Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 638

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 635

Archive 636

Archive 637

→

My page enVerid Systems, Inc. got blocked.

Hi,

The page that I've submitted 2 weeks ago got blocked for the following 2 reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sashawarnerpr

I'm trying to get some clarification on what needs to be changed/adjusted in order to be approved. Can you please help me understand that? Would highly appreciated.

Best, SashaSashawarnerpr (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sashawarnerpr: I can't see your page since it was deleted(not blocked). However, the 'pr' in your name suggests to me that you are a public relations employee within the company you are writing about. If that's true, it would be a conflict of interest(please review) and you would also be required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to read and comply with the paid editing policy and declare any paid association you have with the company.

Without seeing your page, I'm not sure why the Test page criterion was applied- but I can say that the other criterion was likely applied because the page did not indicate with independent reliable sources how the company meets the notability guidelines for companies. As an encyclopedia, it isn't enough for a Wikipedia page to merely give information or simply state that a company exists. If you do have a conflict of interest, the only way you will likely be permitted to write about your own company is through Articles for Creation, and that's only if you have the appropriate independent sources. I'd suggest reading the FAQ page about organizations and the page on creating your first article before even attempting to create a page at Articles for Creation. If you have any other questions, please post them below. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sashawarnerpr: your wording "what needs to be changed/adjusted in order to be approved" assumes that something could be done to get your proposed article accepted. I think your assumption is mistaken. Maproom (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Sashawarnerpr. After it was deleted as a blatant advertisement, you recreated the title but with an inquiry about the deletion itself rather than with the prior content, and asked what part of the page was blatant advertising. The answer is the entire page, which was lifted from the company's press release here (and so was also an illegal copyright violation), which not only reads like a commercial, but actually is one. This is a misuse of Wikipedia, which is not an advertising platform. It any acceptable page was possible (and after edit conflicting with Maproom above, I must say I agree, no page is likely possible) it would need to be written in an entirely different manner, not to sell it, but to present a neutral write-up, referring to published, reliable, secondary, independent sources that have written about it is substantive detail. If those types of sources don't exist, no acceptable article could ever be written. Emphasizing something already listed above, do not make any further edits at Wikipedia until you comply with mandatory paid editing disclosure.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

is this relevant

is a passing mention that someone has a ratemyprofessor score of 3.2 of 5 in violation of BLP (or perhaps OR)? I don't see how it's germane to anything. Asmrulz (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Asmrulz. The only time I might consider including that in a biography of an academic would be if it had been reported in a secondary source such as a newspaper article. Otherwise, I would delete it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks, so I did Asmrulz (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Good. The other one (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ralph Yirikian

Can someone please fix the article Ralph Yirikian? Please ping me when responding. Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well @The Quixotic Potato:, do you have something in mind that you'd like to see fixed? If so, I'd think that the Talk page for the article (*which is currently empty*) would be a better place to propose changes. Also, if you can make the changes yourself, please be WP:Bold and do so yourself, within the limitations of the Wikipedia guidelines. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@NsTaGaTr: Hi! I currently have 6710 preparsed articles on my AWB todo list, so I am kinda busy. You can get a good idea about the stuff I would like to get fixed by looking at the edit I made on that article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, The Quixotic Potato. I think you might have misunderstood what the purpose of the Teahouse is. The Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia, not to ask other editors to do tasks that you have identified but don't have time for. We could perhaps suggest places to ask for help with this, but you shouldn't expect Teahouse hosts to fix the article for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: You are way too kind! Thank you. In fact I am fully aware of the fact that this place is not intended to ask other editors to do tasks I have identified but don't have time for but I am also aware of the fact that some of the people who hang out here are willing to improve articles like this one, and that they won't mind me asking. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The help desk or Village Pump (miscellaneous) might be a better venue. Or the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, if there is one and it's reasonably active. That said, your approach seems to be working

Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 22:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

using photos from our facebook page

Hi. I am a member of Sen. Panfilo Lacson's media team, and had been editing/updating the Wikipedia page for Panfilo Lacson. I uploaded 2 photos from our Facebook page Monday night, July 10. The photos on our Facebook page are for public consumption but Wikipedia deleted them this morning, July 11, citing copyright violation as the reason. While our Facebook page has not yet been verified, it has been continuously updated. Would it be prudent to just re-upload the photos and indicate them as our work? Sorry, I am relatively new to editing articles on Wikipedia, and I do get confused by some of the questions in the uploading process. I'd appreciate some guidance. Thanks. Iampinglacson.media (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Iampinglacson.media, and welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia only allows freely-licensed photos of living people to be used in articles. Most content is not freely-licensed unless the copyright holder has released the image so anyone can use the image, for any reason, including for commercial purposes. Because there was no evidence that the images are freely licensed, they were deleted. If the copyright holder (usually the photographer, unless they have signed a legal document transferring the rights) wishes to make such a release, they should fill out the form at c:Commons:Email templates and send it to permissions-commons

wikimedia.org. Once that is complete, the images will be restored, so you should not reupload them yourself. --AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 01:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

unsure about needed edit

i was looking through an article, and found a wrong statement. it was a broad enough error that it caught my attention, but i do not know the particulars enough to feel comfortable editing it myself (never edited before). advice?68.26.161.63 (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to go to the talk page and explain what's wrong. Then someone else can come along, review the situation, and help you fix it. You can also add a "{{citation needed}}" tag, which will add a template stating "unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Though when you add one of those, you're supposed to explain yourself on the talk page, so you'll be doing that either way. Player 03 (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Page Creation

