Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 706

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 700

←

Archive 704

→

I wish to create a Wikipedia Page for David Hutchings (1927 - 2005)

David Hutchings was an architect, engineer and navigator. He was involved in the inland waterways movement during the later part of the 1900s. He was a friend of Robert Aickman and Tom Rolt (founders of the Inland Waterways Association) He restored the Stratford Canal to a navigable state in 1964 for which he received the MBE He restored the Upper Avon river between Stratford and Evesham in 1974 The river had not been navigated for over one hundred years. All locks had disappeared, water levels had been lowered The restoration took five years. Both restoration are notable for their speed, the use of volunteer labour, no government funding but only private contributions.

I consider that he is worthy of a Wikipedia page. I have a large quantity of published information for my sources.

J Hutchings86.149.196.103 (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If he is notable, in the terms described at WP:Notability and more specifically WP:Notability (people), then he may deserve a Wikipedia article based on the published reliable sources which other people have written about him. You ought to read the advice at WP:Your first article, but if he was a relative of yours you ought also to read about conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, J. Hutchings. I'm pretty sure, based just on this reference that he meets our notability criteria. If you'd like some assistance, I'd be very happy to guide you, as I live in the adjacent county of Derbyshire and find engineers and scientists of far greater interest than minor musicians, petty wrestlers and living entrepreneurs with egos inversely proportional in size to their interest value to the rest of humanity. One big tip: ignore all that your personally know, and just gather published references together, and only use those as your starting point. As well as David's suggestion to read WP:Your first article, please also try the step-by step interactive tour at The Wikipedia Adventure. By all means drop me a line on my talk page if you want to take up my offer. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If I create a Wikipedia page on 3-chlorobenzoic acid, is it notable?

I have made minor edits on Wikipedia before but never a whole article. I almost created an article on a bacterium about a year ago but ended up scrapping the article. I read the Wikipedia article on how to create an article and I am unsure if creating a page on 3-chlorobenzoic acid is notable or not. Thank you for your cooperation.Redstone851 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia definition of notability (and thus of acceptability of an article on a subject) is at WP:Notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The subject appears to be notable and there are red links for the subject in other articles. I have moved your excellent sandbox start to Draft:3-Chlorobenzoic acid where I'll be happy to help. You need to add some content and sources. Good luck. Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Could I make an article on Allison Raskins? Is she notable?

Msprimeminister (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You will find Wikipedia's definition of notability at WP:Notability, and more specific guidance at WP:Notability (people). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Msprimeminister. Thankyou for your question. I have searched the internet and found that Allison Rashkins in an author of books. But you should know if she is notable or not. For more information, visit WP: Notablity.

Zayyam123 (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Msprimeminister. David Biddulph's answer is good, but here is another way of looking at it: Wikipedia is not interested, at all, in what you know, or I know, or any other random person on the Internet knows, about Raskins. It is also not interested in what Raskins says about herself, or what her friends, relatives, publisher, agent, or other associates say about her. An article about her must be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with her have published about her. So in order to write an article, you need to find several places where people who have no connection with her have chosen to publish substantial material about her: that is what we mean by "notable" in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, both of you, I will do some research to conclude if she is notable or not. Thank you and have a good New Years! Msprimeminister (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

contacting someone

Is it possible to contact an individual person thru this service 70.101.26.193 (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello anonymous IP, and welcome to Wikipedia and to our Teahouse. The normal way to contact another editor - be they a registered user (like me) or an anonymous IP user (like you) - is via their Talk page. Just look for the Tab labelled "Talk" at the top left side of a User's page. You might like to read this for further information on Talk Pages: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

Registered users have an option of permitting emails to be received from other users, though this is not a common form of communication, and reveals your personal email address to the other party.

If you want to discuss issues about a particular Wikipedia article, you might prefer to leave comments on the article's own talk page (every article has one).

For new editors like you, I strongly urge you to take our interactive trip called The Wikipedia Adventure which introduces you to each key step in editing here, including leaving messages on a Talk page. Hope this helps. (Now I've left this message here, I'll drop you a note on your own Talk page to tell you I've left you an answer here. (If that make sense!!). Happy New Year and regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding new or higher quality photos

I read a news article awhile back that spoke of the lack of available properly licensed photos, thus the reason for many low resolution photos on Wikipedia.

I had a thought that I could certainly physically help with this by looking at the Special:Nearby page and visiting places near me that have articles that don't have a photo or have a low quality one could use updating.

Is it a problem to be both the creator of a photo like that as well as the one submitting it? I want to be sure that if I do this, it is actually something that is done correctly and is of use to the community.

