Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 423

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 420

Archive 421

Archive 422

→

Reliable Sources

Hi all,

A few days ago GrammarFascist so nicely found some articles for me.

The Michigan Daily, which is a university paper but may be one of the few of those which counts as a reliable source; I encourage other Teahouse volunteers to share their opinions about that. The Michigan Daily - Nov 11, 1996 and The Michigan Daily - Nov 19, 1998 are the articles in question.

I'm not sure about this source, either: Virginia Medical Monthly – 1990 It's published by The Medical Society of Virginia, but I can't tell how much fact-checking or editorial control are in place.

I wanted to know if anybody else has thoughts on if they are reliable sources? And if so what other college Newspapers would be considered reliable? Major college newspapers?

Thank you all for your input! And thanks again GrammerFascist for finding these!

Aagreeny4 (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if you're getting two issues confused here, Aagreeny4. College newspapers are usually considered reliable sources for verifying facts, but they are not particular well regarded when it comes to establishing notability. I'm sure that these sources are perfectly reliable on the topics they are reporting, but whether they establish its notability is not so clear. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Would the two from the Michigan count for his notability because they state information about him and his work, in addition to others opinions about him? Or do the opinions not count toward notability? Aagreeny4 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, the article concerned is Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green, as discussed below. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Aagreeny4. In my opinion, the Michigan Daily sources are weak for establishing notability. In effect, they are fairly brief and formulaic descriptions in a student newspaper of a speaker appearing on campus. They do not offer extensive biographical details about the person, and in my opinion, they do not rise to the level of significant coverage. As for the Virginia Medical Monthly source, the snippet I can see is so brief that I can express no opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Having done some searching, I've found many mentions of Mike Green - mainly in events listings - but a lack of in-depth coverage. Has a newspaper or magazine ever published a detailed article about your father, Aagreeny4? That would definitely help in establishing notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The only newspapers would be college newspapers. There are some from a couple local newspapers in New Jersey. He does have notable mentions in the Chronicle of Higher Education and Scholastic coach which I have in my article. There are some other articles in "Athletic Management" but I am having trouble finding that source since it would be an older issue. I know he was also listed among the outstanding young men of America, and I am thing to find and article about that and his work, I think they either have a book or release that would describe his work. Aagreeny4 (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If you provide information about the local New Jersey newspaper articles, Aagreeny4 — newspaper name, article title, author if given, page number, and date published — we can evaluate whether those sources would help establish notability. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 19:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

These are the two I have Avedissian, Eric. “Cape May resident counsels students on dangers of drug and alcohol abuse”. Cape May Star and Wave. 13 March 1997. Print.

     Explains his background and his work. It describes his message and the job that he does, while listing a few schools he speaks to. States his sobriety and the message or content in his speech. Emphasizes how his approach to the message is different than others. Provides detail and some quotes from his speeches.

Kelly, Shannon. “Wall parents get a look at “one nighters””. The Herald. 11 Dec. 1997. Print

      From Wall township in NJ, explains the speech his gave to the students at the local high school. States his work across the country, names his business and his background. Explains quotes and the message from the speech. Explains how he got into the business.  Tells how he travles the country with this message.

I have a few others but I don't have complete source information.

     "Anyone given drink...Can cost you everything" by Ned Hartwick- but I don't know the papers name.
      "Drug farce eclipsed by SADD asembly" by Aidan Finley- I don't know if this in the name of the paper or just the section, the paper is only of the article about Greeny and doesn't have the whole paper but I can tell it says Opinion on the very top. and its from Haverford PA.

I also have one from the Oklahoma Daily, but I don't know if that is a school paper or which it is.

Thank you for helping. Aagreeny4 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone advise Aagreeny4 on this? Cullen328? GrammarFascist? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cordless Larry, thanks for following up. I posted about the Michigan Daily question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard but haven't had any responses there yet. I also checked Google's newspaper archives for the additional articles Aagreeny4 listed above, but unfortunately they don't seem to be included there. I haven't used other newspaper archives (I believe they all require subscription, though I know at least some make memberships available to Wikipedia editors) but it's possible one or more of the articles I couldn't find is archived elsewhere online.

Note, Aagreeny4, that searches will fail if the title is not entered exactly as found on the article; I tried both "Anyone given drink...Can cost you everything" and "Any one given drink...Can cost you everything" in case you had mistranscribed that title, but still found nothing.