How can I add a new page? Peter Kelford (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peter Kelford: Hello and welcome. I would begin by stating that successfully creating a new Wikipedia article is one of the hardest things to do here. It takes time, practice, and effort to learn exactly how it is done. Many new editors who dive into doing so often experience difficulty. Editors that start out by making edits to existing articles often fare better because they have learned some about how Wikipedia works and the sorts of things other editors look for in articles. If you still want to attempt to write an article, I would suggest reviewing this page about doing so first, then visiting Article Wizard, which lays out the steps in creating a page. Good luck, and if you have any other questions, please post them below. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about a file

I want to know is there any problem with the file File:Mirza Muhammad Rafi Sauda.jpg which can lead to its deletion in future?

Sinner (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Assuming the tagging information is correct, the file is a faithful reproduction of a work of art from 1770. Going by Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights, the work of art is therefore out of copyright in India (and in the US).

However, the question is whether the file itself is out of copyright since the tag says it was taken off a Google search. In the US a faithful reproduction of a painting would be, but I am not entirely sure that is the case in India. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

For more information visit last section of this talk page

Sinner (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Omar Amanat article and COI

Hi, I have no idea if this is the right forum for my question, but I have been trying to get some help with an issue, and so far have gotten nowhere. It appears to me there is someone with a clear COI making false statements on the Omar Amanat article. I addressed the issue on the article's Talk page, plus I carefully followed the directions to post on the COI Noticeboard, and got no response there either. I do not want to have an editing war with this other editor, but I think he should be blocked from editing on Omar Amanat's wiki page. I dont want to repeat everything I've already written, so here are the links to the pages where I have reached out for help, but so far have not gotten any.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Omar_Amanat#COI_Editor.3F.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_araneo#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion

I appreciate any help you can give, either advice on what to do next, or for editors to look into this and decided themselves what needs to be done next. Thanks, Jeremy Harrison (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jeremy Harrison. I understand you're frustrated—sometimes it's hard to get other users' attention, and things move very slowly, but try to be patient. Making similar posts in multiple places can look like forum shopping, which is frowned on. The user whose actions you're questioning, User:J araneo, has made no edits since 3 July, one day before you posted to their page, so it's entirely possible they haven't seen your message yet. They've also made only 4 edits this year to Omar Amanat, and various experienced editors have edited the article in the interim, so it's not as if there's a huge problem brewing in secret or anything like that. You've made some accusations about that user on the article's talk page. It's best not to do that; an article's talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not user conduct. If you believe another user's actions warrant a block or ban, the proper place to request that is WP:ANI, but be very sure of what you're alleging before you post there. My advice, for what it's worth, is that you avoid all noticeboards for the time being and turn your attention to other articles. You've brought this article to the community's attention; now let the community act or not, as it will. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 07:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. You are right, I can sometimes be impatient. I will take your advice and wait a bit longer before I take any other actions. Jeremy Harrison (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

'Neutral' point of view

Hi I have submitted a few drafts of an article and the first time around the notability was questioned, admittedly from my own lack of knowledge and ability to find sources. I've added to the page a bit and was told that it would be fine to have references to the company's own page as while these aren't 'notable' sources, they help provide more information. Now I have gotten a comment that it isn't neutral enough. However, this is a vague comment and I don't think I particularly agree. Any tips on what might make this better? It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Business_Centre_Association_(BCA) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annacarroll (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I still doubt that the subject is notable. I haven't checked all the references, but those I have checked do nothing to establish notability. Which sources do you believe contribute to establishing the subject's notability? Maproom (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

United States Copyright

We should add United States public domain tag to every file we upload to Wikimedia commons. What should we do if the work has never been published in United States?

Sinner (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sinner. I'm not sure quite what you mean, since many (probably most, but I'm not certain) images in Commons are not public domain, but licensed under CC-BY-SA or similar. Perhaps commons:commons:TAG will tell you what you want to know. --ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sinner. This is s slight oversimplification but:

For a published work other than a sound recording, if the author is unknown and it was published anywhere in the world before 1923, it is considered public domain in the U.S.
For an unpublished foreign work other than a sound recording, if the author is known, it is considered public domain in the U.S. 70 years after the death of the author (so is PD for any author who died before 1947).
For a foreign work other than a sound recording, if you don't know about publication or who the author, it is considered public domain in the U.S. if created more than 120 years ago (so is PD if created before 1897).

Refer to here for nuance. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Where to find editor rankings?

