Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 784

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 780

←

Archive 782

→

Reliable sources

Hi!

Just created and submitted my first draft which was rejected due to lack of reliable sources. Article was about a road stating general information as well listing some of its main junctions. I don't see where I am supposed to get reliable sources on a freaking road route, I am the reliable info as a local user of the road for 40 years now.

I spent 2 hours on this rejected article and more than 5 on updating several others referring to my homeplace. I did this -and actually provided some sources where applicable- only because provided info were old, misleading and/or inadequate while read by so many people as my homeplace is visited by more than 3,000,000 people annually. Requiring reliable sourcing on almost everything in general topics is impossible to deal with and it's not many times. I edited another article about a different road which similarly lacked any sources beyond one I found and posted so I understood that maybe Wikipedia is more lenient in some topics than other.

Concluding, I would appreciate your views but you have to understand -although I m pretty sure you already know it- that THERE ARE NOT reliable sources on some topics. If you prefer a technicality rejected article instead of the actual article that is aimed to inform and help people then i am sorry to hear this.

Thank you, RHO78 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rho78 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rho78. The draft you are referring to is Draft:Rhodes-Kamiros Province Avenue. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Essentially, what that policy says is that while you might know something to be true, what is important is that readers of the encyclopedia can check that it is true, and that is where the need for reliable, published sources comes in. Now, there is a view that obvious, indisputable facts do not need citations (see WP:BLUESKY). It could be argued that this applies to the route of the road (although I am a bit concerned about the "Junction names and numbers are unofficial" note from this perspective). The section on future plans definitely needs citations, though. If published sources do not exist for this, then quite simply it does not belong in an article. You note that other road articles are lacking in sources, but you have to understand that there are more than six million articles on Wikipedia, so some will always be below the expected standard. The review system for new drafts is still relatively new, and was introduced partly to reduce the number of poorly sourced new articles. Many older articles are poorly sourced, but the editing community is (slowly) addressing that issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Rho78, one pretty obvious source for an article on a road is a map. You can cite the routing of the road, and the junctions to any reliable map (such as a government issued highway map or a survey map). We even have a citation template for maps, Template:cite map. There is a very good WikiProject for US roads, WP:USRD. Perhaps someone there may be able to direct you to a project on European roads, or maybe even help you with finding sources. John from Idegon (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time answering John from Idegon and Cordless Larry. I will try to find a map for the route. After that its null as my home place and my country are relatively unorganized on such things and especially concerning provincial places - afterall that was a main reason for my contributions. I would have to have access in governmental resources which neither I have nor am I willing to get. Junction names as stated are unofficial and solely exist to help readers. Unfortunately my free time is limited so I can't really keep looking for things that I know either don't exist or exist somewhere buried and probably never updated. Thank you again for answering my question, guess my wiki involvement ends somewhere here. Rho78 (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Rho78 Having an article declined for lack of sources is not unusual at all, just about every editor has a draft rejected at some point or another, especially when they're just beginning to edit. I hope you don't give up editing, a draft's shelf life is six months after the last edit, so you could keep working on it in your spare time. Try sourcing a map, as John from Idegon suggested, that's a great idea and a good place to start. Coryphantha Talk 20:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Rho78, the map has to be an official map. It doesn't have to be Greece's official map. The US government publishes maps of most of the world. John from Idegon (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Creating & Changing Articles' Names of my Wikipedia Articles:

Hey, I am very new and excited to start being a wikipedia editor as well as creator since I have been interested now for many months to create my own wikipedia article. I have been editing several articles for the better by for example finding spelling errors or missing information about my friends grandfather who does have a wikipedia article.

