Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 705

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 703

→

New page create

I want create a biography page of a famous artist.. This page doesn't exit in Wikipedia. So, i want create the page but i want to know there is any need to submit any proof, if needed then what kind of proof acceptable for publish the page? Please help me am a new member of Wikipedia, please help me to create a pageRakhi Das (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rakhi Das: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, even for people who have used Wikipedia for years. New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings after something they worked on for many hours is mercilessly edited by other editors. I don't say this to discourage you, but to be honest about what sometimes happens, as I don't want that to happen to you. It is possible for a new user to successfully create a new article right away, but it is rare.

Most people who are successful at creating articles started small by editing existing articles in their areas of interest, to get a feel for how to use Wikipedia, sourcing requirements, and for what is being looked for in articles. They then worked their way up to more substantive edits and eventually article creation. I would strongly suggest that you take this path and find articles that interest you to edit first.

When you feel you are ready, you should read Your First Article to learn what goes into creating an article. You should then visit Articles for Creation at WP:AFC which is a place where you can create and then submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This allows you to get feedback on it before it is in the encyclopedia, and not afterwards, where it will be scrutinized much more closely.

I would close by telling you that "famous" is not necessarily the same thing as notability, which is what determines whether someone or something merits an article on Wikipedia; please read about this at WP:N. Article subjects are notable if they have extensive coverage in independent reliable sources(see WP:RS). For example, a YouTube channel might have 10 million followers, but if no independent sources write about it, it would not meet notability despite the millions of followers. A channel that has 10,000 followers that is written about in independent sources extensively would merit an article. It all depends. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Logic Sticks

My question concerns Draft: Logic Sticks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Logic_Sticks). As per Wikipedia’s need for significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondarysources that are independent of the subject— Logic Sticks are an emerging skill toy which have their own website, social media (I know, off-limts for WP referencing) but have yet to have their coverage in academic journals or other approved media. What should I do? For full disclosure, I am working towards a brief set by my client, the creator of Logic Sticks, Mitchell John but want to put forward a stub (or possibly an article) worthy of the well-meaning, and nobler, aims of this encyclopaedia.

Nicholaspanteliwiki (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nicholaspanteliwiki. If there is not significant coverage in independent sources then we cannot include the topic in Wikipedia, full stop. There are no exceptions. I understand that this might put you in an awkward position with your client, if you have already committed to writing an article for them, but that is one of the many reasons why editing for pay is strongly discouraged. – Joe (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Displaying notability

My question is about my Draft:Cointelegraph I find many trivial mentions of this site in reliable sources as they cited cointelegraph but pretty sure while it's popular site and quoted often I wouldn't find any significant coverage in reliable mainstream sources as no other news sites would speak about other news site without a very good reason and bloggers and reddit are not reliable. So this site is notable and reliable for other news site but not for wiki? ParanoiKrot (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi ParanoiKrot. On Wikipedia, "notable" has a very specific meaning. As you have identified, it is all about significant coverage in reliable sources: if that coverage exists, it is notable; if it doesn't, it is not notable. We can only include articles on notable subjects. There are no exceptions. This is not a judgement on the significance, legitimacy or accomplishments of the subject. It's simply a recognition that, practically speaking, we can only write good encyclopaedia articles if we have access to enough information in trustworthy sources. – Joe (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ParanoiKrot. May I ask whether you own the Coin Telegraph company and its logo? If not, could you explain how you felt it was legitimate to upload their logo to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons licence for free use? Their website clearly displays a copyright notice, with nothing to suggest the logo is excluded from that. As a result I felt duty bound to nominate it for deletion from Commons, though of course you are free to dispute the rationale or submit evidence there that you do own the rights to it. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Nick Moyes and Joe Roe. Thanks for reply’s. You right Nick about my mistake with logo, as I don’t own rights for logo. I would read how I should do it properly for future. You free to nominate it for deletion. Thanks for more clarification Joe Roe. I would postpone my attempt to post this draft until I find more notable and reliable source. It's just so frustrating to get my draft decline while I see much and I mean much worse articles on wiki but I'm newbie and I don't like to argue. I was too hasty with my first attempt I would watch and learn before make new mistakes. Again thanks for reply and sorry for inconvenience.ParanoiKrot (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Review of a Rejected Draft

Hello,

I submitted this page a little while ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gilson_(company)

And it was rejected because it overly cited the website for the company the page is about. I have since revised and resubmitted the draft.

Will this second review take as long to happen as the first one did, or do secondary reviews tend to happen more quickly?

Also, will the draft be reviewed by the same person who rejected the page initially?