I want to ask at which place I can find rankings of editors by number of edits? Sinner (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen such a feature, but I'd venture to say that there probably isn't one. An editor with 10,000 edits is no more valuable than one with seven edits. (*in the grand scheme of things*) We each contribute in our own particular way, in our own corners of the wiki. Putting 'rankings' out there turns it into a competition, which is counter to the quality that "we" are trying to add to the encyclopedia. Of course, someone with 10k edits would potentially have more experience with the wiki than that editor with only seven edits to their name... - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 13:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits :) CiaPan (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected. :D - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 13:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Audio alternative for CAPTCHA

I'm a visually impaired contributor who needs to bypass CAPTCHA. Audio alternatives as well as Google's no-CAPTCHA algorithms existed for a while now, so it's unfit for Wikipedia not to utilize one of these until now. Please Help! Vtsaran (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Vtsaran. Welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, this is not something that the English Wikipedia community has any control over. I'm not sure what could be done to light a fire under those who might be able to direct resources to fix it, but it is apparently has been a known issue since 2006—see this bug report. I find that disappointing. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 06:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Vtsaran. You're seeing CAPTCHA because your account is not confirmed (see WP:Confirmed). Normally your account will become confirmed automatically when it is over four days old and has over ten edits (this is called autoconfirmed). But since you have an accessibility reason to want to bypass the CAPTCHA, I think you could request to be made confirmed at the following page: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Help Needed Regarding a Historical article

Hi Guys, i have been recently working on an athlete page from USA who was active in the years 1928-1930. He won a silver medal in Olympics. I researched a lot but very little information is available about him. Nevertheless, i found a website where historical images were stored and the preview of that image contains watermark of the website since the pictures are paid.

My Question is that in order to link that rare image(only 1 found so far) to the article. Can we copy that image directly from the site(with the watermark)? and upload it to Wikimedia?(Since, CC license holds there) or we leave it simply? Rafiq Marbaros (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rafiqmarbaros: if you have found a site (Getty Images?) where images can be purchased and the preview image contains a watermark then it is very unlikely that the image is covered by a Creative Commons licence so no do not upload the image to Commons either with or without the watermark. Annoying as it is, we just have to accept there are subjects where finding a suitable illustration isn't possible. Nthep (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: thank you for clearing my doubts, i wont. However, the image source is Historical Images and the page is Ben Hedges

I assume that you refer to <http://www.historicimages.com/1929-press-photo-ben-hedges-of-princeton-wins-high-jump-at-penn-relays>, Rafiqmarbaros. I don't see any indication that that image, or any image at www.historicimages.com is available under a Creative Commons license or any free license, and I don't think this would qualify as fair use. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: that's exactly what i thought that's why asked here. Thank you Rafiq Marbaros (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I have made it as a reference as per your suggestions :) Rafiq Marbaros (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

image rejected due to (faulty?) copyright assessment

I'm trying to upload an image of a scientific journal cover from the 1989. The cover bears a photograph that I have permission to use. I also happen to have the original photograph and the author's permission to use it. I'd like to upload the magazine cover to help establish the significance of the target of my wiki article and of his work. Unfortunately, the wiki filters are rejecting both photos. What can I do?LVY72 (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, LVY72. Because the aim of Wikipedia is to make all its material freely available for reuse, it is not enough to have "the author's permission to use" a picture. We require that the copyright holder have explicitly licensed it under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which allows anybody to reuse it for any purpose, commercial or not, provided they give proper attribution. Furthermore, this licensing must be either public (eg on a website where the image is held) or directly to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Donating copyright materials for more information. In some cases (and often for covers of magazine, books, and records) there is another possibility, which is to upload it as non-free content. If the use meets all of the non-free content criteria, then permission is neither required nor sought, and you may upload it (to Wikipedia itself, rather than to Wikimedia Commons). --ColinFine (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Great. thanks.LVY72 (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Citations in another language

What is the best procedure for adding a citation to an English article if the citation is from another language publication (like Hungarian) and I don't find an English publication to cite? Niiebony (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Niiebony Simply cite it like any source. If you are using cite templates you can add a "language=hu" field to the template and also a brief quote with a translation (using a "quote=" parameter) f you feel the information might be contentious, but it's not strictly required. See Template:Citation#Full_citation_parameters -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Niiebony, it is also very helpful, although not required, to use the |trans-title= parameter (which is available in {{cite web}} and other Cite XX templates, although not in {{citation}}) to provide an English-language translation of the source title. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyplace I can chitchat?

Is there ANY place on Wikipedia where I can chitchat with people? We can't here or on talk pages. ANYWHERE on here we can?

Pancakes654 21:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Pancakes654. If you mean, chat to people about working on Wikipedia, see WP:IRC. If you mean social interaction not connected with Wikipedia, then I'm afraid there is nowhere. Incidentally, you seem to have entered your signature manually, or have it misconfigured: it should have at least one link to either your user page or your user talk page. If you insert it with four tildes (~~~~) it will put that in automatically, unless you've set it up wrongly. --ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Page deleted for advertising

Hi everybody,

Our page Republic of Gamers (ROG) was deleted for the reason of advertising. Unfortunately, the page cannot be edited anymore. Is there a way to edit the page again and seek help in case we are not sure whether the language and content used is against WIKIPEDIA's guidelines?