Thanks for digging up these sources, Aagreeny4. Technically sources aren't required to be online, but since there are questions about your father's notability (in the Wikipedia sense), other editors would prefer to see at least a couple of sources they can verify themselves. If consensus at the noticeboard is in favor of The Michigan Daily, of course, those articles would probably take care of notability on their own... except that sources from multiple publications would also be preferable, as having all evidence of notability cited to a single newspaper, even multiple articles from that paper, tends to be less convincing. DES, have you been able to get a copy of the Chronicle of Higher Education article yet? —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GrammarFascist. I hadn't realised that you had already raised this at the RS noticeboard, but thanks for doing that. I have attempted to find these sources on Nexis, and managed to find one about Green that includes the quote "Any one given night, any one given drink can cost you everything". It's from a local newspaper called The Ledger and discusses a talk that he gave at Florida Southern College. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this would work or it is possible, but I have copies of the articles. If there is somewhere to upload them to I could put a link to them but I don't know where I could upload them to. Just and idea. Aagreeny4 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for searching for those articles! Aagreeny4 (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The articles are likely subject to copyright, so you wouldn't be able to upload them to Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, consensus at the noticeboard seems to be that The Michigan Daily can't be used to establish Mike Green's notability (the rationale given, which makes sense to me, is that college newspapers cover every campus speaker, so their coverage doesn't necessarily mean the subject is notable), so we are left with trying to verify mainstream newspaper coverage and scholastic coverage. Cordless Larry, I believe you can't link to sources found on LexisNexis, but perhaps you could put a comment on the draft's talk page summarizing the extent of the coverage (and perhaps also cite any information substantiated by that article in the draft?) to make it easier for other editors to AGF about that source? Similarly, if DES finds that the Chronicle of Higher Education goes towards notability, he could leave a comment to that effect on the draft's talk page.

That would still leave us one short, as three sources establishing notability is usually considered the minimum. I don't know where archives of past issues of Scholastic Coach would be found; probably at some university libraries, but I don't have access to any of those. (I did find this result at Google Books, but it only establishes that the article exists and mentions Green; the preview available doesn't make it possible to determine whether the coverage is substantial.) I also found this article in the Toledo Blade... while the Blade is indisputably a reliable source, I'm not sure this brief article would be considered more than a mere mention. It also has a writing style which implies it may have been an unedited press release. (This Reading Eagle article is definitely a mere mention.) I'm also still not sure it would be worth trying to pursue the Virginia Medical source, which seems to be a newsletter published by the Medical Society of Virginia; probably not a sufficiently-reliable source for establishing notability, though the preview Google provides does suggest coverage might be substantial.

@Robert McClenon and SwisterTwister: You're both admirably thorough in ensuring that drafts are really ready for article space before they're approved. Could you offer your opinion as AfC reviewers as to whether established editors with access to the Chronicle of Higher Education article and the article accessible via LexisNexis vouching for those sources on the draft's talk page would be sufficient for you to consider those sources to help establish Mike Green's notability? Your opinion on the usefulness of the sources in the above paragraph would also be appreciated. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The article in The Ledger is a write-up of a talk that Green gave at Florida Southern College in January 1999. It starts with some quotes from the talk, briefly describes Green's background and public speaking experience and then quotes the college president on why he invited him to give the talk. There are then some more quotes from the talk, followed by a few student reactions. All in all, a fairly standard local newspaper treatment of an event. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping with the sources and your effort in helping me! 
I have found other sources through Lexus Nexis from The Philadelphia Daily News, July 26, 2006 Wednesday "Teens & Booze: A dangerous Combo", The Philadelphia Inquirer "Facing up the drug threat. A push to keep athletes clean  from July 6th 1986. 
I also found from The Leader-Telegram (Eau Claire, Wisconsin), September 7, 2012 and St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri), November 7, 1992.

These were found on Lexus Nexis so I can't put in a link but would they be acceptable? Thanks everyone! Aagreeny4 (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Shanghai Tower

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shanghai_Tower&action=history

Check the recent edits. I am not familiar with the subject. The Avengers 06:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What a mess, thought it seems to be back together now. It looks like four users (Sino Student, Sino Teacher, Sino West, and Lazer ffffff) may not have realized they were changing the live article, and were playing about with making and over-writing changes. I have put messages on all their talk pages to alert them to it. I notice that almost none of them have ever made any other edits, apart from a similar change-and-revert to G.E.M. (singer), so I think as long as they don't do it again we can write this one off to a mistake.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright conundrum

Now I've come across an article, Medium shot, which I ran through Earwig's copyvio detector against a web search, and found that a substantial portion of the article's content is identical to this page. The question of course, is who copied from whom; unfortunately archive.org has never made a copy of the definition.net page. That page doesn't specify where it sourced its definition, and certainly doesn't credit Wikipedia; on the contrary, it offers citation formatting for anyone wishing to cite the page, in APA, Chicago or MLA. On the ohter hand, the article history here shows the text in question evolving gradually via changes made by different editors over several years; at no point was the exact text found at definition.net pasted in as a discrete chunk.