I would like to know how to publish as well as change my articles name... If anyone could help me with this I would be very thankful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Pottersen (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alexander Pottersen: Welcome to the Teahouse! What article name do you want to change? This can be done by moving your article. As for creating them, see Wikipedia:Your first article. Please remember to sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~). Good luck! ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 00:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alexander Pottersen: re-ping since I misspelled username ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 00:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hello, Alexander Pottersen, welcome to Wikipedia and to our Teahouse. Yes, it can be very exciting to start editing and seeing one's contributions appearing on the world's greatest encyclopaedia. We do have quite a few help pages, and also many guidelines which it can, at first, be very easy to get wrong. Don't worry about making mistakes - just be prepared for someone to drop by and correct (i.e. revert) any error you make. You have made quite a few to start with, so I'll try and point a few of them out to you in a moment. But to answer your question, we don't really rename articles, we 'move' them to a new name, leaving behind what we call a WP:REDIRECT so that anyone going to the original name gets automatically taken to the current name. For more information on this, see: Wikipedia:Moving a page. To answer your other question: The best way to publish a new article is to start work on it somewhere away from the main encyclopaedia, and work on this draft until you've got it right. (Otherwise someone will drop by, see some have garbled article, and put it forward for deletion. That wastes their time, your time, and not surprisingly demoralises new editors. So, either work on a new article in your own 'sandbox' - see link right at the very top of any page whilst you're logged in. Or, prepare it as a 'draft' by using the wizard at Articles for Creation. You can work on this week after week until you're ready, and then press the button to submit it for review. You will receive helpful feedback if the article doesn't meet our guidelines for inclusion. I would certainly recommend this route to new editors. I would also recommend you to try The Wikipedia Adventure and to read Wikipedia:Your first article. More to follow...Nick Moyes (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Alexander Pottersen. You have not yet created any articles or drafts, at least not under this account. Lucie Person is correct that changing the names of pages is done via the Move function, but this function is only available to autoconfirmed users, that is, those who have had accounts for more at least 4 days and have made at least 10 edits. Your account does not yet qualify, although it will in a few days. I have done some copy editing on Euric Bobb, the one article to which you have made substantive edits. You might want to look at the changes that I made, and keep them in mind. Articles really should cite sources more directly than that one currently does, please keep this in mind when creating new articles or drafts. And i strongly advise you to speak of "the article I created" rather than "my article". As per our guideline on ownership, no one owns any article or page on Wikipedia. They all belong to the community at large, and anyone may edit any page at any time in an effort to improve the project, subject to relevant policies and guidelines. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alexander Pottersen: OK, so you've now had a few helpful replies, and DESiegel had undone some of the edits on the page for Euric Bobb which I was going to comment on before removing them, plus a few others myself. Firstly, your edit log, detailed though it is, suggests you found information online, but you didn't cite them as a source. This is a big 'no, no' here. We require that nothing is added from anyone's personal knowledge or information given to you by that person. Everything here must be provable, and come from independent, reliable sources that aren't connected with the subject. So, in future, please only add stuff that you can prove to be factually correct AND relevant to the article. You added unsourced content about someone called Aiden Ricky Bobb being their grandson and a former student of Wakanda National University. This is neither sourced nor relevant, so DESiegel removed it. Anything that relates to a living person gets immediately removed if it is unsourced. This is to protect that person from misinformation about them being inserted. If you look at other articles you will see they are all laid out in a certain style. Another 'no, no' is to use bold text to highlight anything other than the article's title.

I reckon that's enough for now except for one last and very important thing which concerns me. Could you tell us something about the grandson and his attendance at Wakanda Nation University? As far as I can tell (see here and here), it doesn't actually exist. It's just a fictional Marvel comic location. So, I'm going to remove that edit, too, and politely ask you whether you are genuinely here to edit, or are perhaps out to cause subtle and clever disruption? In other words, are you hoaxing us? We often watch the edits of new editors so we can help them if they get stuck, or, as sometimes happens, to monitor them if we are suspicious about their motives for editing. I do hope this guidance is of use in your time here on Wikipedia. For some it can last many years; for others it can be very much shorter. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Wakanda is a fictional place in an important work of fiction, and of course it should be covered appropriately in our articles about that work of fiction. But any editor who tries to portray Wakanda as factual on Wikipedia will be reverted and warned. They will be blocked if they persist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Moyes and Cullen328. I failed to spot that this was a fictional university, which throws doubt on all the edits made by Alexander Pottersen. Introducing fiction into what is supposed to be a factual article is absolutely unacceptable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

However, Nick Moyes, I thiunk you overstated things above a bit. You said that you found information online, but you didn't cite them as a source. This is a big 'no, no' here. We require that nothing is added from anyone's personal knowledge or information given to you by that person. This is not correct. Our verifibility policy readsw: All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Other content must be able to be supported by a source if challenged. It is good practice to provide better sourcing than this minimum, but is not strictly required by policy. You also said above Anything that relates to a living person gets immediately removed if it is unsourced. This is not correct. our policy on writing about living people actually reads: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Non-Contentious content about a living person need not be sourced if it is verifiable, even if not verified. For example it is common in a biographical article to mention the college or university that a person attended, without citing a source. And this information may be included based on the unpublisshed statement of the subject of the article, provided that it is plausible, not self-serving or promotional, beloved in good faith to be accurate, and that the person's notability is established through cited reliable published independent sources, This is a subtle but significant distinction. However, for safety, acting as if the rules were as strict as stated above is not a bad idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You are right of course, DESiegel - I was certainly overstating the importance of references to an editor I was extremely suspicious of. Perhaps I was being too simplistic and, in doing so, being unhelpful and misleading to others. I appreciate you highlighting this. (I recognise this sounds rather defensive, but this is not my intention.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