Thank you! Stefan Mitzkus (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan Mitzkus. Indeed, "deleted" means "deleted" - a deleted page is not visible, except to admins. If you ask RHaworth, (the admin who deleted the page twice today) they may be willing to reinstate it in your user space for you to work on; but only if they judge that there is something worth keeping in it: often when a page is deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion" that is not the case, because it would need to be completely rewritten.

Please understand that it is not, and never will be "your page", that promotion of any kind is not accepted in Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what any subject (be it a company, a band, a person, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection at all with a subject have chosen to write about it, and get published somewhere reliable. Please read about notability. Also note that if you are in any way connected with Republic of Gamers, you are discouraged from writing an article about it, precisely because you are likely to find it hard to be neutral: see conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Add a note - since I pinged RAHaworth in that reply, they will be notified of the reply anyway. --ColinFine (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Stefan Mitzkus: Possibly you could consider expanding an existing section on ROG at Asus#Republic of Gamers (ROG) first? Of course, if you decide to do so, you'll have to keep your contribution compliant with Wikipedia policies described at WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:WWIN (esp. sections at WP:NOTPROMO and WP:RAWDATA) – or you risk it will be reverted, as it happened to Republic of Gamers (ROG). --CiaPan (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, no expansion! I have willingly re-created Republic of Gamers (ROG) but I request Stefan Mitzkus (talk · contribs) and YiTingLiu1992 (talk · contribs) to stay well away from Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

RHaworth, it is compeltely inappropriate to ask editors to "stay well away from Wikipedia" when all they have done is to create, apparently in good faith, an article which you judged speedy-deletable as promotional. If everyone who ever created an overly promotional article stayed away, there would be few editors here indeed. Unless you have evidence that would warrant a block or a community ban asking editors to stay away violates the obligation to assume good faith and perhaps civility. You know better. Please don't do this sort of thing again. Stefan Mitzkus and YiTingLiu1992, you are welcome to edit Wikipedia provided that you make an honest attempt to comply with its policies, and particularly do not create promotional pages or add promotional content anywhere. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

How can I correct a typo in an article on the Italian entomologist Antonio Berlese?

the error is in the references at the end of the article.76.91.204.92 (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

~~Look for the part of the page has the little "[1]" (or other number). That's where the reference's text is actually defined, not the "References" section at the bottom.~~ Player 03 (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Player 03: See Antonio Berlese. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Guess I should have checked. Player 03 (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonio_Berlese&action=edit (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Cannot upload any images to Linda Wang wiki page...

Hello,

I am trying to help one of my customers, Linda Wang (musician), update her Wikipedia page. She is a professor at DU and accomplished concert violinist, and has tons of photos both professional and non-professional on her website, lindawang.com, which she has rights and permissions to use those photos however she wants.

I uploaded a professional photo that we used on her website to her Wiki, but it was removed. Now I am trying to add photos that were taken by her friends and husband as audience members, but Wiki is blocking me no matter what I try to upload. I am getting the message "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."

What must I do to simply upload one photo of her playing the violin?

Thank you.

Webact (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

First of all, Webact, as you refer to Wang as your client, you must disclose your connection as specified by Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure (also known as WP:PAID) before you do anything else in connection with Wang on Wikipedia.
Secondly, i have just deleted Linda Wang (musician) as a blatant copyright infringement of <https://www.lindawang.com/about>, a page that has a copyright notice. If you want to use the contents of that page, either place a free license such as CC-BY-SA on that page, allowing anyone to use or modify it for any purpose, including commercial uses, or follow the process at donating copyrighted materiel which will have the same effect.
Thirdly, images to be uploaded to commons must be free of copyright claims, either in the public domain or freely released by the copyright owner, who is usually the actual photographer. Again, this means CC-BY-SA or a compatible license.
Fourthly, it is not "her Wiki" but a Wikipedia article about her. She will have no control over it if it is recreated, and it may include negative content about her, provided that it is supported by reliable sources. See our policy on the ownership of articles. It may seem like a trivial point of terminology, but we have found that people who say "my wiki" or "my profile" act as if they had the sort of control they would on social media.