If it were unambiguous copyvio, I would nominate Medium shot for speedy deletion (or more likely blow it up and start over), but I'm not sure what the correct course is. If the definitions.net text came from here, they should either attribute it properly or remove it, but I'm not sure I have a strong enough case that they stole it rather than having it stolen from them to contact that site and tell them they've violated Wikipedia's copyleft licensing. Thanks in advance for your advice. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure of who copied from who, just by looking at it. I would be more inclined to think the other site copied from WP, because I've actually seen that done more times than I've seen content from other sites copied onto WP, but we really can't be sure. The last paragraph of the article is very unencyclopedic, too, with the "you" and other tone problems. It may be better to just blow it up and start over with a fresh page, especially because we are not certain what the copyright status is. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, the Wikipedia article is the original one. Looking at an article's page history is useful here. You can see the wording develop early in the page history from its creation in September 2001. The other site copied it sometime after the wording change from "blurry" to "fuzzy" on May 1, 2006. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with StarryGrandma on this: it's a WP:backwardscopy. The definitions.net page says that its text is from Freebase; Freebase acknowledges that the text is from Wikipedia. In this case, there's nothing for us to worry about. A {{backwardscopy}} template could be placed on Talk:Medium shot if anyone thinks it necessary.

GrammarFascist, in general, if you believe there's a copyright violation and are not sure how to deal with it, you can always blank the suspicious content with {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}} (putting a </div> at the end of it) and list the article it at WP:Copyright problems; but bringing it here will probably work too. Thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

creating new page.

I am new here . I want to create new page. Please explain.Shaan2005 (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a few useful links on your user talk page. Among them is WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism (unnoticed)

Why Vandalism even on important articles is not noted early. See [this.-Nimit (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, जैन. I was going to respond that List of statues by height is not a very prominent article and is therefore unlikely to be on many editors' watchlists, but checking the statistics, it actually has 115 watchers. Remember that Wikipedia editors are volunteers, though, and they have limited time to spend spotting and repairing vandalism, alongside all of the other editing tasks that they might be involved in. The best thing to do when you spot obvious vandalism is to deal with it yourself, as you did here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources where subscription is required

I came across a featured article about X-File episode, where some references mentioned in light colour "subscription required". I clicked the link and the site asked for password. Some users say they have access to JSTOR and other sites which require subscription. Wikipedia editors pay money for editing? I think in talk page of the article, such user's name must be mentioned. The Avengers 12:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's more likely that editors' access to these resources is via university libraries, The Avengers. There are also a number of initiatives to give Wikipedia editors free access. See Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library for more info on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Even my local community library gives me access to some resources that would normally need a subscription. Drop into your local library and have a chat; the librarians spent years learning their skills and in my experience they're keen to have an opportunity to use them to help somebody.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has arrangements with some database providers, such as JSTOR, to provide a limited number of free accounts for editors who meet certain requirements. Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Databases is the main page for finding out about what resources are available under this program. Clicking on any title in the list will bring up a page with more information about signing up for that resource. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

username change

i would like to change my username and use a nickname instead. where do I submit the request? thank you Stanislavzarubin (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Stanislavzarubin. Instructions on chaning your username are given at Wikipedia:Changing username. I believe the form you need is at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirect question

Take a look at this article List of Justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Judge Frank F Drowota III has a red link. It should be a blue link to just plain "Frank Drowota". Easy enough, but the name is written in a sortable box with a pipe between first and last names. How do you redirect to get a link between these two names for the same person? Please don't just correct it, but explain how you did it. Thanks Eagledj (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. {{sortname}} has a target parameter, see this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Getting familiar with Wikipedia markup stuff

I just started editing wikipedia (i've mostly stuck to grammar and spelling stuff) and i would like to find any information i can on the more complicated ways of wikipedia such as the programming language of sorts that is used for more intricate editing. If there are any resources that could be passed along it would be greatly appreciated. Subsolute z3ro (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Subsolute z3ro. Does Help:Cheatsheet provide the sort of help that you're after? There's also Help:Wiki markup, but that is much more comprehensive and contains lots of information that most editors probably don't need to know, at least initially. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I find this Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles very useful sometimes.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a subpage for needs like this, User:White Arabian Filly/Help for New Users, which has the basics for beginners. It may help you, since it shows how to make wikilinks, indents, and basic markup but doesn't get into the more complicated stuff. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Thomas J. Carroll need a sense for what to do next.