edit embarrassment

Hi Teahouse -- In making a little edit, I nodded off at the keyboard when writing the explanation. I hit Enter and simultaneously published some gibberish in the explanation. My edit itself is fine (Francis of Assisi), but the edit info is part nonsense. Is there a way to fix only the edit explanation? THANKS GeeBee60 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, GeeBee60, welcome to our Teahouse. Don't worry about it. As you say, the content you added is fine. Had it not been you could have gone to the 'View History' tab for that article, found your edit and reverted it yourself with the 'undo' link. But undoing an edit doesn't delete the history of past edits, so you nodding off for a moment is now kept in perpetuity! What people do if they want to add an explanation of a past edit (usually 'cos they forgot to include one) is to leave a 'dummy edit'. See Help:Dummy edit for how to do that. But in this instance I really wouldn't bother. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. The meaning of the edit summary is actually clear and it just looks as if there was a transmission error over a poor internet connection. No-one is going to worry about the nonsense characters. Dbfirs 19:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Transmission error indeed. ;-) Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing Help

Hello. I am new and have been busy fixing spelling mistakes. I want to do more editing by helping fix broken links or references. I have tried to figure out how to do this, but I'm really confused. Is there a visual tutorial on how to do this, instead of just a written explanation? Thanks.CalliopeMuse (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@CalliopeMuse: Do you mean that you want to FIND articles with broken links or references faster or FIX broken links or references in a more convenient way? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 05:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Both I guess. I just really don't know how to fix the links. I find the instructions to be very confusing.CalliopeMuse (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Review process takes roughly 7 weeks?!

Hi, I've been an IP user for some time and know how to edit an article quite well. I signed up here finally with this boring nickname since I wanted to write an article myself. It's now in the "draft" section. Yesterday, the box read "Review waiting. This may take 3 weeks or more. Please be patient. Drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1040 pending submissions waiting for review." Today, it changed to currently 7 (SEVEN) weeks. Give me a break, what a crap system! Highly frustrating if you invested many hours to write an arcticle and you can't see it published as quick as possible like in other language versions of Wikipedia other than English. According to the statistics, there are 1040 articles pending for only this small number of reviewers. My question: Is there a trick for a fast lane? If not, has anyone ever thought about changing this obviously not working procedure? We would need HUNDREDS of new reviewers to cope with 1040 article dafts, wouldn't we? I'm sorry but I find it very hard to be patient. Thanks for listening! Love and have a great weekend, NorthAmericany (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NorthAmericany. I just moved your draft to main space. You can find it at EAGLES Academy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh that's so kind, thank you! Is there anything I can do to improve the review system in order to help other new authors? If so, let me know. Best, NorthAmericany (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing is done by volunteer editors. The more volunteers, the faster the process. If you think that you have enough experience to review, do so. David notMD (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I think David notMD may not be current on the policies for Articles for creation, NorthAmericany. Although technically no one is forbbiden from reviewing AfC submissions, a script is required to handle the templates involved, and to be able to use that, you must be approved. The minimum qualification is 500 mainspace edits, but the folks who handle the approvals generally want to see some indication you have a firm grasp on notability, promotion and copyright. This is generally evidenced by article creation and or participation at Articles for Discussion (which is the primary article deletion process). Your article is solid as far as those things go, so, once you've edited more with an account, you may wish to apply. AfC is frequently backlogged. That kind of problem is not uncommon in any organization that is staffed entirely by volunteers. As one of the coordinators of WikiProject Schools, I wanted to thank you for filling a hole in our coverage. This is an important school. Thanks. I honestly had no idea such a thing ever existed! John from Idegon (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon is absolutely right, David notMD: In order to become a reviewer, one has to have at least 500 edits but that is just a minimum requirement. I'm far from being an expert but after roughly 3 years of editing here and there, I acquired quite a solid knowledge of how things go although all this doesn't count. After signing up on Friday, my current status is that of a new user. In a year or so from now on, I might reach the level of being worthy for the reviewership. My point is though why do we stick to this procedure. The English language version of Wikipedia is the largest with over 1,000 admins and more or less 40,000 active editors. Why don't we change the current procedure that produces a backlog of 1040 articles that have to be reviewed by only 643 potential reviewers to a better one? Two options come to my mind. 1) Reviewer rights are being granted to all experienced editors, admins included, and if just one of those approves a new article, it can be moved from the draftspace to the mainspace. 2) Have a look at the very active German community, the second largest one amongst the Wikiversum. There, even IP users are allowed to create a new article. They then go directly live but at the same time to a "pool of new articles" where many active editors are present 24/7. If an article is suspicious to one of them, it's then marked for deletion right away and some experts have a closer look at it for the next 7 days. An admin then deletes or keeps the article based on the discussion and the casted votes. Their notability rules are way stricter than ours, by the way. Yes, they do have a backlog in the deletion pool, too. But new articles go live not after a 7-week-lasting process in the hands of a very small number of persons but more or less right away. That's an advantage, isn't it? Just my 2p. Have a good Sunday. Best, NorthAmericany (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@NorthAmericany: Your first solution is how the system currently works. Any experienced editor can use the reviewing tools on request. Any autoconfirmed editor can move a draft from draftspace to mainspace. The reason we only have 643 reviewers is not because only 643 people are eligible (tens of thousands are), it's because only 643 people want to do it. You'll be able to create articles directly into mainspace in a couple of days, so it's really only a very small proportion of very new editors who have to wait weeks.