Have a look at File:David Siegel.jpg for how a professional photo may be uploaded. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

DES] We did this service for free and it is turning into a huge headache. Can you just restore her Wikipedia back to before my edit? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webact (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Webact I have restored the article to the version dated 28 June 2017‎ , prior to your first edit on the page. I should have checked if the copyright infringement applied to earlier versions, and only deleted the versions affected by it. I have now done so. For your future reference, no one may simply copy text into a Wikipedia article -- it must be rewritten in original words, unless it has been released under a free license. Much the same applies to images. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving template

So I, somewhat hastily, moved {{Al-Andalus-sub}} to {{alandalus-stub}} because I got tired of looking it up everytime I needed to tag a stub in WPMA ... but the documentation disppeared, so I think maybe I don't know how to move a template correctly? Not sure where the documentation for this would be .... Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAlandalus-stub&type=revision&diff=790158469&oldid=790155708 (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, Seraphim System, please remember that stub types are managed through Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. It would be helpful to let them know, and to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types if you rename a stub template in future. Perhaps simpler would be to create a redirect to the stub template with your preferred shorter name. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I have moved it back to {{Al-Andalus-stub}}. It's about Al-Andalus, displays "Al-Andalus", adds Category:Al-Andalus stubs, and we also have {{Al-Andalus-bio-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-historian-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-mil-bio-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-poet-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-royal-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-scientist-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-translator-stub}}, {{Al-Andalus-writer-stub}}. It's confusing to give a false name to the template. The move left a redirect at {{Alandalus-stub}} so you can write that in new uses if it seems too hard to write the correct name. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Page deleted under A7

Hello! I´ve just created this page (5miles) and it was marked for speedy deletion. I used credible sources to make sure it passes the "Credible claim of significance" test. Feedback and help are more than welcomed. Thanks Mchichorro (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mchichorro. Your article was deleted by administrator Premeditated Chaos under G11 (not A7) as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". I am sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional platform. Read and study Your first article to develop a deeper understanding of what is required to write an acceptable article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia exist?

NAC:The sun rose, turning the troll to stone. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you've already got Brittanica and Oracle and Americana and whatnot, doesn't Wikipedia seem pretty redundant? The other one (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on your previous edits, I doubt that you're looking for an actual, substantial response here, but I'll provide one as best I can: If you go to the 'About' page, there is a section labeled "Wikipedia vs paper encyclopedias", (*here*), which gives a fairly decent explanation. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 16:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you think that, I think it might be time for...

WHY ADVANTAGES ARE DISADVANTAGES

1. Wikipedia has unlimited room to expand, thus making it too big.

2. Sure, it has “privileges” and “blocks” and “guidelines” and whatnot, but can you imagine writing in an encyclopedia?! It’s like painting over the Sistine Chapel! Unacceptable!

3. So it’s out of date. Pbshhht. Deal with it and buy a new one. Plus, I think we should stick with our traditional beliefs. What’s wrong with the old ones?

4. If you want knowledge, you need to buy it. If it’s free, it’s probably garbage.

5. Yeah, see? Computers have costs, too!

6. The links can merely be replaced with “FOR MORE INFO, SEE _______.”

7. That’s for people who are lazy.

8. Physical encyclopedias have no risk of poor edits.

See? Physical: 1, Digital: 0.

-The other one (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If you don't like Wikipedia, might I suggest not reading Wikipedia? If, by some chance, you are strapped to a chair with your eyelids tied open in front of a monitor showing a scrolling Wikipedia feed with The Wikipedia Song blasting in the background, then let me address this message to your captors: First of all, keep up the good work. Secondly, please take away his keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I know I should not feed the troll, but (4) is petitio principii (WP is bad because it is free hence it is bad), (5) is a strawman now that the Encyclopœdia Britannica has switched to digital-only, and (8) is demonstrably false. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On article 'Likhichaj Stone age Paintings' being discussed for deletion

1.What is the criteria of selection of an article, wherein the persons deciding the fate of the article, have NO IDEA what the writer is trying to write about?

2. Were you to allow pictures to be posted, it would be Proof of existence of a new place, not known to anyone nor recorded, so far.

3. How can one give references, to a new finding? That is beyond me!

4. The link to Likhichaj on Google Maps is reproduced here for your own checking and verification:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Likhichaj,+Baherai+Nichali/@26.1464246,77.7394856,2500m/
Previous link: [1]

Indianyogi4u (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Indianyogi4u. The process of deleting an article, like almost everything on Wikipedia, is collaborative, and there is usually an opportunity for any editor to contribute to the discussion. So far you have not contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Likhichajj stone age paintings, and I urge you to do so (but read WP:AFDFORMAT before you do). Looking at the current discussion, it seems to me that the article is likely to be kept - one editor has added some references - but if you can argue from policy for keeping it, you may do so. The main criterion for any article is what we (slightly unfortunately) call notability: briefly, that the subject has been written about in depth by independent people, published in reliable places. In answer to your question 3: if a subject has not yet been written up, then it is by definition not (yet) notable, and no article will be accepted.

Pictures are always welcome in an article, if copyright allows; but they are rarely useful as references, because 1) unless they are published by reliable sources, they cannot be regarded as reliable; and 2) pictures rarely give direct support to any claim more complicated than "X was present at Y" or "X and Y met". There is not usually any value in demonstrating that a subject exists: the substantial reliable sources which are an absolute requirement will generally do that; and if there are no such sources, then the subject is not notable, and there is no article to support. --ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) @Indianyogi4u: If the place is 'not known to anyone nor recorded, so far', as you said, then it is not notable (see criteria defined in WP:NOTABILITY).

