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Scarkrow03. We allow limited use of non-free copyrighted images here under a claim of fair use, where they meet our stringent standards for that exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law. The area is complex, but here's some rules of thumb (which have extraordinary exceptions):
  • You can use images like the cover of an album, or a film poster only in, respectively, an article on the album (not one about the band), or on the film (not one about the actor);
  • The image can only be used once the article is in the article mainspace – not when it is in any other namespace such as drafts in the userspace or draft namespace;
  • The image must be uploaded locally, to this Wikipedia, and not to the Commons (where, by contrast, public domain and suitably-free images should be uploaded);
  • The image must be of relatively low resolution;
  • Generally, only one fair use image will be allowed per article;
  • If there is an existing free image that serves the same general encyclopedic purpose, even if not as good, no fair use image may be used;
  • You must provide a suitable, filled-out, fair use rationale and a copyright license upon the upload, for its use in one location that your rationale targets as a proper subject of its fair use; and
  • In general, no fair use images of living persons are allowed at all.
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist edits

Is it possible for anyone to edit a Watchlist? Is a watchlist "owner" able to tell, by means of a "history" or any notification?--Quisqualis (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis. I assume some of the developers could do so. Barring that, no. Administrators, for example, cannot even view your watchlist, much less edit it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How can editors know what noticeboard claims will be seen frivolous?

I received this comment from admin Bishonen on my talk page today. (extended discussion) I am being warned of a lengthy block. My question is - how can I know what claims an admin will consider frivolous before I file them? If I am going to act in a way that leads to a "lengthy block" I want to know before I do something whether that action is allowed or not. It is not meaningful to say "Note that this does not mean you're not allowed to file complaints at noticeboards." This is overly vague - it means a sanction can be imposed solely on a judgment call of whether a complaint was "frivolous" - even if I have made that complaint in good faith, there is no way I can avoid sanction with certainty unless I don't post any complaints on noticeboards. This would have a "chilling" effect - I am posting here to seek advice about this from other editors. Seraphim System (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ask one of the people already discussing it on your talk page, Bishonen will most definitely be able to help you understand the policies around your actions, for pete's sake look at their pages, and this: [They don't agree] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creeper Ninja (talk • contribs) 00:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The question is not whether or not User:Jytdog is running sockpuppets, I have already discussed with the folks at SPI and I understand what kind of behavior patterns they are looking for. Obviously I will not file more SPI claims - that doesn't change the fact that we are talking about sanctioning an editor who consistently acts in good faith for some nebulous and unknowable offense. That incredibly humorous post does not help answer my question about creating an opportunity for abuse by allowing sanctions based on a vague term such as "frivolous complaints" - this would allow arbitrary application of sanctions to non-disruptive editors, which I am discussing on my talkpage Seraphim System (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