172.10.48.247 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi IP user. There would be no problem in you taking a picture and uploading it to Wikipedia or our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. It would be a great help. The only problem would be if you were to try to upload a picture you don't have ownership of, like one skimmed from Facebook. However, if you take the picture, you own its copyright and can upload it here. See Wikipedia:Uploading pictures for a full how-to. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Article Help

The notability of the subject of the article I submitted for approval was questioned Draft:Sam Zietz, could you please provide some additional insight on how I can edit this for publishing? This is my first article on WIKI and I want to ensure I am meeting all guidelines. If you can provide any additional tips/advise I would really appreciate it! Thanks again for your help, look forward to getting my first WIKI article published! Esmarin (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Esmarin, welcome to our Teahouse. I've quickly glanced through your draft and I'm afraid it's ever so typical of so many drafts that get written (often as a result of paid editing) to promote some entrepreneur, musician or petty sportsman. Most good editors here learn how to edit wikipedia by making small edits elsewhere, learning one step at a time, often over many months before taking on the immense task of creating a new article from scratch. Usually these drafts contain far too much irrelevant stuff and far too many references, most of which are just passing mentions or insider articles which simply prove a person exists, not that they are actually notable (as we define it here on Wikipedia in these guidelines). I fear that yours falls into this category at the moment. To be frank, I'm a little disinclined on New Year's Eve to wade through 51 references looking for ones that are from independent reliable sources that talk about the subject in depth. So perhaps I could turn it around and invite you to tell us which ones you think these actually are? I really can't tell right now if if your draft is about Sam Zietz or Touch Suite - you seem to have gone into too much details about both. So whatever you do, I'd suggest paring it down to the bare essentials.

Of course, if you are being paid or have been asked by the subject to write this article, please read these two page and follow the instructions on declaring any conflict of interest or paid editing so as to conform with our requirements. I hope this is at least of some help to you. Happy New Year and regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

New user user-account page process. User: Gerallt Griffiths

Today, I have attempted to create a user account on Wikipedia. It would appear that new users are encouraged to create a personal page, though I didn't gain any proper understanding of why we should do this. While trying to comply with this requirement, I have then been barraged with information that seems almost relevant, but never quite what I need. There seems to be a distinction between user pages and main ones, though the links on the pages don't seem to respect this distinction, which is an immediate source of confusion.

Consequently, I have stumbled through numerous instruction pages and attempted to do what I thought I was being told to do. I saw a page that claimed to be a "template" for user profiles, but it contained no headings, suggested content, nor any real instruction on how to complete / submit the page. As a result, the very simple page that I submitted was rejected on the grounds of not having sufficient references, which I suspect is a catch-all reason, in the circumstances. After all, who can possibly provide any better information about me than I can?

I have worked in IT for just short of 40 years, so consider myself fairly IT-literate, but I have never been so bewildered by a process as I have been today. If I were asked to rate the experience, I'm sorry, but it would get a very poor from me - and no, I would not recommend it to anyone.

Is there any way in which a concise, simple guide could be given to new members, so that their first submission experience is a fulfilling, right-first-time one? If such a thing exists, please can it be made far more prominent? I did try searching for one, using what I thought were reasonable search criteria, but to no avail. I fear that failure to improve this experience will turn-away swathes of willing, knowledgeable contributors.

Thank you. Gerallt Griffiths (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added a few introductory links in a welcome message on your user talk page. Further information can be found through links from WP:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia. Before you write an article you ought to read the guidance at WP:Your first article, but we recommend that you get some experience editing existing articles before you try writing a new article. A user page is optional, but gives an opportunity for you to describe yourself in your capacity as a Wikipedia editor, if you wish to do so. We do not recommend that you try to write an article about yourself, for reasons which are explained at WP:Autobiography. If anybody else decides to write an article about you, it should be on the basis of published reliable sources independent of you, the subject, and not on the basis of anything which you say about yourself. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and friendly response.

It's ironic, but my main reason for creating an account was to try to give the site something by which to recognise me, so that I could be spared the endless donation nag screens - as I'm already a monthly donor. It wasn't my immediate intention to become a contributor of content.

I regret that even the helpful information I've been given in response to my question is an exemplar of the problem that I have encountered, being a list of hyperlinks to other pages that can spider-out to information that may not necessarily be directly relevant, rather than something unambiguous and self-contained.

In an ideal world, I'd suggest that there would be a "sign-up wizard" that guides users through the entire process, without having to visit distracting, incidental materials along the way.

I appreciate that thousands of other users have found their way through this, but I'd wager that there would be thousands more, if they weren't immediately overwhelmed by exposure to the "Wikipedia labyrinth". Gerallt Griffiths (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, Gerallt Griffiths. You appear to have created a page at User:Gerallt Griffiths/sandbox and submitted it for review. That is the correct process for a new editor wanting to create an encyclopedia article, but not for creating a user page. To do the latter, all you need to do is open User:Gerallt Griffiths, type or paste the text you want to appear on your page there, and save it. I hope that helps. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Gerallt Griffiths. I'm sorry you hit the labyrinth of links that we are, admittedly, rather prone to giving. Although it's normally seen as extremely bad form to edit another user's Talk Page, I will do that for you shortly. All the key links to your User Page (where you can say a few words about yourself), your Talk Page (where messages can be left and answered), Contributions (list of all your edits) and Sandbox (experimental editing area) are at the extreme top of every page once you've logged on.

I will simply select your "User page" by clicking the Tab at the top right the screen. There's no content there right now, so I'll have to click the 'Create' Tab, and make up a couple of lines for you. But thereafter it will be named 'Edit'. We have two types of editing tool here - The Edit tab gives you quite a WISYWYG editor, whilst 'Edit Source' gives you a more html-like editor which most experienced editors still prefer as ~~we are old fuddy-duddies~~ most of us still prefer it.