Thank you Cglife.bmarcus (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cglife.bmarcus and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid there's no predicting when a volunteer reviewer will look at the resubmitted draft. The drafts on which the decision is easy get taken care of in the first 24-48 hours, it seems, but ones that are not as clear cut seem to generally take far longer. There's no particular expectation that the same reviewer will review it again. It's quite possible, since they may have the draft on their watchlist and see that it has been updated, but it's far from guaranteed. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cglife.bmarcus: I am not a reviewer, and I have no intention of becoming one: it's an unpleasant and thankless task. But I do know what is involved. If I were a reviewer, and picked that draft out of the queue, my main concern would be to check it for references to reliable independent sources that would establish the subject as notable. If (as I have just found) the first four I randomly checked were all to articles created by the company itself or based on its press releases, I wouldn't bother checking all the others, I'd just throw it back in the queue and find a more productive way to spend my time. Maproom (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Cglife.bmarcus, I see you've removed a few references to Gilson's own web site, and resubmitted the draft. I checked the first four sources cited:

gives "Gilson, Inc." as its author
quotes an announcement by Gilson
is a product catalog
is based on statements by Warren Gilson.

1, 2 and 4 are not independent of Gilson. 3 has no "in-depth discussion" of the company. Therefore none of them does anything to establish that the company is notable. I haven't checked the rest of the sources cited, so I don't know if there are any good ones in there somewhere: if there are, you could make them easier for a reviewer to find by removing all the worthless ones. Maproom (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I add a new word or terminology to Wikipedia?

During the recent crypto currency craze, there are a number of new terms that are coming to market.

How do I contribute to Wikipedia to add terms or descriptions to the site?

Regards,

JOSE J FIGUEROAIphonedoctor (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iphonedoctor and welcome to the Teahouse. New terms go in our sister project Wiktionary, but neologisms should not be recorded there until there are at least three cites spanning at least a year. If you find that terms are being used in the WP:Reliable sources used as references for any Wikipedia articles, then it should be OK to mention them in the text of an existing article, but you should not create a new article about a term until it has been written about extensively elsewhere. Dbfirs 17:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Bo Prosser

this isn't the place for a draft article

BO PROSSER MEI Grant Administrator and Catalytic Coach

bo1

Prosser served the senior leadership team of CBF from August, 2002 until September, 2017. As the Coordinator for Congregational Life, he was called to bring his 25 years as a career congregational Christian educator to the churches and church leaders of the Fellowship. Though his title changed in several reorganizations, his challenge throughout the years has always been to help make the Fellowship more relevant to its constituent congregations.

As a result, his teams have developed the It's Time program for spiritual formation, the You've Got the Time! Bible listening experience, a congregational prayer retreat model and, most recently, the Dawnings initiative. Additionally, his leadership has led to the production of several congregational discipleship pieces, Christianity for Beginners for adults, the Becoming Like Christ series for youth and children, Destinations, an annual planning resource and Klesis, an adult discipleship resource.

He has written the “Prayers of the People” article for fellowship! magazine since 2011. His focus on spiritual formation has been directly responsible for the deepening of prayer experiences for individuals and congregations across the fellowship and beyond. He has also written extensively around adult learning, creativity and leadership.

His leadership has provided funding from donors and direction for congregations across the fellowship. The Dawnings Inititative, CBF Fellows, and resource development are sustainable in part because of his efforts. Prosser has also given leadership to restructuring the areas of new church starts and chaplaincy and pastoral counseling.

In his last full time role as Coordinator of Organizational Relationships, Prosser was responsible for deepening relationships with existing partners, developing relationships with new partners, working with CBF state and regional leaders and supporting the work of the Young Baptist Ecosystem.

Bo will continue in his leadership with the CBF Fellows and Dawnings. He will continue a busy schedule as writer, coach and speaker. He has been an adjunct professor at several of CBF's partner seminaries, author/co-author/contributor to more than 15 books and over 50 professional articles.

Bo holds an undergraduate degree in Business Administration, an MRE and M.Div. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and his Doctorate from North Carolina State University in Adult Education. He is a storyteller, improvisational trainer and professional coach.

He is married to Gail, has two adult daughters, and two grandchildren. In his spare time, he writes music (he has performed at the world famous Bluebird Café in Nashville) and collects Coca-Cola memorabilia and old baseball cards.

Publications Author – Sessions in Philippians – Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011. Author – Approaching a Missional Mindset – Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2008. Author - Promotion Plus - Nashville: Convention Press – 1992. Co-Author – Marriage Ministry: A Guidebook; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2004. Co-Author – Help! I teach Youth Sunday School; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2004. Editor/Co-Author – Building Blocks for Sunday School Growth – Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002 Spanish Translation: Bloques para armar una Escuela Dominical solida –Editorial Mundo Hispano, 2008 Co-Author - Lessons from the Cloth-501 Motivators for Leaders - Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 1999 Co-Author- Lessons from the Cloth–501 MORE Motivators for Leaders - Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2013 Contributing Author – CBF at 25: Stories of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, “Missional Conversations” – Macon, GA: Nurturing Faith, 2016 Contributing Author – Music Ministry: A Guidebook – Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2004. Contributing Author - Walk Right (Teaching Guide) - Nashville: Baptist Center for Ethics - 1996 Contributing Author - Vision 2000 - Teaching Methods for Adult Learners - Nashville: Convention Press - 1995 Contributing Author - Facing Critical Issues in Christian Education - Nashville: Convention Press - 1995 Contributing Author - Church Administration from A to Z - Nashville: Convention Press - 1994 Contributing Author - Single Adult Leadership Notebook - 1991 Fifty-plus articles in professional journals and publications (portfolio available) Additional Information Director, The Center for Christian Education (non-profit consulting & coaching agency) 1999 to present Conference Leader, Motivational Speaker, Coach/Consultant - Corporate and Non-Profit Organizations Visiting Professor - Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond - Doctor of Ministry program Adjunct Professor - Gardner Webb School of Divinity; McAfee School of Theology Guest Lecturer – Campbell Divinity School, Candler School of Theology, Campbell University Society of Scholars – Oxford University, Oxford, UK Excellence in Christian Education Award – Smyth & Helwys Publishing - 2000 Ordaination - Hardwick Baptist Church - 1978