  • You pinged me and I am not sure why. (in my view which I think reflects the common one, you can talk about an SPI filing that happened to be about me and not ping me, as i am not the topic in this discussion. if i were the topic, yes you should ping me). Since you did... What you are ignoring is WP:CONSENSUS which is the foundation of this whole place. What that policy recognizes is that the work done to build and maintain WP is done by a community. A community of individuals. That only works if we listen to each other. Really listen. That is both content-wise, and behavior-wise. So if a bunch of people are telling you that you are screwing up, (for instance, making very serious charges that have no actual basis) you should listen and not argue that what you did was OK. I am pretty infamous for being harshly clear (as I am doing now) but I know this about myself and I hear it when people tell me that it is a bad thing (it can be a bad thing). If i were just to essentially say "go screw yourself" when people criticized me (which is what you essentially did at SPI, on your Talk page, and here) I would have been thrown out of here ages ago.
Bish was being very kind to you (!) by taking time out of their day to write that long thing, to try to help you understand this CONSENSUS thing. Pure, gratuitous, kindness that they didn't have to do. I reckon that Bish did that because you have a lot of promise as an editor and because you are showing signs of self-destructing (by reacting so negatively and defensively when people are telling you that you are screwing up). So please - hear the advice. Please try to become more resilient and able to hear and respond positively to the criticism that comes when you screw up in a community. And most importantly try to actually learn from it.
Answering the OP. If you haven't done it, it is really useful to read a bunch of filings at ANI, SPI, and AE to see what works and what doesn't (not to judge what you think is best -- look at what works and what doesn't in terms of the outcome in light of the the kind of case, who brings it, how the evidence is presented, and what kind of evidence.) There is a ton of case law to study  :) (by the way, "knowing what works and what doesn't work" is a key part of WP:CLUE - that is a link to probably the most important little essay in Wikipedia) It takes time to acquire clue, and while you are acquiring it, it is good to walk gingerly, checking yourself as you go. I don't know if you have come across or started relationships with any admins or experienced users whom you respect and who have wide respect in the community (both are important to consider). If you are considering going to a serious board like ANI, SPI, or AE, ask a couple of them via email before you take action. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System, I am going to limit myself to a couple of brief comments. You have received excellent advice, both here and on your talk page, from several highly experienced editors. I encourage you to heed that advice and also to go out of your way to avoid conflict. I have been editing Wikipedia for eight years now, have written many articles and expanded many more. In addition, I am, I believe, the most active Teahouse host. I have never once been caught up in any lengthy conflict at SPI or ANI or any other noticeboard. That is simply because I try to avoid conflict unless it is absolutely necessary, and also that I am sure that my own behavior is proper. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Cullen328 I have noticed the definition of what is WP:DUE changes between different language editions of Wikipedia. To help reduce systemic bias, I have decided to translate some of our English language articles for addition to Turkish Vikipedia. This way, I can be sure that my conduct is proper, and avoid conflict - because these articles are consensus versions and have been written by our established editors. To that end, while I have you on the line, can you please remind me which policy governs cross-wiki translation, and how to correctly deal with attribution issues? Thank you Seraphim System (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System, you can find a lot of information at Wikipedia:Translation, including how to attribute properly. However, not all of our articles are "consensus versions" which have been written by "established editors". We have over five million articles and frankly many of them are of poor quality. Only Featured articles and Good articles have gone through an organized review by experienced editors. I suggest that you start with them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System There are currently 3325 featured articles and 19955 good articles that have not yet been translated into Turkish. Here is a list of featured articles from the English Wikipedia that do not have a corresponding article in the Turkish Wikipedia. Mduvekot (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Mduvkot Thank you, that was useful. Seraphim System (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The subject seems to have changed, but I'll respond to the original question. It's strange to me to see Seraphim System practically quoting my own rhetorical question when I warned them — "How, then, can you know in advance whether a complaint you make will be deemed frivolous and put you at risk of a block?" — but ignoring the answer I gave: ".. I suggest that the only safe way is to ask an experienced user you trust, preferably an admin, and abide by their advice". Instead Seraphim System complains here at the Teahouse that my warning "means a sanction can be imposed solely on a judgment call of whether a complaint was "frivolous" - even if I have made that complaint in good faith, there is no way I can avoid sanction with certainty unless I don't post any complaints on noticeboards. This would have a "chilling" effect," etc. @Seraphim System:, didn't you see my suggestion for 'a way to avoid sanction with certainty'? If you ask a trusted, experienced editor (and to make sure you don't misjudge these qualities, better make it an admin) in advance and are given thumbs up by them, then I won't blame you, and certainly won't sanction you, for filing a complaint, even if I personally shouldn't happen to think it was the most constructive complaint. My personal opinion won't come into it. I'm sorry this wasn't clear in my warning. Note that if you insist on filing your next complaint without taking any advice, you'll have to take your chances for it being seen as frivolous, not just by me but by everybody who responds (as was the case with your recent AE and SPI complaints). Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 16:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC).
Ok, I will ask an admin before filing a complaint in the future. Seraphim System (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How to mark a Start article?

Dear editors, My first attempt to create a page was unsuccessful. I tried to describe a term (Lean Brand) and it was considered as promotional. After I spoke to a kind editor by the name of GermanJoe and we figured out that I am not paid to edit Wikipedia, I would like to ask for feedback on starting another first page. I am a Lean enthusiast and would like to start with things I am familiar with. My goal is for my next attempt to mark a page as a Start Article and ask editors for feedback, engage others in discussion in order to produce a valuable content. So, how do I mark it as a Start Article, so it is known that it will need more work on it? Thank you in advance! 94.156.176.146 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Assuming this is about Lean Brand (←click on that to see its deletion log entry), are you sure we would need a separate article on this, rather than a redirect to either of the existing articles, Lean manufacturing and Lean startup? (I am truly asking; not being rhetorical; I have not studied this sufficiently to see whether this is just an alternate title, or if there is sufficient overlap [and maybe then, a section in one of those existing articles can be developed, rather than a stand-alone article]).