I will also take the very unusual step of clearing the content in your so-called Sandbox. It's just a sub-page of your User page where some editors like to practice editing or collate information on a draft article. It's important to be aware that any edit can be reversed (reverted, as we call it), and you can do this by seeking out the 'View History' tab at the top of the page. This shows you individual edits and the time/datestamp when it was made. Beside each is an 'undo' button, so if you object to me editing your Talk page, you can easily revert what I've done for you. Thank you for your long-term financial support to the Wikimedia Foundation. All editors here are unpaid volunteers, but maintaining the entire project and its servers and education programmes around the world is, as you appreciate, a very costly exercise. Finally, just one link for you. In an attempt to offer an easy way into the ways of Wikipedia for new editors, we do offer this interactive step-by-step guide called The Wikipedia Adventure. Regards and a very Happy New Year from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Question about sockpuppting.

I'm not new, but I have a question. So, let's say someone made a account just for vandalising; that account got banned, they do it again in another account and that account got banned. but they make a 3rd one and they don't vandalise and they contribute to Wikipedia. Would that still be sockpuppeting? In Memoriam A.H.H. (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi In Memoriam A.H.H. Sockpupetry is the simultaneous use of multiple accounts, so previously blocked accounts are not relevant unless their use overlapped with active accounts. However, in the scenario you describe the editor needs to comply with WP:CLEANSTART before using the new account. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Editors under active sanctions are not allowed a clean start, and any accounts created to evade those sanctions are typically blocked as sock puppets. In practice, an account that isn't being disruptive is typically harder to detect, and it can stay hidden until an admin stumbles across it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: What happens if an admin stumbles across your account but you did not vandalize anything?Thegooduser talk 22:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Kind of depends on the admin. Since we're all volunteers, no admin has to take any action. If someone is honestly trying to be constructive, some admins might ignore the new account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

login from mobile

I do a lot of editing from my mobile phone. Occasionally I go to Wikipedia and find that I am not logged in, but I can't find anywhere to log in. Looking for pages like wp:login doesn't help; that just redirects to Wikipedia:Why create an account?, which says hardly anything about logging in once you have an account. What to do in such a case? --Thnidu (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: Happy new year!

@Thnidu: From mobile, isn't the login button in the drop-down menu (opens up when you click the space left of the Wikipedia logo). Happy new year to you too, Alex Shih (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Aha! Normally I only see that menu when I am logged in, and then it has a red "power button" icon in that space. Thank you, now I know. --Thnidu (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Translation

How many edits to Wikipedia do I have to make in order to translate a Wikipedia article in another language to English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtarvin (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jtatvin. Translating an article from another language Wikipedia is, in effect, creating a new article on English Wikipedia. In order to do that, you need autoconfirmed status. In most cases, that means your account must be at least four days old and have made at least ten edits. You can work on a draft of the translation in your sandbox, for example, until you meet the threshold. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at your edit history, and it seems that you are already autoconfirmed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jtarvin and welcome again to the Teahouse.

Number of edits is of no consequence whatsoever. If you have skills to translate an article from another language, please do it. Keep in mind, however, that the inclusion rules for an article on en-wikipedia may not be the same as the source wikipedia. The notability and verification guidelines apply to translated articles, too. Foreign-language sources are acceptable, but it would be a great favor to your fellow editors and to users if you could find at least one English-language source to add to your translated article. Also, when translating an article, please provide appropriate attribution, perhaps by using the {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the new article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: Wikipedia:Content translation tool requires your account to be 30 days old and have 500 edits to the English Wikipedia. But you don't need the tool. You can translate articles now without using it. The English Wikipedia has disabled machine translation in the tool so it doesn't do much. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter How many edits have I made? Jtarvin December 29 2017 Jtarvin (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

user:Jtarvin, you have 253 edits, which I think you can see at Special:Contributions/Jtarvin. Sorry, I am not user:PrimeHunter and good luck with your article. 86.158.128.176 (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask something about the number of edits

I created my account: Giangkiefer, in 2014, but, since then, I have only 4478 edits (I created over 60 articles and edits many other articles). I've seen many other accounts, many of them also have 100.000 edits, and they create their account in the short period of time (about 1 or 2 years, even half of year). Can someone explain it to me. I don't get it. Giangkiefer (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Giangkiefer: Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. In most cases, extremely high edit counts are the result of active use of semi-automated tools, such as Twinkle or AutoWikiBrowser. I personally wouldn't care too much about edit counts; see the humorous essay at Editcountitis. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any semi-automated tools. show me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Giangkiefer (talk • contribs)

Giangkiefer, I just gave you two examples above, so it'd be good if you can read about them first. Alex Shih (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me, I don't want to be rude, or impolite, I just want to know more how to increase my edit counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giangkiefer (talk • contribs) 07:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

As a ten-year editor with under 6,000 edits, my advice is quit your day job, stop visiting Facebook and all other social media, forego compulsive checks on newsfeeds and the stock market, let Wikipedia be the Alpha and Omega of your waking hours, and then, my child, you will be counted among the highest of high. I am reminded of Henry David Thoreau's famous quote on how to become a proficient walker: "...We should go forth on the shortest walk, perchance, in the spirit of undying adventure, never to return; prepared to send back our embalmed hearts only, as relics to our desolate kingdoms. If you are ready to leave father and mother, and brother and sister, and wife and child and friends, and never see them again; if you have paid your debts, and made your will, and settled all your affairs, and are a free man; then you are ready for a walk.” David notMD (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Giangkiefer, I would be of the opinion that your goal should not be merely to increase your edit count, but to simply contribute to this project. Doing so doesn't have to involve a lot of edits. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Giangkiefer: Possibly I'll disappoint you, but that's NOT what Wikipedia is for. Make one well sourced, substantial addition to a Wikipedia article, and it will be far more valuable contribution than a thousand of meaningless edits. Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, an organized set of information. Adding and fixing information is our most important aim, not increasing counters. --CiaPan (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