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boprosser (talk • contribs) 21:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a draft article. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the policy of using Youtube videos as sources?

I watched a video about a video game's composer outlining the process of scoring music for the game, but I don't know whether the video is valid as a source. If it was valid, how would I go about citing it? The Verified Cactus 100% 16:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello VerifiedCactus and welcome again to the Teahouse.

Most of the time, YouTube is used as an external link with the {{YouTube}} template. That's not what you'd use if you were actually wanting to use a YouTube video as a reference. In that case, the recommendation is to use {{cite AV media}} or one of the other video-related citation templates, so that the more complete bibliographic information about the video can be recorded. There's a parameter to indicate a particular time offset into the video where a particular fact can be found.

As to whether it is valid as a source, that's never a completely easy question question to answer. In most cases, you would use it within the restrictions generally applied to the use of primary sources - in this case, the composer talking about their own process of composition. A short quote might illuminate a broader passage, the source of which was a proper secondary source that we prefer to see on Wikipedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Most YouTube videos are self-published, which makes them of limited use on Wikipedia. However, people who self-publish content about themselves can be cited, as long as the content isn't unduly promotional or making claims about other people. So, you could include the composer's thoughts about his work, but you shouldn't include his thoughts about how awesome the game is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I see, thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 22:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Help with non-free image

Hi, everyone. A non-free image was recently added to Bill Spivey, a GA that I contributed to. I don't add non-free images to articles, so I don't know whether this really meets the non-free content criteria. In particular, I don't know if the image is truly low-resolution, as it looks about the same size as what is on the source site. Can anyone with knowledge of the issues involved provide some assistance? Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The photo in the article is already at about its max size without degrading significantly due to grain, so, yea, I'd say it is fine. Nice article on an interesting fella, Giants2008. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

John, that's good to hear. I suppose I'll tighten up the phrasing of some of the rationale details and call it a day. I'm glad you enjoyed the article, as I also found his story to be interesting. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Help drafting article

I'm just looking for help on creating an article. I've drafted it on User:FormalDude/Ed Pinkham. —Formal Dude^(talk) 00:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please begin by familiarizing yourself with our notability guideline for college athletes and coaches. Your job is to show that this person complies with that guideline. Your draft appears to be well written and well formatted. However, it does not appear to me that Pinkham meets that guideline, but I am not an expert on college football. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi FormalDude, if you're interested in College Football and want to edit articles related to the subject you may want to join Wikiproject College Football. You'll get more help there from people that work on those articles. As for the one you are writing it maybe a case of too soon, but they can probably advise better. But do have a read of WP:CFBASST which directly relates to notability for Assistant coaches. NZFC^(talk) 02:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Antisperm antibodies

Hello,

Would any of project participants be interested in looking at the situation in the article Antisperm antibodies? I find reasoning of my opponent there very unusual. Briefly, he rejects the information based on reviews from 2013 and 2016 written by experts in the field and published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in MEDLINE (both reviews are open access). The conclusions of the authors of these reviews seem to somewhat contradict the information from the 2017 book added to the article by my opponent, although it has not been possible to verify this because the book is behind the pay wall. To attract attention to the problem, I have put tags on the relevant sections and text fragments of the article. The whole discussion can be found on the discussion page of the article.

Please also see a discussion (initiated by my opponent) on a slightly different aspect of the same article here: "homosexual_men"_vs_"MSM".

I would appreciate your thoughts,

Best regards, Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Alexey Karetnikov and welcome to the Teahouse.

The Teahouse is intended to be a place where we answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia. We tend to avoid, at least here in the Teahouse, getting drawn into (see WP:CANVAS) debates about content or user behavior. There are other places where those disagreements are best handled and you seem to be otherwise going about it in a proper way. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Yes, now we are discussing some of these disagreements elsewhere. Best regards, Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

One user editing a sandbox of another user

Hello,

I have accidentally noticed that one user has been editing a sandbox of another user: [1]. Could you please tell me whether this complies to the rules of our project, and whether this violates any policies of our project?