I'm working on my second Wiki article Draft:Thomas J. Carroll. I've made the changes that I think reflect what the original reviewer requested, but I haven't heard back yet. I would appreciate a quick view and suggestions on a) should I request someone new to accept / reject my article (and how do you do that) and/or b) what I should do in order to make it acceptable. (Suggestions for general improvements are always welcome). Note, regarding Thomas Carroll's notability, perhaps I went too far in making the article in a neutral tone. Among other things, he was clearly a pioneer in methods for training and rehabilitating the blind (just Google "thomas carroll pioneer blind"), but how do you say that without using adjectives like "pioneer"? Thanks!! RobSVA (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Note: I purposefully cited individual pieces of information within a section even if they were from the same place. This is so that if I add additional information in the middle, I don't have to go back to the source to check if all of it came from that source or just the last bit. RobSVA (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

RobSVA, I'm not an expert on the drafts process, but if you want formal feedback from reviewers (you say you haven't heard back), I think you need to hit the "Resubmit" button. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

thanks Cordless Larry (talk)! I didn't really understand the problems that got me rejected in the first place (other than my formatting for citations that repeat) Instead of resubmitting and just getting rejected again, I'd like some real feedback first. RobSVA (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's always good to understand the issue before resubmitting, RobSVA, because otherwise it is likely to be rejected and possibly annoy the reviewers if they think their concerns haven't been addressed. Their concern here was that the notability of the subject has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. The article certainly includes a lot of references, but I wonder whether any of these are about Carroll as a central topic, or whether they just mention him in passing? I haven't checked them all, but the titles suggest the latter. It would therefore be a good idea to find sources that are primarily concerned with Carroll, to demonstrate that there is significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, regarding his being a pioneer, it's important not to confuse notability (as that term is used on Wikipedia) and importance. Notability here is really just about coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That is very useful information: "Notability does not equal importance.". I totally misunderstood that. So, Notability is coverage in reliable, independent sources. The irony is that I added most of the references that are not centrally about Carroll until after I got the review about "notability" which I took to mean "important" and a limited number of references. I still need a bit of guidance on what the priorities are: newspapers, books, websites. I'm assuming that if an article is about him, the fact that the magazine that has multiple articles, is not a problem with regards to "...Carroll as a central topic, or whether they just mention him in passing". If so, then the Newsweek, Banks, and Lackner articles qualify as do the obituaries. Also, does an entry on Carroll in an encyclopedia fall in the same category? If websites count (I don't mean things like the Google Books), then a large portion if not most of the websites that I listed are primarily about Carroll. For example, the American Printing House for the Blind link is exclusively about Carroll. I assumed that I should minimize use of http://carroll.org because that is not necessarily independent, but perhaps I went too far.

Note: IF a reviewer wants me to put together a table on the references regarding the type and whether Carroll is central or peripheral, I can do that and/or I can point out the ones which best meet the criteria. RobSVA (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm pleased that we're now on the same page as regards notability. A lot of new editors are confused by that. Newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, websites, etc. are all potentially good sources for establishing notability. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for advice on what is likely to be considered reliable (although note that not all reliable sources establish notability - keep in mind that the coverage has to be independent and significant). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Presumably obituaries are independent. Are they third party or second party sources? RobSVA (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

An obituary in a major newspaper would certainly help establish notability in my mind, RobSVA. An obituary written by a friend or colleague of the subject, published in a local newspaper, probably wouldn't. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

speedy deletion

please help me edit the article i've submitted. it was nominated for speedy deletion. i've provided credible sources and still. please take a look and let me know what needs to be changed or removed or added in order to avoid the deletion? thank you for you help Stanislavzarubin (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is Matchpoint NYC. In view of the number of sources, I don't agree with tagging it for speedy deletion. If the proponent of deletion thinks that the sources don't establish notability, they can open a deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The speedy deletion tag has been removed. If someone thinks that the subject isn't notable, they can go to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Jacob Riis also known as The Making of an American

I reviewed Draft: Jacob Riis. I declined it because Jacob Riis already exists. I advised User:Anonhiststudent that they were welcome to edit or add to the existing article. Anonhiststudent then posted to my talk page: "I'm trying to create an entry just for The Making of an American similar to How The Other Half Lives. It's supposed to be a standalone entry. Happy to fix it if that's the case." I am bringing this here for advice by other experienced editors. My advice would be that most of the draft is about the autobiography, and so it can mostly be left standing. The article should be renamed to Draft: The Making of an American, and the lede paragraph should begin with something like: The Making of an American’is the autobiography of Danish-American photojournalist and social activist Jacob Riis. Some information about the book, such as editions and versions, should be added. I think that the book is notable and should have an article. Most of the declined draft is about the book. The draft needs more wikilinks. It is mostly good.