Your second system is also, in essence, the way we currently review new articles in mainspace (including those moved from draft). The only difference from dewiki being we have found that articles created by IPs and very new accounts are so overwhelmingly likely to be unsuitable that it makes more sense to ask them to go through draftspace first. For a bit of perspective, before we introduced the restriction on new editors creating articles, we had a backlog of 20,000 unreviewed pages in mainspace and about 400 in draftspace. So the current backlog of 3,000 + 1,000 is still a significant improvement overall. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

To add to what Joe said, the reason we've had to do things like create restrictions on article creation by new accounts and institute new page patrol is that Wikipedia, especially en.wiki, is being overrun by people using it for promotion. If the title of an article matches (not even necessarily exactly) a search phrase on Google, that Wikipedia article will almost always be the very first search result. This makes Wikipedia very attractive to PR agencies and SEO facilitators. I only patrol 20-40 articles a week, but even with the restrictions on new editors, I'm still nominating roughly half the articles I look at for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

How to change a wikipedia page name

Hello ,i want to know that how to change the wikipedia page name if the first name was incorrect or mistakenly drown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niel4466 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Niel4466. Changing an article title is called "moving". In effect, you move the article content from one title to another. Please read WP:MOVE for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable references

what is the criteria for reference accectptable in wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekroshan44 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Abhishekroshan44 and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is no single standard for what makes a reference "acceptable". I'd like to suggest that you start with referencing for beginners and reliable sources. The ideal references on en-wiki are: a) in English, b) online, c) free for anyone to access, d) published by organizations with a reputation for journalistic ethics and fact-checking and e) relatively recent. Every single one of those is a preference, not a requirement. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

decline

Whats the purpose of the decline of the article? How can i add our company into wikipedia? our competitors are on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneybrag1000 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: the article was deleted and OP has been blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle

How do I get Twinkle to automatically leave a warning on a Vandal's talk Page?Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Warn_(user_talk_warnings) says you go to their talk page, open Twinkle, select "Warn," and then pick the appropriate warning.

Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Restore_and_rollback says that if you are looking at a diff of their edit, you can click "[Vandalism]" to revert and warn them at the same time. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Welcome back again, Thegooduser. Assuming you already have Twinkle activated by ticking the box in the Browsing section of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, you should see a Tab marked 'TW' to the right of the Read, Edit source, View history tabs. This contains drop-down options, but the Warn function is only visible if you are on a user's page, or their talk page. (You also have a Wel (=welcome) option too, including a welcome for problem editors or IP editors.) You can select the warning type, and normally you would go up one step for each mal edit. Only rarely in cases of bad faith editing might one give a higher level warning straight away. You can link to the article of concern and also leave your own additional message. If you want to give it a try, feel free to give me a few different types or levels of warnings on my own talk page (but don't do it to anyone else without good reason, because you can also get warned yourself for inappropriate templating. You can leave them for yourself, too, should you be into wikimasochism! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I don't think it's quite right to say that it reverts and warns at the same time. The documentation you linked to states only that it opens the Talk page of the person being reverted. Any warning has to be added by the reverting editor themselves. But I have to thank you for highlighting this, because I've never spotted that Twinkle should be opening the user's talk page when I revert vandalism. So, after investigating why this wasn't happening for me, I finally realised that I had my browser set to block all popups. So for the last 2 years I've had to open each talk page by hand. Having now added Wikipedia into the exceptions list in Chrome's Privacy setting, I'm finally getting what the documentation describes. Really chuffed! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Nick Moyes. There's a much easier way in case this comes up again. Just right click on the green padlock in the URL when you have any en.wiki page open. It will give you a list of options, one of which should be "allow popups" (Since you already fixed it the hard way, it's probably going to say "block popups" now.) Just in case you need to do it in any other site. John from Idegon (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Neat. Didn't know that - thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been using Chrome since it came out, and it's definitely my preference. According to everyone I've talked to here, it's also the one that works best with Wikimedia software. John from Idegon (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Page title capitalisation?