Best regards, Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alexey Karetnikov. It is perfectly acceptable for two or more editors to collaborate on a draft located on a sandbox page created by one of those editors. If a second editor started editing the sandbox against the wishes of the editor who created it, then that can be considered disruptive editing. I have two additional concerns: The content is written in the Cyrillic alphabet. I do not read Russian, but I think it is Russian and appears to be an argument against gay rights, based on my attempt to understand it using Google Translate. This is the English Wikipedia and all work here should be oriented to creating English language content. We have versions of Wikipedia for all the languages rendered in the Cyrillic alphabet. And Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. If that is what this content is, then it is not appropriate here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Yes, that sandbox contains heavily biased misinformation in Russian directed against LGBT rights (Russian is my native language, so I was able to briefly review the content). Can (or should) anything be done about that sandbox, since its content is inappropriate? Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my suspicions, Alexey Karetnikov. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Please let me know if you need further assistance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again Cullen328 (talk · contribs). After reading our discussion, the user Путеец has already deleted the content of that sandbox. So if you like you could close this discussion. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not "heavy biased misinformation", this is translate medical review (Department of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Microbiology, Ahmadu Bello University) [2]. Alexey lied. This text has no relation to the rights of LGBT people. Путеец (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I have said above: this is heavily biased misinformation in Russian directed against LGBT rights. Also, you cannot accuse any one here in "lying". I do not think it was an accurate translation of that review, if it was. And the review itself was published in a junk journal not indexed in MEDLINE. So even if this text did contain some elements of translation of this junk publication, the information there was extremely biased. In any case, you have facilitated deleting of this content by me. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
It was absolutely accurate translation. I invited you to work on it in Russian Wikipedia. Путеец (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Any accurate translation of heavily homophobia-biased misinformation, published in a junk journal not indexed in MEDLINE, and written by non-experts from Nigeria, where any same-sex relationships are illegal, does not convert this misinformation into anything else. Information based on such sources will always be immediately deleted in both English and Russian WP. You have recently been warned by a Moderator of WP:LGBT of Russian WP that you are using Russian WP as an advocacy forum. Now you seem to do the same in English WP. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Путеец, you cannot use English Wikipedia userpages to translate non-Wikipedia content into Russian. That raises copyright issues, unless that journal article has an acceptable Creative Commons or equivalent licensing. Sandboxes here are for developing English language encyclopedia content, not for translating unreliable sources into Russian. Please stop this activity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Cullen328 The license of the material allows you to include this article in Wikipedia, and the work has already been transferred to the Russian Wikipedia. Путеец (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

My wife has signed up to spotify

Can anyone in our house use the streaming service 92.237.227.214 (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a page to ask about editing and using Wikipedia, and is not a general question asking forum. You could try the Reference Desk, but I think your best bet would be to ask Spotify itself. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong name on site

How can I change my name on the site ? I Am Suchitra Pillai but wiki has me as Suchitra Pillai - Malik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchi pillai (talk • contribs) 10:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Suchi pillai: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that the page has already been moved. If you are actually Suchitra Pillai, you may need to confirm your identity to Wikipedia, you can do so by emailing the address listed at WP:REALNAME. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I resolve copyright issue on England's Economic Heartland page?

Hi there A page I created on England's Economic Heartland, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:England%27s_Economic_Heartland_Strategic_Alliance has been rejected as it contains 'copyrighted' text from the England's Economic Heartland website.

I am communications manager for England's Economic Heartland, which is a public body funded by UK Government and UK local authorities (I appreciate this does lead to a 'conflict of interest' argument. I have tried to write the article from a neutral, factual standpoint. Other bodies equivalent to England's Economic Heartland, such as Transport for the North (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_for_the_North) have an article on Wikipedia).

England's Economic Heartland is happy to release the copyright of the words on its website (as a public, taxpayer-funded body we would not expect our words to be copyrighted anyway).

Is there a simple form I can fill out which relinquishes copyright? I could not find this anywhere.

Many thanks

Adam AdamKing8484 (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@AdamKing8484: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID; to comply with both I would simply make a similar statement to what you say above on your user page.

You can learn more about donating copyrighted materials at WP:DCP, including what doing so actually means. Do you have the authority as communications manager to do so? However I don't think that resolving the copyright issue would automatically mean the draft would be accepted. The draft needs to be primarily if not totally written based on what independent reliable sources state about your organization. Essentially this means that you need to set aside everything you know about your organization and write only based on what independent sources state about it. Though not impossible, this is usually difficult for those with a COI to do. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi 331dot

thanks for the quick response. Appreciate what you're saying and I think it would be best if I re-write it using third-party sources. However, just as a question, I notice the Transport for the North Wikipedia page (which, as I said, is an equivalent body), is very well citated, but quite a number of them relate back to information on its own website. So would it be good if I went through the England's Economic Heartland article and made sure everything was citated correctly to the England's Economic Heartland website? AdamKing8484 (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Really you should try to avoid citing your website at all, except for very basic, indisputable factual information like location, number of employees, etc. See WP:PRIMARY about primary sources. Things like "vision" and "mission" or your own organization's description of what it does are hard to independently verify and should not be in Wikipedia articles. (I've already removed "vision" from Transport for the North.) Wikipedia has no interest in what an organization has to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Changing a template image