When the draft is accepted, the author should edit Jacob Riis to wikilink in The Making of an American. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that The Making of an American is an existing article on a short silent film. Disambiguation will be required when the draft is ready for acceptance. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

With the exception of two reviews and an obituary, the article is referenced mostly to the book itself. That's a primary source and we prefer independent secondary sources. What do other biographers of Riis and historians of the era say about his autobiography? Summarizing those accounts should be the backbone of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources for wiki page

Hi - So I am having a really hard time figuring out how to differ from reliable sources and citations for my page. I know that's where my page is struggling with to get confirmed but I want to make sure I can get it submitted correctly.

Linaloe ximena (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Linaloe ximena, you can start by searching Google books and Google news for books or articles about the subject of the article you're writing. Not everything on there is reliable, but what comes up is in general much more reliable as a source than what you get from a basic Google search. Most of the time, the search engine will also bring up the best sources on the first 2 or 3 pages. You can also ask at your local library. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is Draft:Sheikh Omar. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The legend of Sheikh Omar is already described both in Coffee and History of coffee. It is a matter of opinion whether a freestanding article about this legendary or mythical person is justified. Personally, I would want to see lengthy, detailed coverage in academic sources in order to have a new article about him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:JCI Insight

I reviewed Draft:JCI Insight at AFC and declined it as inadequately sourced. Its author, User:Hoptman, posted to my talk page, saying that the one reference may not have linked because the issue of the sister journal had not yet gone on-line, and suggested that I accept it now that the journal is on-line. My real concern was that there was only one reference, and that to its sister journal. Also, she identifies herself as an employee of the society that publishes the journals, and that is a conflict of interest. However, I would like the advice of other editors as to what the notability of academic journals. Is there a guideline for notability of journals? Does anyone have advice for the author? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If it is an academic journal, there is Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, a new academic journal would be a case of WP:TOOSOON, because the criteria can't be evaluated yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with the required improvements

I have several notifications that there are parts of the page "Ahmed Abou Hashima" do not conform with the regulations of Wikipedia. Can you please highlight for me which parts need to be improved so I do the necessary changes.

Marwa bayoumi (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, don't panic - these can all be fixed. Those tags are there to help enhance articles, not to cause problems. The article Ahmed Abou Hashima was tagged for Notability, Original Research, Advert, and BLP sources by GenQuest on 3 October. Notability - I think this is a stretch considering the awards this gentleman has won, and there was an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Abou Hashima back in May 2014 - the decision was Keep. Advert - the article is certainly written in a promotional tone: I would like to see a lot more factual material about his career (which only gets a brief mention under "Background") and less on Awards (which currently takes up most of the article). Awards are great, but they generally come as a result of what he has achieved - and that is what most of the article should focus on. Original Research and BLP sources - there are a few statements that could have sources, or better sources, but one practical difficulty is that most of the main material is in Arabic, so many editors will have trouble contributing to it. It would benefit from having more references from outside the company; at the moment nearly half of the references are the company's own web site. Wikipedia is more interested in what other reputable sources say about the company, than what it says about itself. I'm sure other editors can help more, but I hope this is enough to get started.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

On the issue of tone, Marwa bayoumi, wording such as "Egyptian Steel produces durable, high-quality steel using efficient, innovative techniques and with an eye towards energy efficiency" and "in the magnificent Jumeirah Emirates Towers" are far too promotional. The article needs to take a much more descriptive, neutral, encyclopedic tone. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that there are also major issues with the Egyptian Steel article - some of which is written in the voice of the company, not an encyclopedia: "As part of our social responsibility towards the community...". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Much of the text of that article also turned out to be in violation of copyright, so I have had to remove it. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

And Ahmed Abou Hashima has serious copyright problems, too. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting help updating Marsy's Law

Hello, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia so I'm reaching out here to see if anyone can help update the entry on Marsy's Law, California's 2008 Crime Victims' Bill of Rights. In 2014, Illinois voters approved a constitutional amendment to strengthen its rights for crime victims. Marsy's Law in Illinois became law in 2015. The Illinois law is modeled after the California law, so it seems like it would be a good fit to include information on Marsy's Law in Illinois in the main Marsy's Law article. I have not made any of the edits because I have a financial conflict of interest and I know it is best not to update the entry myself. (I work at Mac Strategies Group and am posting as part of my work there on behalf of Marsy's Law For All). So far, I have posted my suggested edits on the Marsy's Law Talk page, WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Law and on Talk pages of four editors who seemed interested in the topic, but no-one has assisted. Can someone here can offer any pointers or look at this request? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that Marsy's Law is specifically about the California law. I would suggest that a separate article could be created about the Illinois law, and that the two articles reference each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi JulieMSG - Robert McClenon's right, you've done enough research on it to start its own article. If you need help, get back to me on my talk page and I'd be more than happy to help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