331dot and CiaPan are both spot on. Though it sounds like some of us here probably ought to re-read WP:ADDICTED! @Giangkiefer:, you've created over 60 articles - quite an achievement. People who have high edit counts have mostly moved on from only editing articles, to also caring about the state and management of this encyclopaedia as a whole. We see and hate bad spelling, bad grammar, vandalism, and can have lengthy discussions on all sorts of topics (rather like a meeting of over-enthusiastic janitors, all trying to find the best way of wielding a mop and bucket to keep everything ship shape and squeaky clean in their particular corner of this huge ocean-going vessel). You'll soon find one thing leads to another: spell-checking with AWB or Lupins spell-checking tool may lead you into anti-vandalism work, or contributing at Articles for Deletion discussions, or simply fixing innumerable little things that most folk don't care about. And then - to paraphrase Kipling - you'll be a WikiGnome, my son! One really constructive way of helping, whilst fairly quickly increasing your edit count, is to monitor the live feed of Recent Changes to articles as they happen, and reverting any damaging edits. I've found this setting to be the most useful for spotting bad faith edits. Whatever you do, aim to have a productive and fulfilling wiki-2018. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course I don't want just increase my edit counts, don't get my point wrong, I'm just asking why someone who create the account in the short period of time can get 100,000 edit counts so quickly, that so, don't insult me like that. Wikipedia is my second house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giangkiefer (talk • contribs) 12:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You asked how other editors get such high edit counts so quickly, and when told it might be due to use of semi-automatic tools, you asked for more information about those tools and stated "I just want to know more how to increase my edit counts", so I don't think it's unreasonable for others to conclude that you are mostly interested in increasing your edit count. Please also remember to sign your posts, Giangkiefer. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt one or more of us here insulted your intelligence as a result of trying to answer your question - you're clearly a valuable editor, with only one short block in your entire editing history. It's very difficult to hear people thinking when they ask a question, and I'd like to feel the range of answers you received from us here not only gave you as full an answer as we could, but also helped the many other new editors who read these questions and answers too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk)

Giangkiefer I'm also sorry that you felt that way, no insult was intended in any way. As Cordless Larry states, based on what you said, the conclusion the rest of us drew wasn't unreasonable. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I live in Vietnam, I don't use English much, maybe someone misunderstanding my point. I try to contribute the project, our place, Wikipedia, as much as possible, but getting the 100.000 edits award is also one of the thing that I interested, but my first priority is contribute the project. Giangkiefer (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

teahouse

Am i experienced enough to be a teahouse host?Thegooduser talk 23:03, 31 December's 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but you don't need to be a host to answer questions. I do it all the time and nobody complains. A lad insane talk 03:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thegooduser. The quality and accuracy of your answers is more important than the number of your edits. However, working knowledge of our policies and guidelines usually comes from editing the encyclopedia productively in a variety of areas, both in writing and expanding articles, and in behind-the-scenes maintenance work. That comes with time and you only have 536 edits now. Keep contributing. Feel free to answer questions here, as long as you are highly confident that you know the correct answer and can link to the proper policy or guideline. Thank you for helping out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding to that - being a fairly new user, you do have the advantage that you probably can relate better to very new editors, and empathise better with their problems. I've seen some great assistance offered here by new editors. And by helping with things I thought I knew about reasonably well, I find I learn from the more experienced editors if I give an incomplete (or wrong!) answer. The only thing to remember is that we're not like the reference desk - we only give an answer if we think we know it, and it's only on the topic of helping others edit Wikipedia more effectively. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: when i clicked on the category teahouse hosts and since my user name starts with the letter t i go under the section letter t and i see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host start what does this mean? Thegooduser talk 19:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to delete a draft

Hi, I usually work in my sandbox to create drafts, but I am participating in the Wikiproject Women in Red January Ediathon.

The person I am working on: Aison Gascoigne--I have found after I started the draft that she does not have enough source information to create an article. I would like to delete this draft, but I do not know how.

Is this something in the future I can do on my own?

thanks MauraWen (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Maura, welcome to the Teahouse! In the future, if you are the only contributor to the draft, add {{Db-author}} to the top of the page and this will alert an admin that you want the page deleted (see WP:G7). I've deleted the Gascoigne page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Issue with automatic redirection

Hi, I'm actually not really sure if this is the appropriate place to ask, but anyway, I'm having trouble translating a page, because since the page does not exist in one wiki, the title redirects automatically to anothe related page. The pages in question are 'J-Hope' (Spanish), and the search of 'J-Hope' In the english wiki auto-redirects to BTS (band) (English). Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarranzolmos (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sarranzolmos and welcome to the Teahouse. We're happy to take your questions here.

Yes, J-Hope is a REDIRECT on en-wikipedia. You can still get there to edit. The easiest way is to go to the BTS (band) page via the redirect and look for the Redirected from J-Hope line that appears at the very top of the page. Now click on the J-Hope link that appears in that line and you'll be taken to the redirect page itself, which you may then edit. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I add a picture to a Wiki page?