How a template image can be changed? (I wouldn't change it without discussing it on the talk page) Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2. Could you be more specific? What image is it you'd like to change? – Joe (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Joe Roe, thank you for your response. This template for example. I Would like to change this icon by this one. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Super ninja2. Ordinarily you can edit a template like any other Wikipedia page. The code can be significantly more complicated, so you have to be sure you know what you're doing, but swapping one image for another would simply be a case of changing the filename appropriately. However, templates like {{unreferenced}}, that are used on hundreds of thousands of pages, are generally protected from editing unless you have special permissions. You would therefore need to use the template's talk page to ask an administrator or template editor to make the change for you. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

BlueGang

Sir we have a small non profit organization known as Bluegang. There is no other website or pages are available on the web to provide knowledge about us. We want to create an article on Wikipedia about us. Are we allowed to do that for an organizational page. We only have a Facebook page. We don't have any other references. If yes then pls tell me how. I'll be grateful to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGang (talk • contribs) 12:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse BlueGang I'm afraid that, like many others, you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent sources say about a subject. You would need to provide detailed references showing the subject has received significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Theroadislong (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi BlueGang. I'm afraid you might have misunderstood what Wikipedia is. We are an encyclopaedia. We don't have profiles or "organizational pages"; we have articles about notable topics that are typically written by neutral volunteers. All our articles must be verifiable, so if there are no references to independent reliable sources available, we cannot have an article. Even if there were, it wouldn't be appropriate for you to write an article about your own organisation. Would you trust an encyclopaedia where the subjects all wrote their own entries? I know I wouldn't!

There is another problem regarding your username: I will leave a message about that on your talk page in a moment. – Joe (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello BlueGang - Can I make a suggestion? I don't understand why, if you want to create an online presence for your group, you haven't already considered using other free social media platforms to create a website. Even if you met Wikipedia's requirements for notability (which you clearly don't) you would have no control on what is said about your group. On Wikipedia, anyone can edit a page, and that would include anything positive the media might at some point in the future say about you, as well as all the bad reporting. So, you've no money? - not a problem. Why not consider using either WordPress or Google's Blogger platforms to create a web presence totally for free. Here's a complex one that I built at no cost which serves as a both a blog and a website with static pages, and always comes out very near the top of search engine results - just as Wikipedia pages often do. With both Blogger and WordPress you can leave out the blog functionality if you don't want that, and the good thing is you can have more than one team member administering it, which lightens the load considerably. And no-one can put it up for deletion (as happens here) if it's deemed that your page no longer meets the standards of a world-wide encyclopaedia. You would be in full control (and it's easier to learn how to do it than here, too!). Seasonal greetings and regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocking page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bandarage this page is block. could i know the reason please?ABandarage (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@ABandarage: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In consulting the log, I do not see a 'block' on the page, though it has been nominated for speedy deletion. This is because it reads like a resume or list of accomplishments of who I presume to be you. Wikipedia is not social media like Facebook or LinkedIn to tell the world about yourself; this is an encyclopedia where articles must be shown with independent reliable sources to be notable. The page you created about yourself does not do this. Further, please review the autobiography policy at WP:AUTO; autobiographies are strongly discouraged. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Could I use a character shot of an actor in the actor's article?

I'm going to add an infobox to Nicholas Woodeson. Could I use a picture of him as Posca (Rome character) as a stand-in until a better version of him is found? The picture is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Posca-Rome_(TV_series).gif The Verified Cactus 100% 20:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Verified Cactus: Posca! What a shame we don't have an image for the actor that portrayed such a great character. I don't think that one will do, though. The licensing template for that image specifically says it will only be used for "identification of and critical commentary on the television program and its contents", and I don't think that would included Woodeson himself. Also, the fair use rationale argues that it meets the 'no free equivalent' criterion because non-copyrighted images of a copyrighted character (Posca) would not exist by definition. However, as Woodeson is a living public figure, it's entirely possible that a freely-licensed photograph of him exists, and if not someone could plausibly create one.

However, I'm not overly familiar with the ins-and-outs of copyright. You might want to ask at WP:MCQ for a better informed opinion. – Joe (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Joe, that's almost exactly what I'd say. That image isn't free, so we really can't use it for "just identification" purposes in the infobox of the actor. It should really only be used on the character's page, and if the actor is alive, someone could take a freely-licensed photo of them. You could always try going through WP:COPYREQ and asking for a freely-licensed image of Woodeson. I've had a look, and it doesn't seem like there are any available. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks, guys. The Verified Cactus 100% 22:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

How to properly do AfD?