If it is a 'new finding' then it can be fascinating, but not necessarily encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a news room (see WP:WWISN, esp. the WP:NOTNEWS section).

Last but not least, images a priori do not necessarily prove the existence of anything (there is multitude of fake images of almost everything in the Web!) – and even if they do, the existence does not imply notability (see above). You need reliable sources for that (see WP:VER). --CiaPan (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(This is about Pahargarh caves.) Maproom (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Does that undermine what I wrote above...? Do caves or Stone Age paintings have their own criteria of notability or verifiability? --CiaPan (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Indianyogi4u: Why do you keep claiming this is a new finding? You admitted yourself that the caves were already discovered and recorded in the 1970s by D. P. S. Dwarikesh. They are known to the ASI and are even mentioned in tourist guides. Wikipedia should have an encyclopaedic article based on what Dwarikesh and others have published about the caves, not a blog post about your visit to them. – Joe (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to thank the editors who have changed the article from an incomprehensible first-person account with no references to a short stub about a tourist attraction. User:Indianyogi4u - I know that you are trying to contribute to Wikipedia, but please pay attention to what other editors here are telling you, such as that Wikipedia reports on what others have written about a subject, and that the cave is not a new discovery. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorting a bulleted list alphabetically

Hi, I have been trying to find the code for sorting a bulleted list of names alphabetically on a page. I have been searching for the code for quite some time now. (I know a little bit of Wikipedia editing. Coming back after many years.) Thankfully, HostBot brought me here.Adobeinfuse (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you might have to do it by hand, or use an external tool. You can sort tables and pages in a category, but I can't find anything about sorting lists. Here's one external tool you could use. I can't personally vouch for it, but WOT users seem to trust it. Player 03 (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It worked!Adobeinfuse (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Adobeinfuse: People are usually sorted by surname, not just in Wikipedia but almost everywhere except a few non-English speaking countries. The list was already sorted correctly before you sorted it by first name so I have reverted your edit. I kept the annotation you added to one of the entries. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:PrimeHunter. My blunder.Adobeinfuse (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like some help to make my "article" acceptable to Wikipedia.

I added several sentences to the "Bohemian Rhapsody" Live Performances section. I added several sentences about a recent performance at the Green Day concert where 65,000 people began singing to Bohemian Rhapsody as it was piped through the loud speaker. The performance went viral and received many mentions. I felt this was a good addition to this particular section. Below is what I submitted"

Green Day played a Concert in Hyde Park, London July 1, 2017 While waiting for the show to begin, the band piped Queen’s“Bohemian Rhapsody” over the sound system to the waiting crowd of 65,000 fans. Almost at once, the entire audience began singing in unison from beginning to end.

I can add references to the article. Is that what is missing? Thanks for helping me understand what I need to do to submit and have articles approved.

Mjr524 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Mjr524 the only edits you have ever done on Bohemian Rhapsody is to add a copyvio Youtube video to the External links section. It was correctly removed. By the way, cover versions by other bands are not discussed in the article, a separate list article of covers exists. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I did add a YouTube video, but only because there were 4 or 5 others already listed in the article. That was not my primary edit.I added it as a source to show the "article" I submitted about 65,000 fans singing Bohemian Rhapsody in a spontaneous moment at a Green Day Concert. I didn't think of this as a "cover". I felt it showed the continued popularity and the fact that 65,000 people knew every word of the song, would be a nice addition to the article "Bohemian Rhapsody".

Mjr524 (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mjr524. I saw that video last week and loved it; sang along with it; Something very powerful about seeing 65,000 people singing along and everyone knowing it. I also do not consider this a cover in any way. The issue of copyright is not so clear cut for me. Normally, when we refer to a removal of a YouTube video citing WP:ELNEVER, the issue is that the source is a straightforward copyright violation. The classic form is: captured BBC newscast uploaded by YouTube user name: RandomPersonWithNoObviousConnectionToBBC, as opposed to a BBC newscast uploaded to YouTube by the BBC. Here, what you linked to was a video uploaded by Green Day, so it's not the classic copyright infringement we see. But there is a potential copyright problem, in that even though this is Green Day's official upload, it's not clear that Green Day is not violating the copyright of Queen/Freddie Mercury/whoever owns the music to Bohemian Rhapsody. You might inquire further on that issue at WP:MCQ.

Meanwhile, you may have meant to include the text you excerpt above in the article body, but something went wrong, because it was never included in your edits. You can track each edit you made by looking at the diffs (jargon for differences) in the page's page history.

Yes, any such edit should be cited to a reliable source, using an inline citation upon seeking its inclusion. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Very helpful. I'm not sure what happened in the Sandbox where I worked on the article. I'll try again. The only reason I added the the video was because there were four others to Queen videos so I mistakenly thought it was ok to add the official video from Green Day. I understand about the copyright issues.

Mjr524 (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the consensus of the use of "X under X" lists for establishing notability for biographies?