Hi, what I can do to capitalise the title of this page in the correct way? The page url is captialised not sure why that's not reflected in the title. Roots Picnic thanks MassiveEartha (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MassiveEartha. I remove the template that rendered the title in lower case. That was the first line of the wikicode. The sources use upper case, so I have no idea why someone decided to add that template. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 ah ha! I completely missed that. many thanks MassiveEartha (talk)

Translating

Hi. I have settled down to do some work on Battle of Quiberon Bay and have realised that the French version Bataille des Cardinaux (I don't know how to link to a non-English language Wikipedia page) has a lot more information. Is there a (relatively) easy way of getting an auto-translation? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

To your linking question, fr:Bataille des Cardinaux links to the French article. Chris857 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gog the Mild, welcome to our Teahouse. If you ever forget how to do the link that Chris857 has just shown, providing it's on a talk page or noticeboard (but not in an article, please) you can always link to any webpage simply by putting the url inside single square brackets, ensuring you leave one space at the end of the url and then adding the word or words you want to be hyperlinked. Thus, [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_des_Cardinaux this page link] produces this page link.

Whilst auto-translations can assist in creating a new page, they simply aren't good enough to stand on their own. We have a short instruction that asks editors to avoid doing precisely that. See WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. Using Google Translate can, of course, be a good start to working on a new article in English in draft, but it still needs a lot of human input to ensure accuracy. We recently added a tool to assist editors working on translation. I have used it, but have unfortunately temporarily forgotten the link to give you. I'll add it later if another user hasn't already helped out my failing memory. I hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: OK, so it's all coming back to me now (as the skunk said when the wind changed direction). We have a 'Content Translation' tool that is currently under beta test. It doesn't actually do the translation, but allows you to work on pages, with each version shown side by side as you convert elements into English. See this link on how to activate and use it. I hope you might find it of interest. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Where do I find an independent editor?

I am the subject of an article on Wikipedia created in 2006 that has been woefully in need of updates and corrections in recent years. The original author is no longer active on Wikipedia so I can't expect that person to make these needed changes. When I tried to make the changes myself, I ran afoul of Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy. I tried to find other editors among people who know my work, but struck out there as well. So my question is: Who can I approach to make these necessary and important changes? I'm not looking for promotion. I'm just looking for accuracy. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennanb4 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brennanb4, Welcome to Teahouse. You could request at the article talk page by placing {{request edit}}. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Creating userspace draft and cannot find a credible source for subject's death date

I'm creating a userspace draft about a racehorse (Goodbye Halo) and am having a bit of a problem with sources. Goodbye Halo is a racehorse who was exported to Japan for breeding after she finished racing. I found several English-language forum posts and an English-language article on a site that is generally not considered credible for Wikipedia purposes that state that Goodbye Halo died in Japan in 2014. Some of the posts specifically say she died August 23, 2014. Her page on Japanese Wikipedia also says she died on August 23, 2014, but the death date is not cited and I can't cite Japanese Wikipedia directly because of WP:CIRCULAR. None of these sources appear to be linked in any way.

I can't find a credible source in English confirming the death date or even that Goodbye Halo is dead at all. I'm thinking I have two options here. Number one is just to omit the death date information, but I don't want to imply that the horse is alive when the truth of that statement is obviously up in the air. It's unlikely but not unrealistic for a horse born in 1985 to still be alive in 2018. How would I do this without implying the horse is living or dead? Articles about historical horses from the 1970s and earlier that do not have confirmed death dates simply leave that information out, but in those cases the horse is obviously dead.

Option two would be to see if I could find a Japanese-speaking editor to find a source in Japanese confirming that Goodbye Halo is dead. Is there a place where I could ask for help from a bilingual editor? Google Translate can only get me so far.