I went through Wiki articles on Lithuanian organizations and found a few organizations whose presence on Wikipedia is very questionable. They include Invest Lithuania, Client's Day, Lithuanian Development Agency, Enterprise Lithuania, Lithuania Philatelic Society, Lithuanian Free Market Institute. I added a "Proposed deletion" tag, but is this proper start of an AfD procedure? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Detektyw z Wilna. Proposed deletion is a separate process, although related to Articles for Deletion. The first, commonly abbreviated as PROD, is for uncontroversial deletions, so you should be highly confident that the topic is not notable, even if you spent a week in the libraries and bookstores of Vilnius looking for sources. Successful Prods involve only two people, the nominator and the deleting administrator. AfD nominations are debated along several or many editors, and are for less clear-cut cases. Several of these articles could possibly be merged into an article about the Ministry of Economy of Lithuania. If that is a cabinet level agency, an article about it would be appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a truly super answer, Cullen328! I think it's a clear cut case, but since it's my first deletion attempt, let's maybe do AfD, to see if there is a consensus. I am pretty sure that the article does not belong on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I was able to find that a very similar organisation was previously deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_Vilnius&action=history). How does one initiate an AfD? This organisation maybe deserves a two sentence mention on Lithuanian ministry of Economy, in which case I will happily write those sentences. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome, Detektyw z Wilna. Please read and study WP:AFD#Nominating article(s) for deletion. It is a fairly complex procedure, but it will seem easy once you have done it a few times. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Taxobox

I was wondering how exactly I use a taxobox? Do the ranks appear or do they have to be typed in? also when will I be able to write articles without having to go through article wizard, I already have writen one that’s been approved. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Fishman (talk • contribs) 16:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Tyler Fishman, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for asking your questions at the Teahouse. I would urge you not to rush into trying to create articles without first going through the Articles for Creation process. - at least, not until you have familiarised yourelf with how we operate. I still use it from time to time, myself, even after seven years on, and find any feedback I get quite useful. I see you've only been registered on Wikipedia for 1 day, so you will need to have been active for at least a further three days (as we're currently trialing a process when new editors need at least 10 edits and 4 days with an account to create articles directly).

I do think you need to pay a little bit more attention to detail and accuracy if you're creating or editing scientific articles, especially in groups with complex or shifting taxonomy. We have two types of taxobox here - one where you add in all the details manually; another where (providing the higher level taxon information has already beed prepared), you need only enter basic information and the taxobox will be completed for you. Any future changes in taxonomy will, then automatically update on all pages using it. So, do carefully read the quite complex usage information at Template:Taxobox, noting that different taxa, and especially botanical and zoological entries, use the taxobox in slightly different ways. For an introduction to the Automated taxobox system see Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/intro.

Do be aware that if editors rush into creating articles on genera or species without due care and good knowledge - especially where the taxonomy is still rather uncertain - they have the potential for causing great confusion to other users, and that their well-meaning work might later have to be undone. For example, I find it hard to determine whether you intended to create the page on Briareum about the genus as a whole, or about B. violaceum. You created a redlink on the former page to a synonym, which isn't a good idea. Should it not have been directed to Briareum violaceum? Note, too that you have used two different spellings for the synonym in different artivles uou edited, and haven't included the authors for the genus at all. Your recent edit to B. violaceum has also introduced your own opinion to a reference which made no mention of the confusion over the genus. Please put that statement where it isn't going to be attrubuted to the Worms database page, and, having cited a source to support it, don't add anything else that you happen to know about a taxon without being able to support it with reliable sources. (I've noticed this is quite commonly done by aquarists who seem to like adding their own experiences of fish-keeping without referring to published sources.) Again, I think the content you added about uncertainty over the number of taxa should have gone into the genus page, not onto the page for the single species. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to criticise your enthusiasm to add new articles and content - but am just urging you to take care as you start out on your learning journey here. Feel free to add follow-up questions here, or on my talk page. Out of curiosity, what is the Conflict of interest you've rightfully declared on your talk page. Are you a biologist/researcher, a hobbyist, or perhaps a dealer in the marine life trade? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Fishman:Oops, I completely overlooked addressing the major problem you were encountering with the taxobox, for which I apologise. All taxoboxes have a predefined colour scheme, dependant upon which Kingdom the organism belongs to. Your taxobox apears with a red outline to flag up an error in that respect, as no Kingdom has been defined. You must complete this field by completing "| regnum = [[Animal]]ia". I think you should also replace the very top line with {{italic title}}. Let me know if these resolve your difficulties. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

What are the things you get to do?

Just a curious question! What are the things you get to do when you’re the host of Teahouse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba2018 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bubba2018: You answer questions, such as this one, that get asked by new editors. IMO, the most important part of the job is to keep a cool head (some of the questions are emotionally charged, or intend to provoke a fight), and to not answer questions when you are not sure of your answer (wikilinking to the policies involved is a good way to keep you honest at that). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I invite editors to respond to this question at StackExchange: Is Wikipedia trustworthy?