Is there a rule-of-thumb consensus for the use of "X under X" or "top X Y" lists of people for establishing notability for a biography? On the one hand, many of these are published in high-quality WP:RS. On the other hand they're often very light on details and have so many entries that they seem to be scraping the bottom of the notability barrel.

Many of these lists have people who are clearly notable, so for the sake of argument assume the list is the best source for someone.

Some examples: [2] [3] [4] GretLomborg (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GretLomborg. As far as I know, there is no established consensus regarding these 30 under 30 lists. Two issues immediately come to mind: Does the listing amount to significant coverage? Is the publication a reliable source for the specific content? In my preliminary opinion, Forbes probably has higher editorial standards than Zagat, but other editors may disagree. So, the references in each article or draft need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that secondary sources are needed to prove notabiility. If the originating publication is the only one discussing their own list, it is not notable. For example the article about the Fortune magazine list cite discussion of the Fortune article by CNBC and NY Daily News. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Article declined about PYRATES smart fabrics

Hello, my Name is Marie. I was trying to do a Wikipedia article about PYRATES smart fabrics, as it seems for me to be a very relevant subject. Pyrates develops smart fabrics and owns an active wear collection 100% made out of their fabrics. These smart fabrics are all made out of natural fibres with active components and therefore sooth and heal the body and skin. They spend 2 years researching and developing their fabrics and got them tested by several institutes. They are the first in this area and are on a very innovative and pioneering journey.

Are there any tips or recommendations you can give to me? Or is there a chance to send someone my draft and maybe they can give me a feedback on it?

I am very much looking forward to a reply.

Many thanks,

Marie-Lilien

Marie-Lilien Funk (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marie-Lilien Funk: Hello and welcome. It appears that your draft was deleted as a blatant advertisement; Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes such as publicizing a business. This is an encyclopedia, which has articles about subjects shown with independent reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guidelines, in this case those for businesses. That means that an article about this company should summarize what those independent sources state, and not what the company says about itself in advertisements or otherwise. If you don't have independent sources that give significant coverage of this business, it will not be possible for their to be a Wikipedia article at this time.

Based on your language above and the fact that your draft was deleted, it seems that you represent or work for this business. That would be what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest, and if true in your case that is something that you need to disclose. If you are paid by the company either as an employee or to specifically edit Wikipedia, you are also required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy and declare that as well. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I would add that if you do have independent sources and make the necessary declarations, you should review Your First Article to learn more about what articles consist of. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Marie-Lilien Funk. Have you read (and understood) the notices that were left on your talk page? One of them is the feedback on your draft that you seem to ask.

Wikipedia is not intended for promotion of a particular company, product, viewpoint etc.; to have an article about a subject, it must be "notable" in the Wikipedia sense (roughly "has been of interest to multiple other people", rather than peculiar/interesting). To prove that, you need references that (1) are from independent and reliable sources and (2) deal with the subject in detail. (Note that the same sources need to simultaneously check (1) and (2)).

Sometimes, a subject is not notable yet but will probably become so. In that case, it is best to wait until it does become notable; we are not in the business of predicting the future. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

How do I change my image's license at Commons?

A file that I uploaded at Wikimedia Commons, File:Barnstar Lightbulb Hires.png, has the wrong licensing. It is required to be CC-BY-SA, due to the licensing of the images that it uses; however, I accidentally licensed it under CC-BY. Now I can't figure out how to change the license. Can somebody help me change it, or direct me to a way that I can do it myself?

By the way, I would have asked this question at whatever Commons's help request center is, except that I can't find such a help request center. If someone can help me find one of those (as well as answering my question asked in the header), I would greatly appreciate that!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 10:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I just figured out how to do it myself. No help is required. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 11:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

...but if ever you need help at Commons again, I think commons:Commons:Help desk is the way to go, Noah Kastin. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the link, Tigraan! This should be very useful if I ever need help at Commons. Thanks again! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 11:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

G Square Techsystems

Hello, I want to create my company page on wikipedia but it is deleted under speedy deletion norms.i don't understand why it is soo happening, i have attached reference also. please help me to write about my company page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitgaikwad22 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rohitgaikwad22. On your talk page, there are multiple notices; have you tried reading them? I realize they can be frightening, but they link to the relevant policies. Anyways, here is a shorter version.

You need (1) to demonstrate the company is "notable" in the Wikipedia sense (i.e. "has been the subject of previous coverage", not peculiar/interesting), and (but that is less important for the start) (2) write the article in a neutral tone rather than as an advertisement. For (1), have a look at WP:GNG (in summary: you need high-quality sources independent of the subject to have written at length about it). If after reading that and checking for sources, you cannot prove notability, stop working on the article: even a very well-written article will not be accepted.

Also, since you are writing about your company, you should carefully read our pages about conflict of interest editing. In particular, paid edition must be disclosed in the appropriate manner - if your boss instructed you to edit Wikipedia, you are considered as a paid editor. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a Draft and needto publish it. Help!