I have used the 'add picture gallery' button - and I see it asks for a jpg - but where do I put my jpg for it to be accessible to the edit process ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles.bowyer (talk • contribs) 08:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Charles.bowyer. In order to use an image in Wikipedia it must already have been uploaded, either into Commons or (usually only for images which are not free for reuse) Wikipedia itself. If the images you want are already in Commons, it is straightforward: you specify the image using its whole name (you need to get the case exactly right, and usually have to include the "File:" at the beginning - it will automatically look in Commons if the image doesn't exist in Wikipedia). If it is already in Wikipedia, the chances are it will not be permissible to use in your gallery, because there are very tight restrictions on the use of non-free images: see WP:NFCC. If the image is not already uploaded, you will need to upload it first, but you may only do so if it is suitably licensed: see WP:Upload. --ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Earlier Question not Answered; Wrong Place?

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

Hello,

My earlier question titled "Editing Lists: Intersecting Categories / Reference Overload?" wasn't answered. Is this because this is the wrong place to ask that particular question? If so, can someone direct me to a better place?

Thanks, Jmnbqb (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Answered above. Courtesy link: #Editing Lists: Intersecting Categories / Reference Overload?. --ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Page which exists in Polish Wikipedia about a British subject but not on UK Wikipedia

I have submitted a direct English translation of a Polish Wikipedia entry regarding my husband, the British actor Rupert Frazer. It was rejected on grounds of conflict of interest by the editor Theroadislong who suggested I could ask for help here. Here is the Polish entry: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Frazer Here are the English language sites which support the subject: www.imdb.com/name/nm0292538/ www.tvguide.com/celebrities/rupert-frazer/credits/173270/ Could you advise how to proceed? thanks Janie Frazer Janie Frazer (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Janie Frazer: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft was not rejected due to conflict of interest, but due to notability. The draft needs to meet the guidelines at WP:BIO as shown in independent reliable sources with in depth coverage. (WP:RS) IMdB is not considered a reliable source as it is user editable. A mere list of credits does not establish notability. We need independent sources with in-depth coverage. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to Wikipedia. You have obviously not read the messages on your user talk page and on the top of your sandbox draft. The reason for the rejection of the draft was not your conflict of interest, but because "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." In fact there were no references at all. In the messages explaining the rejection there are a number of words in blue, and these are wikilinks to further information which you will find useful. You also ought to read the guidance at WP:Your first article, which is one of a number of further links which I have included in a welcome message on your user talk page. Your draft was also drastically malformatted, presumably because you did some sort of automated translation from the rendered text of the Polish article. You'll find information on how articles are formatted among the links which you have been given, but initial advice about translation at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Hello, Janie Frazer. This seems to be about the draft you put up at User:Janie_Frazer/sandbox.

I must warn you first that different Wikipedias are independent projects and use different policies, and hence a person could be a suitable topic for an article on pl-wp (the Polish Wikipedia) yet not so on en-wp (the English-speaking Wikipedia) (Wikipedias are grouped by language, not country, so there is no "UK Wikipedia" to speak of). In particular, the reviewer's feedback asked you to prove the subject is "notable" in Wikipedia's meaning of the term. (See also WP:NACTOR for a quick rule of thumb of what "notable" means for actors.)

To do so, you must find sources that are simultaneously (1) reliable, (2) independent of the subject and (3) deal with the subject in detail. Good examples are profiles in newspapers, or in press releases of prestigious award-granting institutions. The sources you give fail that. First of all, IMDb is a not-really-reliable source (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb), but more to the point they are simple filmographies with no real "reporting", and are found in databases that strive to be comprehensive (hence do not really "highlight" a particular person).

From a cursory web search I could not find much, so I fear there is no way to get an article about your husband on Wikipedia. You could prove me wrong if you exhibit such sources though. I advise that you search for them, and if you find them, present them here so that we can help you further. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

new article/talk - how to publish

Hello everyone,

I've just created a new article and I cannot find a way to submit it for publishing. I created it as both article and talk. Thank you, Alessandra AleCianetti (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@AleCianetti: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The article is already live or "published". However, though I haven't fully examined it, it will need some work. It currently reads like a list of accomplishments instead of an encyclopedia article. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Please feel free to let me know your suggestions to improve the article.

Not sure why, if I google it I cannot find the link. Alessandra AleCianetti (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It isn't clear why you have duplicated most or all of the content of Bojana Barltrop in the article talk page Talk:Bojana Barltrop. An article talk page is intended for discussion about potential improvements to an article, not as a duplicate of the article content.

Because of a change introduced last year, it won't appear on Google until it has been reviewed through the new page patrol process. If you look at Special:NewPagesFeed you will see than there are nearly nine thousand pages awaiting review, and a backlog of about 9 months. There is, however, a time-out so articles will have the NOINDEX removed after 90 days if not reviewed before then. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing Lists: Intersecting Categories / Reference Overload?

Hello,

I have a two-part question with lists that I have been heavily involved with editing.

1) With the List of Tau Kappa Epsilon brothers, there are several notable members that can be placed in multiple categories i.e. politicians in both federal/state office, athletes with both sport/olympics backgrounds, members with both military and education experience, etc. Is is better to duplicate the member entries and place them in all applicable categories or is it best to only select one that may be deemed the most applicable?