A few responses from Wikipedians might be useful. (It was posted 7 hours ago.)

see: https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/32135/is-wikipedia-trustworthy __

— βox73 (৳alk) 21:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I Have responded to It and am fully confirmed that Wikipedia is trustworthy.

Zayyam123 (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

How much references or sources do I need for an article?

Hello wikipedians! I wanted to tell that all the things I write in my articles are written by me and I don't get help from any sources for them but when I have less references, my articles are declined. My questions are How much references do we need? and what to do if we don't have sources? Zayyam123 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Zayyam123 welcome to our Teahouse, and thank you for your honest question. Try imagining two people, one of whom sets out to create an encyclopaedia intended to fairly and honestly help people understand the world around them. Meanwhile, the other person sets out to give their personal opinion on matters, based purely on their narrow beliefs, whether valid or otherwise, leaving no room for alternative opinions and evidence-based facts. Your question suggests you might be that second person, in which case the Wikipedia encyclopaedia is no place for you, and that a personal blog or website might be the best place to air any such views. Here, we expect editors to be neutral, presenting both sides of any topic in a non-biased manner, based purely on reliable sources, independent of the subject. Now, I say all this without looking at any of your past contributions, as I would not wish you to feel I was attacking anything you've done. Wikipedia doesn't suite everyone, and creating a fair, reliable article on a notable topic from scratch is one of the hardest things to achieve here. Without references to reliable sources, I would advise you not to waste your time even trying. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, Zayyam123 I thought it only fair to go and take a look at the draft articles you referred that had been declined. I think you've not done a bad job in laying out two articles about topics that no doubt exist. In other words you've partly met our requirements for VERIFIABILITY. I can fully believe the Scholars' Cafe exists - you have proved that. But can you point me to sources that support all that you've written? Its a known fact that there are actually 17,192,486 other cafes in the world, but none of them merit an article here - they simply are not NOTABLE enough. Do please follow these links and spend some time understanding how our guidelines are intended to ensure Wikipedia remains a valuable encyclopaedia, and not just a directory of trivia. I think you have the makings of a good editor, and you might well find this worth reading: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Come back any time with further questions, (especially if you want to challenge anything I've said!) Regards again, Nick Moyes (talk)

Thanks for your answer. I will try to create an article about something that is notable.

Zayyam123 (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Can I write about a famous youtuber?

There is this famous youtuber and I want to know if I can write about. I have her permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikola the amazing! (talk • contribs) 13:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Her permission is of no significance. What matters is whether she is notable in Wikipedia's terms, meaning whether she has been the subject of significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. If you feel that she is notable in those terms, read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nikola the amazing!: Also note that "famous" and "notable" are not the same thing. If this person has 100 million followers but no reliable sources write about them, they would not merit an article. If they have a thousand followers but are extensively written about in reliable sources, then they might. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Nikola the amazing. You have a questionable question to answer. Yes, you can write an article on a famous YouTube user, but note that the person should be notable, i mean someone that is in a high level so we can create an article on him. There are YouTubers and they have articles on their name like PewDiePie. But they are famous and notable. Thanks for your question.

Zayyam123 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The right side box

In most of the articles i see on Wikipedia, there is a box to the right side wit a picture on top, and some information about the thing,place,person e.t.c who the article is on. Like: Date of Birth: ------ Place of Birth:------ Career:------ What is this box called and how we can insert it in the articles we write? Zayyam123 (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Zayyam123, it is called an infobox template, and you can find more information at Template:Infobox. there are several hundred of them, tailored for specific article types. John from Idegon (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for article feedback

Hello,

I received a message encouraging me to post to the Teahouse to solicit feedback on my proposed article. This article has been rejected twice. The first time it was rejected for lack of the subject's notability. After edits, that no longer appears to be the issue and it was rejected for tone. I would appreciate some specific feedback on paragraphs or sentences that could be tweaked in terms of tone to qualify for Wikipedia's standards. The article is sponsored and the paid edit is disclosed at the top of the proposed article. Here is the draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dev_Basu

Thank you for your time. Lithofish (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lithofish, welcome to our Teahouse where we try to help new editors like you with their problems. I fear you have failed to fully read or understand the feedback given to you on your talk page after the second rejection. After the first sentence which tells you it reads like an advertisement, it goes on to say Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. If you don't think there are sources totally independent of the subject which you can cite to demonstrate their notability that meets our Guidelines, I would suggest you return your fee and suggest they use LinkedIn instead to promote themselves or to meet the needs of their ego. Wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia on interesting, notable topics, not a place where people pay others to write biographies of them. Maybe the company of which they are CEO might meet our criteria for organisations, in which case please read our notability for organisations page. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lithofish. In its current form, your draft is hopelessly promotional and completely inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Almost every sentence includes advertising/marketing/PR language. I am not convinced that this person is notable, but if he is, any acceptable article would be written in a rigorously neutral style, with not a hint or a whiff of puffery or promotionalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there a chance for an unpublished invention to be published in Wikipedia?