To deal with your conflict of interest, use the Articles for creation process and work with a reviewer on any bias in your draft. —teb728 t c 02:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon, onel5969 and teb728. Thanks for taking a look at my request and responding here so quickly. I have two questions: 1. Would you support a standalone article for Marsy's Law in Illinois even if it was short? 2. If a new article was created for the Illinois law, would you support adding a sentence or two to the California article so the two articles cross reference each other? I appreciate your feedback. Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi JulieMSG - I think there's certainly enough to warrant a standalone article, and I think it would be imperative to link the two. I think a mention of any laws which were prompted by the CA law would warrant a mention on the CA page, since that is a legacy of the CA law. Similarly, I think mention of the CA law on the IL page would also be warranted as part of the history of the law. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Editor contact

Hello. How do I contact a contributor to Wikipedia. Thanks, Tatanka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.97.156 (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tatanka, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you know the editor's name, then you can go to their user page by typing "User:" followed by the name into the search box, and then click on the "Talk" tab to go to their talk page. If you post a message there, the editor will see it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Article declined at Articles of Creation

Hi,

I am writing an article about a notable person. The issue is that the requirements to prove notability do not take into account circumstances in developing countries.

For instance, the individual I am writing about spearheaded the largest initiative for the Central Bank of the Dominican Republic. It is difficult to cite that because that organization did not have a website until fairly recently.

Is there someone I can chat with about this circumstance? I know it is not specific to me, but there has to be a way.

Thanks.

Azeremen12 (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Azeremen12: The general rule is, broadly, this: "For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today."

We are not concerned about whether there is a website, just about references. If the individual is notable in our terms they will have been written about, so you ought to be able, in whatever language, online or offline, to find them. We cannot have one standard for one nation and another for another.

It's a great question, but the answer will always be consistent. Fiddle Faddle 20:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is Draft:Leo Perez Minaya. (It would have helped if you had told us what the article was.) You say that he led the largest initiative for the Central Bank of the Dominican Republic, but that that is difficult to cite because they did not have a web site. Was that initiative covered in a newspaper or magazine, either in the US or in the Dominican Republic? It appears to me that the subject probably is notable but that independent reliable sources need to be added. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

How to reduce image size in articles?

I am working on an article in which I posted an image file for a photo I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. It is showing in the article in its enlarged form. How do I reduce the size of the photo in the article? Also, what is the easiest/best way to change or eliminate the caption under an accepted photo in my articles? The caption usually shows up with the text used to describe the photo for public domain use, and that caption is not usually appropriate for a caption in an article. Thank you so much for your help.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mitzi.humphrey I have updated your article with this edit to show you rather than try to explain. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for more info. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The section at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnails is the crucial bit here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both for your help and advice.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I can also recommend the excellent User:Yunshui/Images for beginners to help you sort out the pictures. w.carter-Talk 21:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone review my draft article?

Can someone review my draft article? It's located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Normhowe/Quality_Culture Normhowe (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Normhowe, and welcome to the Teahouse. By review, do you mean you'd like other editors to look at your draft and offer advice, or do you mean you're ready to submit the article at Articles for Creation and need a submit button? —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi GrammarFascist, I mean look at my draft and offer advice.Normhowe (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Normhowe, I'll have a look, and perhaps some other Teahouse volunteers will as well. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, GrammarFascist.Normhowe (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

{I fixed your indenting for you — always use one more : than the person you're replying to.)

First things first, Normhowe: I adjusted the formatting of all your references, partly because in a couple of cases you were citing one source multiple times as if it was a new source each time, and partly because there was information missing from or formatting problems with nearly all of the references you had. (Don't feel bad about that; reference formatting is one of the steepest learning curves Wikipedia has. I used the handy fill-in-the-blanks forms accessed via the "Cite" link in the blue bar at the top of the editing window and the "Templates" drop-down menu which appears when the "Cite" link is clicked — this makes reference formatting much easier.) Note how I used <ref name=example>{{citation}}</ref> and then <ref name=example/> to cite one source multiple times. One thing to watch out for with <ref name=... is that each different source's reference has to have a unique name. I used the abbreviation of the publication name in most cases, so the first Harvard Business Review reference is called just HBR. But I couldn't reuse that name when I got to the second Harvard Business Review article, and I instead called that one HBR2.

Moving on to the content of the article, I noticed while doing the references that the sentence "The brutal fact is that about 70% of all change initiatives fail." came directly from the article cited, but you had neglected to put quotation marks around it to show that those were not your words. I fixed that for you, too. You must be very careful not to include text written by anyone else without attributing it as a quotation; that's a copyright violation, and could cause the entire article to be deleted even if it's still a draft. I didn't check to see if there are more instances of unattributed copying, but you should hopefully remember what you wrote and what you merely copied, and you should make getting rid of any other "copyvio" (as Wikipedians call it) your priority in working on the draft.