2) With the List of Tau Kappa Epsilon chapters and colonies, I have been adding a reference to every chapter entry (still in progress). Is this too much of a reference overload?

Thanks. Jmnbqb (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jmnbqp. I don't know that there is a policy that answers your first question, but my opinion is that there is no harm in duplicating entries. With the regard to the second: I would call it reference overload when several references are given for each piece of information. It is never a bad idea to give a citation for each piece of information (unless it is common knowledge). Normally if a piece of information is repeated in the same section of an article, I would not reference each appearance; but in a different section it may well be appropriate (use named references in this case, to avoid multiple copies of the citation in the References list).

To answer your further question below: the talk page of the article would be the best place to ask, but (particularly if that has little traffic) this is a good place too. And eight hours (or fifteen hours) is really not a long time to wait for an answer on this volunteer project! I saw your question last night, but didn't answer it because I didn't know of a policy, so would be giving only my opinion, and I left it in case anybody else had an authoritative answer to give. --ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! Jmnbqb (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Help making a page

So i tried to make my first page of Wiki for the Institute for Briquetting and Agglomeration (IBA) and i have been informed that it will be deleted because I just copied and pasted the description of the Institute from our website. I sit on the Board of Directors of this Institute and not sure how to go about this? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick slater (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Nick slater, welcome to our Teahouse. The text on this page of their website says it's copyright. If you're willing to release it under a creative commons licence for anyone to use, then you could put a notice on your website. But I'd suggest you first read this guidance for notability of organisations page and decide whether you really can write in a neutral manner, based on reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject. I fear you could well be wasting your time trying to get a company page listed on this encyclopaedia unless it really has caught the attention of the media and been written about in depth by disconnected sources. (ignore press releases and insider business magazines - they don't count). You will also need to declare your conflict of interest in trying to create that article. We always advise against new editors trying to start off here by creating a new pages - it really is the hardest of tasks. We do point people towards this advice, too: Your First Article. Hope this helps and regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

How to AfD in Russian and Lithuanian Wikipedias?

Wikipedia presence of this article is very questionable. How to AfD the article's Russian and Lithuanian versions?

Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Detektyw z Wilna, the various language Wikipedias are totally independent. Our remit is to provide technical help on English Wikipedia. There may be someone here who knows and can point you in the right direction, but your question is out of the scope of what we do here. John from Idegon (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: I think this link goes tothe Russian Wikipedia help desk. Maybe you can get help with your question there. [1] RudolfRed (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, you could try lt:Vikipedija:Pagalbos_biuras for the Lithuanian Wikipedia help desk. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Detektyw z Wilna One other way I've used is simply to leave a drive-by explanation of my concerns in English on the talk page of the foreign language article, highlighting that en.wiki has deleted the topic, and on what grounds. I usually apologise for posting in English, and then leave it for other editors to decide whether to investigate and follow up according to their procedures. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I have replaced bare URLs above with interlanguage wikilinks to Lithuanian and Russian counterparts of English Client's Day article. --CiaPan (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

One other concern, Detektyw z Wilna, is that the various language Wikipedias don't necessarily follow the English Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and articles that wouldn't pass muster here satisfy the requirements for an article there. Ravenswing 17:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Using publicly hosted images from NHL.com

I was going through and noticed some NHL players have outdated pictures from former teams they no longer play for. Is it allowed to take their headshots from their respective NHL.com pages and update their Wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatshakes (talk • contribs) 17:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If the pictures have been published, at NHL.com or elsewhere, then by default they are copyrighted so can't be used on Wikipedia. If you find a photo that has been released free of copyright then it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used on Wikipedia. There are limited circumstances under which copyrighted material can be used as non-free content under a claim of fair use, but this never applies to photos of living people, as such photos would always be replaceable by a free image if someone takes a photo and uploads it to Commons, and such replaceability would invalidate a claim of fair use for a non-free image. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

As an active editor on the hockey Wikiproject, I freely concede that finding images for players that meet Wikipedia standards for fair use is an ongoing and major headache. It's one reason that pictures for retired players are far more often those taken at promotional or alumni events rather than during their playing days. Since the NHL Players' Association is famously protective of such images (down to compelling playing card companies to pay for those images), NHL.com isn't going to play ball, and there are no easy solutions. Ravenswing 17:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hello, I would like to declare my conflict of interest on the page I have submitted for review. I am the founder and CEO of Oiselle, the company for which I'm writing the page. Where/how do I do this? Thank you!Sally at Oiselle (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sally at Oiselle. Above, David Biddulph offered advice in a friendly fashion. What he forgot to mention is that your compliance with WP:PAID is mandatory. Please comply before editing further. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I am confirming that, yes, I have a conflict of interest in that I am the chief executive of the company, but I am not being paid by my employer to create the page. Secondly, I'm still not clear where or how to declare my COI. Thank you.Sally at Oiselle (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The instructions on how to declare are listed on the Conflict of Interest page under the section "How to disclose a COI". I'm not certain but I think that you still need to declare a paid editing relationship, as being chief executive means that any and all company activities fall under your purview, such as public relations or the internet presence of the company. That means that you should follow the instructions under "paid editors" in the disclosure instructions, which involves copying and pasting some text and filling in the appropriate information. If you have difficulty doing so, you can make a simple statement which states what your COI is- who you work for, and your position. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