In this case, I am the inventor and the invention is published in the German Wikipedia [3], but was declined in the English Wikipedia [4]. Rudolfpolzer (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. No, a subject can be included in Wikipedia only if it is notable in the sense that it has received significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. In this case the only reference is to your own website. Another Wikipedia page (whether on the English or German Wikipedia) is not acceptable as a reference (see WP:CIRCULAR). You also need to read about conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised to see the article on the German Wikipedia. Does that project not have a Wikipedia:No original research policy? Congratulations on your invention -- it sounds interesting, but you need to find somewhere else to publish it. Dbfirs 08:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: I'm not sure, but I do know that other policies are different on the German Wikipedia; I recently learned that company names as a username are not only permitted there, but encouraged(whereas a company name as a username is not permitted here). 331dot (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we have an article on variations in policy between the different projects? There are lots of other gradient controllers on the market, so perhaps a general article would be appropriate if Rudolfpolzer would like to write one based on published references Dbfirs 09:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)?

I don't know if there is any page detailing policy differences between different language versions of Wikipedia(I would think such a page would be difficult to maintain). You're probably right that a general article would be OK, but Rudolfpolzer would need to leave his invention out of it(and ideally only if it was independently published should someone else add it to this hypothetical article, not themselves). 331dot (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources for Wikipedia English

Dear friends, I have a simple question. Can we use third party reliable sources from different languages or countries when creating article for English Wikipedia?

Thank you! LightOfLiberation (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You can use non english sources, see Wikipedia:Non-English sources for more info. ~ GB fan 12:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I added an external link to relevant information but the Bot blocked it

I added an external video link to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_(business) Web page. The link is very relevant in providing a valid and useful definition of quality as an element of a conceptual system. I, also, thought to add the link as an example of a conceptual system on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_system Web page. It's true that the video bears advertising; however, it would seem that the information has value and is relevant. Please advise.QSR Guru (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that you stop spamming Wikipedia with that YouTube video and the associated book. Meters (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You have added the same link in various places six times, and each time reverted (not blocked). However, because of your repeated behavior, you are on the verge of being temporarily blocked from making any edits - by an administrator, not a bot. Your edit (the video and book) appear to be the only contribution you want to make to Wikipedia. My recommendation is to stop trying with this edit. Find other ways to contribute. David notMD (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings from all at the Teahouse. The Night After Wikimas...

'Twas the night after Wikimas, when all through the Teahouse
Not an editor was stirring, not even a mouse.

The references had been inserted by users with care,
In hopes that St. Jimbo^[who?] soon would be there.

Most editors were nestled all snug by their beds,
While visions of new articles danced in their heads.

When out from a keyboard there arose such a clatter
I sprang to my screen to see what was the matter.
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
but a question on sources and how to use them well here.

More rapid than eagles these questioners came,
And the hosts from the Teahouse welcomed each one by name.

"Now, em Dasher! Now, Images!
Now, Actrial! Now, Patrolled!
On, Users! On, IPs!
On, Young and on, Old!
To the top of each article, be it long, short or tall,
Now, type away, type away, type away all!"^{[This quote needs a citation]}

As dry words that before an old dictionary fly,
when they meet with a synonym, mount to the sky,
So, onto these articles the edits they flew,
With a sleigh full of facts, and citations, too.

And then in a twinkling, I saw on the page
Our wiki-creator: a man of great age.
As I checked it on Commons and was turning around,
Down my router St. Jimbo came with a bound.

Over 5 million articles he had flung on his back,
And he looked like most users with the editing knack.
His eyes – how they twinkled! slightly square – but how merry!
Too much editing, folks, had turned his nose like a cherry!^{[medical citation needed]}
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,
And the beard on his chin was as white as the snow.^{[citation needed]}

A wink of his eye and a twist of his head
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his editing,
And filled bare urls; did sourcing and crediting
And confirming notability with a tap on his nose,
And pressing "Publish changes", back up my modem he rose.

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,^{[anachronism]}
And away they all flew, leaving me to my epistle.
But I heard him exclaim, 'ere he drove out of sight,
"Happy Editing to all, and to all users a good night!"

Seasons greetings from all at the Teahouse!

With acknowledgement to Clement C. Moore

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Moyes (talk • contribs) 02:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

And a happy new year to you, Nick. Thanks for all the good work you've been doing in the Teahouse. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all wikipedians for helping wikipedia grow and reach the age of 17 years. Special thanks to Teahouse for answering every question.

Zayyam123 (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

How can I remove a link to some non existing webpage or video?

How can I remove a link to some non existing webpage or video?Matifali99 (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If the link did exist in the past and is used as a reference in an article, then you should not remove it, but you can tag it as a {{dead link}} (or preferably find an archive url). See WP:Link rot. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Its is a link to YouTube video that no more exists.Matifali99 (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding just a bit to David Biddulphs comment - you can remove dead external links that haven't been used to support article content. Gab4gab (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

But citations should not be removed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)