Hi, I have a draft : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Regalix and I need to publish it. I was being told to add some references to make it better and I did. Could someone kindly help in review and let me know if there is anything else that I can add to make it better so that the article can get published. Please help. Henryrichie11 (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Henryrichie11: as it stands, Draft:Regalix will not be accepted as an article, because it does nothing to establish that its subject is notable. To remedy this, you would need to cite several independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. Of the four sources currently cited, two are directory entries, with no discussion, and two are based on what its CEO has said, and so not independent. Maproom (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding photo/offices held

I'm trying to add the information bar to a Wikipedia page (Tom Leonard - Michigan politician) and am not sure how. I would like it to show the photo of the person, their current office and previous offices held, as well as additional information about spouses, children, political party, etc Michiganpolitico (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Michiganpolitico. As to an image, the first thing you would need to do is to find an image that is either in the public domain, or one that has been released under an appropriate license like the CC BY-SA 3.0 License most of our content is licensed under. For a lot of public figures this usually means finding a picture that was taken at a public event and uploaded to a site like Flickr under a CC licence. You may also want to check our our tutorial on finding images, because sometimes finding a usable one is pretty tough.

As to the personal details, the first thing you need is a reliable source to show where the information came from. For legal reasons, all content on biographies of living persons but be sourced. However, since it seems like you're looking for fairly mundane personal details, this can often be sourced to things like social media, where controversial content usually cannot be. TimothyJosephWood 14:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does my page for Philip Battiade keep getting deleted?

Why does my page for Philip Battiade keep getting deleted? Jillianwilsonmbn (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Jillianwilsonmbn: there's a notice at the top of Philip Battiade, which gives two reasons either of which would justify its deletion. Incidentally, it's not your page and it should not be for Battiade. It's Wikipedia's article, and it's about Battiade. Maproom (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Can a source be used if the URL has expired?

I've witnessed a handful of times a news link expire and be virtually gone. Can a source remain if the link has disappeared? Uhtregorn (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Uhtregorn. Most of the time a dead link can be repaired. See guidance at WP:DEADLINK. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

yeah, big news sites especially. I've found new paths by going to base site and searching using headline in site search. TIP: check for link identified as "permanent" when originally citing. i usually copy the url but if i see Perma-link i go for that --Qazwiz (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh well that's easy enough! Thank you both! Uhtregorn (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Irretrievable (?) reference

Foxwoods Resort Casino #History refers to a page referenced there as

author=Division of Special Revenue |url=http://www.dosr.state.ct.us/PDFFolder/Fosltweb.pdf |title=Division of Special Revenue |publisher=Dosr.state.ct.us |date= |accessdate=2011-03-12

That reference, http://www.dosr.state.ct.us/PDFFolder/Fosltweb.pdf, is 404, and the deadest URL I've ever tried to deal with. The Wayback Machine is no help at all here, thanks to a 3½-year gap between backups and an apparent slew of revisions to the web site during that span. I have no idea how to deal with this. Help, please?

I’ve put a detailed description of the problem on the talk page at Talk:Foxwoods Resort Casino § Irretrievable (?) reference, with a link to this question.

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: http://www.ct.gov/dosr/lib/dosr/Fosltweb.pdf (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

QP: Thanks for that link. I'm putting it in in place of the old bizarreness, but it's got a bizarreness of its own: the Wayback archive copies, as far as I have tried them, are totally blank! I realize that a cite doesn't need to have an archive url, but do you know what the cause could be? --Thnidu (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: For example this link works fine in Chrome, but not in Firefox for some reason. Maybe WP:VPT can explain why. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page: visibility, language version & table formatting

Hi everyone!

I'm new around here and probably my questions are very simple but I couldn't find answers online... I would very gratefull if anyoen could help :)

CONTEXT: Yeasterday I created my Wikipedia account and then created a new article in portuguese for a pharma product (simillar pages exhist for it but in other languages)

QUESTIONS:

1st - After finishing and saving the article I could no longer find it nor by searching nor by entering and looking for it in my personal area... So I can only see it if I enter through the link on my browser history... Is this normal? How should I proceed?

2nd - This is an article for a molecule, and simillar articles already exhist in other languages. How can I make this the "portuguese version", accessible from any of the other language version's?

3rd - I put on a table and managed for it to occupy only half of the screen, but would like for the article to be written on the side and it onl starts below... How can I do that?

Thank you so much for your help!! Cheers

Ines mcc (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ines mcc: your Portuguese-language draft is at Draft:Edoxabano. English-language Wikipedia already has an article Edoxaban. You should have created your draft at Portuguese-language Wikipedia. The rules and criteria for creating an article there are different from those here, so you should ask your questions there. Maproom (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To expand on Maproom's answer, {U|Ines mcc}}: each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own namespaces, and its own rules and policies. You probably want to ask at pt:Wikipédia:Contato/Fale com a Wikipédia. Once you have created an article in another language, you can pick "Edit links" (or equivalent) at the bottom of the list of languages in the sidebar of any of them, to go to the Wikidata item where all the different language links are defined. --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)