That being said, Sally at Oiselle, I don't think a COI notice needs to be on the article page; making such a statement on the talk page should be enough for what you've drafted. I took a look at it myself, and you haven't stated anything but simple facts for which you've supplied sources, and many of them high quality such as the New York Times, Forbes and Runner's World. That's nothing a completely objective editor wouldn't have written. Ravenswing 19:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIR

Hi all,

I feel a bit silly and a bit too experienced by now to be asking about this here, but I've had some on-again, off-again run-ins with an editor who has significant English proficiency issues – to the point where almost every non-minor edit has some sort of error (I have major concerns about the content of the additions too, but that almost feels secondary at this point). Moreover, discussion with them on talk pages is next to impossible because of this. There are also all sorts of other little things that just add to the frustration – for example, they don't seem to be able or willing to indent their replies properly.

I've tried to explain this on their talk page as best as I can, and even suggested they edit their own language's Wikipedia, but they don't seem willing to listen. If you look through my edit history, you'd probably find out who this is very quickly, so I'm asking that you don't, because I don't want to use the Teahouse to try to bring them up specifically. I'm simply asking for general advice on how to proceed in this sort of situation. I don't think WP:ANI seems appropriate here. I'll admit, I've probably stepped into edit warring territory myself here, but I have no other ideas on what to do here.

Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not true actually, Deacon simply doesn't understand the article. 23h112e (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Why I don't see anywhere else complaints of my use of grammar, and why Deacon doesn't change the article to improve the mistakes he is so aware of. Deacon has made no effort to retain the changes and simply finds errors of grammar, but then just reverts without re-adding the content. 23h112e (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: Why you don't improve the grammar Deacon ? tell me. 23h112e (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Both of you are guilty of edit warring and I think you need to take a break from that article and go edit something else. @23h112e: if the above is examples of your grammar then I agree with @Deacon Vorbis: that it needs work. You should both leave each other alone before you get blocked. NZFC^(talk) 00:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Also @23h112e: you need to read WP:MINOR as you marked some of your comments here as minor edits when they aren't, so using that function incorrectly. NZFC^(talk) 00:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Lastly @Deacon Vorbis:, to answer your original question. Maybe Dispute resolution noticeboard is the best place to take this. NZFC^(talk) 00:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well the problem was remedied satifactorily, I'm sure the whole thing wasn't warring and was instead just the arriving at the solution as Deacon indicated (although Deacon might have made the changes instead obviously), since I couldn't see the problem the article wouldn't have arrived at the solution without there being a dual effort - seems more we worked as two together because I was able to see the grammar errors eventually, though a part of the grammatical failings was inherited from an editor before both myself and Deacon.

The Jain metaphysics and mathematics was the first to define and delineate different "types" of infinities.

was there before I started changing the article. I'll just edit other articles for a while though as was suggested (and read WP:MINOR) Thanks 23h112e (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@23h112e: For the record, this wasn't even remotely resolved. I didn't bring this up here to discuss it with you; I brought it up here for general advice on how to proceed with this sort of problem. It was definitely edit warring, and I was just as guilty of it as you. I just backed off because I'm sick and tired of dealing with this. You continued to make a flurry of bad edits despite my request for you to slow down and consider the possibility that your lack of proficiency in English (among other issues) is causing more problems than it's worth. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Volta (Cirque du Soleil) article issues

Hello, I am having a really tough time trying to understand some of the rules being followed by editors on certain Wikipedia articles. Back in May 2017, I created an article for a Cirque du Soleil show (Volta, which eventually was questioned and deleted due to not having independent reliable sources and possible copyright issues (as I based the article on Cirque du Soleil's press releases about the show), and I am okay with this being questioned.

While I was contacting Cirque du Soleil to see if I was infringing in copyright issues by referencing to their own press releases about the show (by the way, they said it was okay to use the press releases information for the creation of the article), somebody else created the article again, and I started editing and improving it, researching for independent sources, only to find the same editor delete the information and propose the article to be deleted and merged because it lacked reliable sources.

Then I researched much more, and added several news websites that featured most of the information written in the article, except for the scheduled tour dates (which come directly from the Cirque du Soleil website), and now the same editor is arguing that this information is not reliable and must be deleted.

My question is: why is it okay to use the Cirque du Soleil official website as one of the references in several (if not all) of the other shows they have, but it is not okay on this one specifically? I tried asking this question to the editor responsible for the information deletion several times, but the answers I've received are non-satisfactory, unfortunately. I'm not saying this is what is happening, but it seems like there is some bias against the article, and anything put on it is seriously questioned (or deleted) by the same individual over and over again, even if other similar articles allow the use of Cirque du Soleil's website as reference for certain information.

This same editor recommended me to come to the Tea House and ask the question, so thanks for an answer about this, as it is really frustrating and discouraging to try to help improve Wikipedia, only to be put down several times without a valid answer.Estebanpirazo (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Estebanpirazo. I haven't looked at the particular case, but the general answer is that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the subject of an article, or anybody closely associated with the subject, says about the subject. This is not 100% true - sometimes uncontroversial factual data about a subject, such as places and dates, may be added to an article that are taken from non-independent sources such as press releases or their own website; but most of the content in any article should come from published sources completely independent of the subject. If there is not enough about the subject from completely independent sources, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about it - the jargon is that the subject is not notable.