Once that's taken care of... well, I'll be honest, you have a lot of work ahead of you. Quality Culture may in fact be a subject suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but the draft you have written is definitely not appropriate. One of the main problems is that you have used promotional language, such as referring to Joseph M. Juran as "the famous quality guru" (we don't do that on Wikipedia; we use objective descriptions only, such as 'Management consultant Joseph M. Juran'). There is also an overall tone to the article which is more how-to than descriptive, such as "Employees should be given opportunities to participate in improving the quality of the product." where the WP:NPOV way of phrasing that would be something like 'Quality culture proponents commonly suggest giving employees opportunities to participate in improving the quality of the product.' (but I don't know whether that sentence I just came up with is accurate, and it would need to be cited to a reliable source or sources).

The overall effect of this draft is as if it was written to be a magazine article advocating for quality culture to be implemented in readers' businesses. And there's nothing wrong with that — feel free to submit it to any magazine you like, minus any plagiarism! — but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. That's why Primefac gave you the link to What Wikipedia is not. Maybe you got distracted by all the other "nots" and missed the "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" section. (The "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" section is also relevant, in that your draft is advocating for and promoting the adoption of quality culture; a Wikipedia article about quality culture can only describe it, and perhaps also include judicious mention of the fact that some authoritative figures advocate its use.) I'm afraid much of the draft can't even be salvaged by rewriting, though I think that some of it can. You should feel free to ask whatever questions you have about my analysis. I apologize if I've come across as harsh; my intent is definitely not to scare you off contributing to Wikipedia. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 06:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment below moved to what I believe is the right section by ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks GrammarFascist. Your frankness is both helpful and refreshing.Normhowe (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello GrammarFascist. I've revised as you suggested. If you could take a look, I'd appreciate it.Normhowe (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed your link to GrammarFascist, because the markup you used turned everything green. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Changing a title

How do I change a title to an article by deleting a word? The article is Corkin Frederick Cherubini which I want to change to Corkin Cherubini. Midolly Midolly (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Midolly, and welcome to the Teahouse. To move a page, you click on the "Page" drop-down menu in the top right, and then "Move page". However, to do this your accounts needs to be autoconfirmed. This will happen after you have made ten edits. That said, Draft:Corkin Frederick Cherubini is a draft article so I wouldn't worry too much about the title. It's more important to get the content up to standard. Corkin Cherubini sounds like an important and interesting character, and is mentioned in a number of other Wikipedia articles, but you need to sort the referencing out. Rather than simply listing sources at the end of the article, you need to use footnote citations. See Help:Referencing for beginners for instructions on how to do this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Footnote citations" (using <ref> tags) are never required. The sourcing style in the draft is a legitimate form of WP:Inline citation. However, manual numbering is also incredibly difficult to maintain, because you have to re-number every time someone adds a new one or re-arranges the existing contents. For your own convenience, I strongly recommend switching to WP:PAREN (parenthetical comments like "Smith 2010", which are very popular in academic papers) or <ref> tags (little blue clickable numbers, which are very popular on Wikipdia). Either of these will be much easier to maintain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The manual numbering was added after I had commented here, WhatamIdoing. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I also need to change the title of an existing page and I don't understand the guidance above. I don't see any "page" drop-down menu top right, or anywhere, in the edit screen. There is the "page options" drop down but that doesn't seem to let me rename the page. Can anyone point me in the right direction?Keydet92 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's probably because you are not yet autoconfirmed, as I explained above, Keydet92. I will move the page for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, after reading the autoconfirmed page it looks like I also need 4 days. I'm trying to rename "Stevens Model 520" to "Stevens Model 520/620". I appreciate the assist.Keydet92 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Keydet92 - I confused you with Midolly, who started this section. I'll take a look at the article that you want to move. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have moved it, Keydet92, but you really need to add references to the article, otherwise it is at risk of being nominated for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

How do i tag someone?

I have an alternate account i created so i can use in public. its FrigidSoil. How I tag a user?Winterysteppe (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Is Template:User alternative account banner useful? --Jayron 32 03:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

How to do references

Hi, I am new here..I have edited before and know how to create links to articles but I need some help with references. I tried to add reference at this article using the formatted layout. When I copy the script from other references and replace with relevant details, it comes out fine. But when I try to add formatted script myself, I keep getting error. Can anyone please tell me what I doing wrong with the referencing. Thanks PSL Fan (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Dont worry, I have worked it out now. Thanks! PSL Fan (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you got it sorted out, PSL Fan. The trusty copy-and-change technique works fine, and it's how I started. There is also a handy facility that gives you a fill-in-the-blanks form that you might like to try - there is a very short video showing how to do this, on YouTube here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

How to edit links in my user page?