Also, how would WP:SOCIALMEDIA work for articles about animals? If, say, the farm Goodbye Halo lived at posted on social media that she died, is that credible enough? Horses can't tweet about themselves, especially not if they're dead. Aspening (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Aspening and welcome to the Teahouse.

I took a look at your draft. I unbracketed your external links because they are easier to work with that way. When you're ready to turn them into external links in a more normal way, you can do that, but be sure to include a label for each one so it's not a mystery what's at the other end of the link.

One good thing you've done is assemble references before writing very much. I personally recommend leaving the infobox to a later stage in the writing, but that's somewhat a matter of taste. The data in the infobox should be reflecting data in the body of the article, where proper sourcing is required. Filling in the infobox in advance, is a bit like putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

When you don't have a source for a death date, you simply leave it out. Nobody looking at the article is going to think you are making a positive assertion that the horse is still alive. There are circumstances where we accept social media posts as references, but it's generally discouraged.

As for finding a helpful Japanese-speaking editor, I might suggest the looking at meta:Wikimedia Embassy#J. The editors mentioned there have offered, at some point, to help respond to inter-language questions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Beyond Jmcgnh's advice, Aspening, strictly speaking, you're not required to give an inline cite for every assertion of fact. You're only required to cite statements that are controversial or likely to be challenged. I won't go so far as to deny there are overofficious Wikipedians who will challenge everything that moves, but the death date of a stakes horse doesn't strike me as a particularly controversial assertion. Ravenswing 05:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How can i made a page for "GREENTOWN MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED"

I had been trying to make a page for this client for half year, i really want to know the main reason why it was taken down all these times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellawongd (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:COI and WP:PAID for starters. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

... and after those, Ellawongd, please read your own talk page, where the specific reasons the draft was rejected are listed in full. To wit: "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

If those issues can't be adequately addressed, the answer to your question as to how can you make a page for this company is that you can't. Ravenswing 04:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ellawongd. The very first thing that you must do is comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure. Once you have done that, please read and study our notability guideline for businesses. If this company does not meet the guideline, then no article is possible. Then read and study Your first article. The current version of your draft is nowhere near close to being an acceptable encyclopedia article. It reads like a poorly written company brochure. If this company is your "client", then you are being paid to do a job, so learn how to do it, and how to do it well. Part of your job may be to tell this company "no". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Photo of Celebrities

Hi all, I'm writing some articles about actresses, and I'm not positive about the rules on procuring an image. Right now I'm trying to find an image for Jessica McKenna; there are lots of sources in the article that use the same few photos; is there an argument to use those under fair-use? Alternatively, can I take a screen shot of one of her acting roles and use that? Any advice is appreciated. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 04:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Basilosauridae. Any photo of a living person included in a Wikipedia article must be released under an acceptable free license. We keep fair use images to a minimum, and common examples include low resolution versions of album and book covers, and movie posters. Those images are used only in articles about those albums, books and movies. My advice is to go see her and take a picture yourself, or ask her to have a friend take a photo, and the photographer can then upload it to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The refreshing precept

It happens that I have fall on some criticism well-known articles of Wikipedia and I was thinking of some refreshment strategies.

(Of course, without challenging any of the standing principles - this is not my goal).

I was thinking of a lottery, i.e. 10 articles a day, randomly chosen, to be erased and the former contributors not to be allowed to rebuild nothing in the eventually new copy. A drop in the ocean !

About administrators, maybe one a month to be refreshed by this lottery ?

I really mean it, I care about it since I see one of my respectable contributors whom I would love to be his student, becoming a "reverter" i.e. after plenty of contributions and improvement, he will spend the rest of his life reverting newcomers' interventions on quasi-perfect works! Hubby56 (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello HUbby56 and welcome to the Teahouse.

The Teahouse is a place for new editors to get their questions answered about how to edit on Wikipedia. I'm afraid your proposals fall outside this realm and we won't attempt to answer them here. There is a place at the Village Pump where new proposals are often made, but you'll be expected to more clearly express the problem you are trying to solve and to have anticipated at least a few of the most obvious objections. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How to revert

i accidently did something i was not supposed to do and i wanted to undo it. it said that there was someone else editing and i don't know how to revert but i know how to undo. Any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondboy9756 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bondboy9756, Welcome to Teahouse. It might be a {{edit conflict}} where by two editors edit the page a the same time and the other editor had saved the edit while you are still editing the page. When you tried to save the page, it would considered you were saving on the page which the other editor saved version. To undo is revert/undo one edit. If multiple edits need to be undo then choose "restore to this version" on the history page by selecting the 2 version of the edit. Do make an entry of the reason of the undo on the edit summary before saving the edit. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Bondboy9756 and welcome to the Teahouse.