The other general point is that it never works to argue from other articles. It may be that the sources of the other articles you refer to are more reliable; it may be that the shows are not in fact notable, and those articles should be deleted (unfortunately, there are many substandard articles among our five million); or it might be that somebody made a judgment call and somebody else would judge it differently.

In this case, my suggestion would be that you read about our dispute resolution procedure, and follow the steps there. --ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, ColinFine; and I agree with you that an article cannot be based only in non-independent sources, but in this case, we were talking about just show dates (uncontroversial factual data). Unfortunately, the same editor has now moved to another article from a show by the same company (Crystal), and has now deleted as well show dates and the show creative team, coming from the press releases by Cirque du Soleil. Is somebody okay to do this type of deletion, if we are talking about uncontroversial factual data, or is this considered to be vandalism?Estebanpirazo (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Estebanpirazo. This is a content dispute, and you should treat it that way. My opinion in general is that, provided there is substantial independent material in an article, citing the creative team to a non-independent source would be fine; but Wikipedia consensus works on specifics, not generalities. Please be cautious about calling it vandalism. Vandalism is behaviour intended to damage Wikipedia. From your description it sounds as if they believe that they are following Wikipedia policies. Since you disagree, it is up to you to achieve a consensus with them and anybody else who gets involved. --ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for your answer, ColinFine. I'm sorry I called it the wrong name, I apologize. You are right, it would be more of a content dispute, but in the mean time, the editor in question keeps deleting any uncontroversial factual data added to the articles of the Cirque du Soleil shows (Volta) and (Crystal) (specifically those two, that have been edited by myself; the editor has not touched all of the other shows articles, which have the same data); and on top of that, the editor is insinuating that I am related to the show company and I must disclose it. I already clarified that I have no relationship whatsoever with Cirque du Soleil, other than being a fan of them, and attending in the past some of their shows (paying for the tickets myself). It has been a very frustrating experience to deal with this, and very discouraging, as I have found stingy comments and remarks during this time. Estebanpirazo (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. A user reverted my contribution because the references I sourced it with are not in English

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017–18_Iranian_protests&type=revision&diff=818331682&oldid=818330937

This is his edit, complete with the edit summary he provided.

Is he right or wrong? Are there rules that discourage use of local-language sources on wikipedia? Karl.i.biased (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Non-English sources can be used Karl.i.biased, however it is preferred that an English one can be found see WP:NOENG. It does seem from the other users revert that they are asking for an English version of what you have added, so it maybe best to take it to the talk page to discuss adding it back. NZFC^(talk) 23:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyone wants to improve this page

Hi all, just submitted my first article but unfortunately, it has been declined. All the input that I wrote in the page all came from reliable offline newspaper sources that's why I'm not sure why. Can anyone help me with this project. Thanks Shenalyn2018 (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shenalyn2018. The draft in question is Draft:Aaron Sim. The first sentence of that draft reads, "Aaron Sim is a Malaysian serial entrepreneur, author, speaker, trainer and a stocks trader, wellness advocate, business consultant, and a chartered professional accountant."

"Serial entrepreneur"? Do you really think that a highly promotional phrase like that belongs in a neutral encyclopedia? "Stocks trader"? My mother traded stocks for many years and there is no Wikipedia biography of her. "Wellness advocate"? What the heck does that actually mean? It sounds like baloney to me. Do you really think that an encyclopedia will have a biograohy of every author, speaker, "trainer", consultant and accountant on the face of the Earth?

Your draft article reads as highly promotional and violates the neutral point of view, in my opinion. You list eight possible claims of notability in that first sentence, and not a single one of them is convincing. Rewrite your draft in a rigorously neutral fashion, making it clear to reviewers why this person is notable, as opposed to tens of thousands of other people very much like him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I checked other Wikipedia page and serial entrepreneur is also included in their description like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Khoo.

But yes, I understand your point. I'll recheck my wording. Thanks Cullen Shenalyn2018 (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Shenalyn2018: Such a phrase is likely not appropriate there as well. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, sometimes inappropriate content gets through and can even remain for a long time. Each article should be judged on its own merits; see Other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Shenalyn2018. I just read Adam Khoo, which is a terrible article with many obvious problems. You should not model your article on this article or any unassessed article. Instead, emulate Good articles, which have gone through careful review by experienced editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Shenalyn2018: To expand a little bit on this; it's not so easy to find "featured" or "good" articles about business people, but here are a few examples of featured articles: Damon Hill, Jack Parsons (rocket engineer), Matthew Boulton, William McGregor (football), Madman Muntz, John Plagis (I've left out singers, actors and politicians) You'll notice that they're all notable for something else than being an entrepreneur. Mduvekot (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

And here are some examples of "good" articles about business people: Bill_Gates, Sergey_Brin, Steve_Fossett, Raoul_Wallenberg, Alexander_Onassis, Akmal_Shaikh, Evangelos_Zappas, Charles_Cruft_(showman), Theodore_N._Kaufman, Charles_Keating, Robert_Clark_(businessman), Hamilton_Disston, Heather_Higgins, Harold_A._Lafount, Jean_Abraham_Grill, Jim_Hensley, Joseph_Terry, Norman_Hsu, Richard_M._Scrushy, David_Jewett_Waller_Sr., Noel_Lee_(executive), Walter_W._Law, Jeremy_Stoppelman. Mduvekot (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)