Hi, My user page does not have language links. How can I add language links? MochaMilk (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi MochaMilk, I'm not sure what you mean by language links. Do you mean the babel userboxes, that say something like, "this user speaks American English" or tells what other languages you speak, and within the userbox there's a link to the language's article? If so, you can find them at WP:UBX. Don't use ones for different languages unless you know that language, though. You're writing English, so you could have the English one in either American or British English, whichever you speak. There are also userboxes for dialects within the language. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if MochaMilk might mean links to their user page on other language versions of Wikipedia? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Cordless Larry. I'm Nana. Can you tell me on how to add links to my user page on other language versions of Wikipedia? MochaMilk (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

One way to do it is to use an interlanguage link. See Help:Interlanguage links#Inline links on this. What you need to do is add a colon, the two-letter language code and another colon before the page you want to link to, so to link to your user page on the Korean Wikipedia for example, you would use [[:ko:사용자:MochaMilk]], which produces ko:사용자:MochaMilk. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! =^.^= ~MochaMilk

(Talk) 18:52, 4 December 2015 (KST)

Just Trying To Help You Guys

I read an article about 'lingual frenectomy', the removal of a band of tissue (the lingual frenulum) connecting the underside of the tongue with the floor of the mouth. The Wiki article needed more information about the person who made a comment the Wiki writer had Posted. I quickly gathered up some specific information about the Professor, but was taken aback at what is involved just to suggest adding a Footnote for the missing details. I barely passed English in High School! I have no desire to BECOME a Wiki Contributor, I'm just a plain ol' guy trying to help YOU all! Please Re-Read what I wrote and change it as you like, or delete it entirely. Why would you ask for clarification about someone' s qualifications, yet make it like I must be some Scholar in this stuff? Honest, I DO want to help, but I'll not devote hours and hours to learn something I'd probably never need to use myself! I wish you the best (and YES, I've contributed to Wiki financially, but a fixed income prohibits my Donation being noticed... Best to you guys n grrls! Garry GarrySShelton (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Domenico Maceri. You are right, creating a new article is difficult, and not recommended for someone with no previous experience of editing Wikipedia. But what you did was a reasonable response to seeing the ^[who?] tag in the lingual frenectomy article. I have replaced the tag – perhaps inappropriately, I am not sure what the purpose of such a tag is. Maproom (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@GarrySShelton and Maproom: If you hover your mouse pointer on the^[who?] tag until your pointer becomes a mitten it will display a tool-tip on what the tag is for. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's try it: ^[who?]. Hmm. That paragraph, in the original context, would not have been helpful. There was no vague attribution, and no weasel words. Maproom (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Changes reverted

I updated the revenue on Accenture's page according to their official financial report with proper citation but someone reverted the changes back to an incorrect figure and the citation provided by him is also of no relevance to the matter.so please,I want to know how should I respond to this? Whether I should revert it back to a correct one or let it remain as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.198.39 (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2015‎ (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. From your comments, I guess you are Dpshmrt even though you were not logged in when you asked this question. You are quite right about the revenue figure - the figure you gave is the one in the company reports. If somebody wants to change it, they will need to provide a better source. I have put it back. As for the lede, I avoided the problem by updating it with 2015 figures so there is no need to debate which source to use for old (2014) information. Thanks for bringing this to our attention; I have put that page on my Watchlist to monitor it for a while.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

wikia community central

Please could I ask is Wikipedia part of wikia community central or is it two different sites?LoVeNoTwAr101 (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LoVeNoTwAr101. There is no formal affiliation between Wikipedia and Wikia. The indirect connection is that Jimmy Wales co-founded Wikipedia and then later started Wikia as a private business venture. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

How do I know if something is "of note"

Hi everyone, long time user, first time editor. I'm currently working on a paper about a recent sexual harassment scandal at a New York law office. I was surprised in my initial research to not find a Wikipedia entry. The firm has taken on a number of larger companies in addition to the scandal, but I'm not sure if that makes them noteworthy. Wanted to get some thoughts and advice. Thanks! Hellstormer (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A topic is notable (click on that blue word for a full explanation) if and only if it has been written about in reliable independent published sources. That is the only criterion. I don't know what you mean by "taken on a number of larger companies" (started fights with them? hired them as lawyers?) but it's not relevant. Maproom (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it might be relevant if it has been reported in independent sources, which would help establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Given the description, there are two things that come to mind:

1) even if the "scandal" has been the subject of non-trivial treatment in reliable, secondary, independent sources (i.e., the core standard to establish notability of a topic), it still might not warrant an entry. See the notability guideline on events; and

2) any such article describing negative material, allegations of sexual misconduct, etc., must be verified through inline citations to high quality sources (from the first edits), especially with respect to any material involving living people. Please see also WP:CRIME. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)