It sounds like you might have run into an "edit conflict", where another editor has changed the page you were editing between the time you started to edit and the time when you went to write back your changes. The edit conflict page does give you fairly exact instructions about what to do, but it is sometimes easier to simply start over and do your edit again.

If we are talking about the page Trustpilot, I have undone all of your changes and restored the page to its state before you started to change it. I don't see that there were any edits by others, so it's possible you had an edit conflict with yourself.

Let's discuss a few of the things that went wrong:

you tried to use URLs to access images, but we can only accept images hosted on English Wikipedia itself (often for unfree images like a company's logo - such use requires a justification) or on Wikimedia Commons (for images that have been licensed in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia's Creative Commons licensing).
it looked like you may have been removing references in order to replace them with {{citation needed}} tags. That's not the best way to handle bad citations.
some of the material you were adding seemed to be personal opinion, not referenced to a reliable source
in two sequential edits, you removed the bulk of the article, then restored it

You're a new editor, it seems, so we expect a few mistakes and, most of the time, mistakes are easily corrected. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about delettion of a page

Good morning,

I have a question: I have created a wikipedia page called : GlassQube Coworking . Each time I am trying to post it, it's speedily deleted from wikipedia page. Also a message is showed telling that the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company. Even though I didn't create a page to advertise.

knowing that I have read the wiki page about "|Your First Article" and I have followed the instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raad15214 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Could please review the page created "GlassQube Coworking" and respond to my inquiry.

Thanks Raad15214

Hi Raad15214, Welcome to Teahouse. Content in Wikipedia needs to be written in neutral point of view (NPOV) and a promotion/advertising content will be deleted. Please also visit Wikipedia notability requirements prior resubmit as a company doesnt not meet the requirement will not merit a page in Wikipedia in regardless how many edits have performed or it meets the requirement of NPOV. I do suggest you to read WP:Your First Article to familiar yourself with the info needed to write an article in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Your page have been rejected twice and deleted - see here [1] for such there isn't the said article to review. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

So my question is: What can I do in the case of not having appropriate sources / refrences ? Can we create a wiki page without having refrences? What are the sort of refrences/ sources you are expecting us to have?

Could please review the page created "GlassQube Coworking" and respond to my inquiry.

Thanks

Raad15214 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raad15214 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Raad15214 First of all, you dont need to create any "new section" everytime you write/reply to a message. Do house all info into the same message title. What you need to do is to click "edit" next to this message name "Question about deletion of a page" and scroll down to the bottom and start writing. To answer to you question it is a NO. Content added/create in Wikipedia needs to directly support by independent, reliable source such as from newspaper and publication houses for verification. Official website, press release, user generated website, blogs and etc are not acceptable. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

Hello, Raad15214. You said at the beginning of this conversation that you had read Your first article. But the deleted articles and your comments here indicate that do not fully understand the information. Please read it again and study it. Also read our notabilty guideline for companies. We take these standards very seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How to correct title of a article

Is it possible to change a title that has wrong information? The page in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Loc_Ninh

The information on the page is for the 2nd battle not the 1st

The 1st battle is described by myself at this link http://mywar.homestead.com/66e.html

Monday is our 52nd anniversary it means quite a bit to those of that are still here

thanks Lee Helle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklion66 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Blacklion66. Welcome to the Teahouse. Providing the reason for any name change can be clearly demonstrated (using proper, reliable sources) then, yes, any article can be renamed. This is done by a WP:MOVE process, which leaves a Redirect from the old name to the new one to avoid breaking any links that already exist to that article's original title.

Now, sir, I can see this is clearly a very personal and very important thing for you to resolve. But please don't just rush and and repeatedly change things (as you've just done) without discussing it on the relevant Talk Page first. Other editors won't appreciate your reasons, knowledge or experience, and will simple revert you - often resulting in a block (if this happens three times within 24 hours), which is the very last thing you need. So, please could I ask you first go to the Talk Page of First Battle of Loc Ninh (which says it took began on October 1967). I see there is also page called Battle of Loc Ninh (which says it took place in April 1972), so explaining what you want to do there too, and why, is clearly going to be very important. I do need to explain that Wikipedia doesn't recognise personal blogs as adequate citations, because anyone can write one. This is no disrespect to you or your experiences, but is a principle we have to adhere to right across the encyclopaedia to ensure that everything we write here can be verified. It's clearly going to confuse people if a battle that took place in 1967 is to be called the 'second battle of..', whilst the later one in 1972 is just called 'battle of..'. So you may need to provide good evidence with links in your explanation, and to do this on both pages. Does this help? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: Having been emailed directly by Blacklion66 with a couple of references, and in advance of tomorrow's 52nd anniversary, I have taken the following action:

Issue raised at Talk:First Battle of Loc Ninh
Hatnote added at Battle of Loc Ninh to distinguish that page
Posted a request for editor input at WikiProject Military History
Response emailed to Blacklion66, requesting a) his concerns to be raised on the relevant Talk Page rather than by private email, b) a scan or photograph of the book and journal references he has cited to me to be emailed back to me for initial assessment. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the fighting near Loc Ninh that Blacklion66 is referring to is addressed here: Operation El Paso regards Mztourist (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Users

how do you become extended confirmed user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondboy9756 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You'll find the answer at WP:Extended confirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC). Thank you!!! Bondboy9756 (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Help with an issue: literature list

Hi folks, in my article EAGLES Academy, I included a differentiated section of literature (= EAGLES in nonfictional publications, Publications by EAGLES and affiliates, Personal experiences at EAGLES, and EAGLES in fictional publications). Two users have deleted the whole list, mentioning WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Have a look at my personal talk page, one of the users told me there that he deletd the list. You can read my answer to him below his statement. I need help on this issue. Any experienced users here who could help me on how to deal with all that? I know the "not everything" rulse (It's purpose is to limit literature to relevant entries but that's what I did; plus: who defines how long is too long?!), but publications by the school and the state belong clearly to the article, notable are also the two novels that mention the school, as well as all other entries if you ask me ... I'm really upset right now. That's why I ask for help here. Thank you. Please check out the article and my talk page. NorthAmericany (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The place to discuss an article is on its talk page, in this case Talk:EAGLES Academy. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

NorthAmericany, I'd suggest you take a look at other school articles and the guidelines for school articles. There's also a standard way to layout all articles. You've got a bunch of idiosyncratic section titles there, and located in the wrong location. The first person who reverted your "Literature" section gave you solid advice. Pare the list down, rename it "Additional reading" and put it after the "References" section (which you may have titled notes). Stick to the best ones, which would be secondary sources published by universities or big publishing houses. I believe you had a magazine in there. It would be better to use that as a source. If you've used a publication as a source, don't add it in additional reading (or external links). And NOT does apply. Keep in mind an encyclopedia is a summary, an overview of what secondary sources have written on the subject. It isn't meant to be a comprehensive discussion of everything out there on the subject, nor is it as catalog of all info. John from Idegon (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Teahouse and thank you for the invite. I am a frequent user of Wikipedia and now want to be a contributor as well, what are the best areas to help? I've started with celebrity that I know from TV with a page that needs some help but would also like some general guidelines as to where wikipedia could use edits. Do people just kind of scroll through articles and look for changes needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloanesubway (talk • contribs) 08:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sloanesubway, and thanks for being willing to help out! Wikipedia:Community portal is a good place to start if you're short of something to do; there are reams of articles there in need of some TLC. However, you're under no obligation; you may find it more enjoyable to locate a WikiProject in your field of interest and look through their to-do lists, or just hit the Random Article button a few times until you find something that needs expanding. There's never a shortage of tasks... Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Signature

Hello Wikipedia users ! I have introduced myself in Wikipedia very shortly and I am very pleased to be invited to the Teahouse after such a short time... When I first uploaded the page I saw a very interesting question about signatures... What are they and how do they work?! Thnks a lot ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hocraa (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

hello Hocraa, welcome to the Teahouse. We ask that everybody always signs their postings on talk pages (but never in articles). It's very easy to do. You just type four tildes on your keyboard (like this: ~~~~) When you save your post this automatically puts in your username and a date and timestamp. This is very useful as it shows who said what, and when. Why not give it a try by replying to this post, putting in those for tildes afterwards? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Further, when you forget to sign, there's a bot that usually comes along and supplies a signature, but it includes a chastising note that the comment was unsigned.

But I imagine that you wanted to know about styling your signature. For that, see WP:Signatures and your Preferences->User profile->Signature section. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Hocraa (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP & Interviews

Hi all, can you provide some guidance on if using print interviews are acceptable for writing BLPs? For example, would this be considered an acceptable citation for facts such as: "Julie Brister began taking classes at the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre in 1997." https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/improv-teacher/479424/ ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 13:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Such primary sources are acceptable for some purposes, but do not demonstrate notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)