Lean Brand was deleted for reading as blatant advertising, and after viewing it, it did read as highly promotional. Please read the Neutral point of view policy, WP:PEACOCK and WP:NOTADVERTISING. To give you an example, an encyclopedia article would never properly say (in Wikipedia's voice): "...is renowned for its focus..." "...embraced in the business world..." In essence, the entry read like a commercial trying to convince the reader of how wonderful the subject is. In any event, if you are going to pursue any type of article, I suggest creating it as a draft, through articles for creation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I wrote above "(←click on that to see its deletion log entry)". I now realize that will only work if you are logged in, so, here's a direct link.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
"not paid to edit Wikipedia" is not the sole criterion for writing an article. A more definitive criterion would be "has no connection with the company (other than usng their products)". For instance, you might be an owner, "friend," consultant for, or employee of Lean--Quisqualis (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
.. also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. It doesn't define terms, it has articles about subjects. If the subject denoted by "Lean Brand" is covered by Lean manufacturing or Lean startup, there's no need for another article about it. Maproom (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Having issues dealing with conflicting sources and not wanting to violate WP:Synthesis

I'm working on my first article about Lilias Armstrong and unfortunately a lot of my sources don't clearly agree with each other about basic facts like names and dates when it comes to her early teaching career (see what I've written so far sentences 2–4 of paragraph 3 in Early Life: "She began teaching in 1906...at East Ham Central School").

Is it better to explicitly summarize each source, so instead something like:

According to her file in the Teachers' Registration Council Registers she was an assistant mistress at an school whose name is illegible from 1906 to 1910 and was the senior assistant mistress at Higher Elementary School from 1910 to 1918,[ref1] and according to her obituary in The Times, she worked as the senior assistant at the Higher Elementary School from 1906 to 1918.[ref2]. In the forward to her 1932 book, her colleague Jones wrote she taught for seven years prior to 1918.[ref3] A paper by Andrzejewski says she taught at East Ham Central School in London from 1910 to 1918,[ref4] and a book by Collin & Mees says she was a senior mistress at East Ham Central School.[ref5]

That just seems really clumsy.

Or, it okay to primarily trust her file in the Teachers' Registration Council Registers since that source is the oldest, is the only source directly about her teaching history, and it's the most nuanced (e.g., it lists two schools and two positions whereas all the other sources just list one school and position), and then just say explicitly when other sources say something different, either in the text or in the reference footnote?

That's sort of what I've currently written (see link above), although I'm not really happy with it.

(In the past when I've had conflicting sources it's easier to figure out what actually happened and then mention the others in a footnote, as I've done in footnotes 8, 17 and 18. Hopefully those are okay?)

Thanks for any advice, sorry if this is too specific or if I'm rambling too much. Umimmak (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia only accepts what it says in published sources. The Times is a published source, Council Registers are not. (This rule can have surprising effects, for example a birth certificate is not accepted as evidence of date of birth.) You don't generally write about the sources in the article, you just cite them, so this might be possible: "she worked as the senior assistant at the Higher Elementary School for 7[4] or 12[5] years." Maproom (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
But they don't even all agree with what the name of the school was or what her position was,[quick edit: even ignoring the register] so then it'd have to be like "she worked as the senior assistant[2] or senior mistress[3] at the Higher Elementary School[2] or East Ham Central School[4][5] for 7[3][4] or 12[2] years." [Quick edit: this doesn't seem to be desirable either, or do you think this is okay and I'm overthinking it, Maproom?] Umimmak (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe, and I hate to say it, the best option is just to cut out all these sentences and just say "She taught French at a school in East Ham for several years", and just not bother with any specifics when it comes to which school, how long, or in what capacity. Umimmak (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey Umimmak. Published, for purposes of the verifiability policy, is interpreted as meaning "made available to the public in some form". As such, whether a reliable, primary source is published may depend on the laws of the country, region and even really quite local laws. In the U.S. for example, some death certificates are "published", because they are publicly available, while some are not. This may also depend on age. For example, in New York City, "modern" death certificates are unpublished, because they are restricted to family members and certain other (see here), but death certificates from 1949 and earlier are publicly available and thus "published". So it's highly context-specific. The same is true for birth certificates and so forth.

I hope this helps clarify the issue sufficiently for you to come to some conclusion yourself on whether the Council Registers' file is published and usable. With that in mind, primary sources, though they must be used with care and only for certain purposes, depending on how they are situated, may be by far the most reliable sources for certain types of information. When I have had a similar issue, and where I believe the primary source is the end-all, be-all for the information at issue, I have cited the primary source with a footnote explaining the contradiction among sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, that helps. The Teachers' Register in question was "published" on Findmypast (link); it requires a paid subscription but anyone with one can verify it. (Unfortunately I've yet to find a free link, even though I imagine one really should exist somewhere. Umimmak (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_608&oldid=1149962984"