Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 641

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 635 ← Archive 639 Archive 640 Archive 641 Archive 642 Archive 643 → Archive 645

A Question on Citation

I recently submitted a DRAFT which was rejected on the grounds that some of the refs are not credible like youtube, I will like to ask, how then can you reference a line in an article that refers to a video, and how does wikipedia determine credible sources, if a credible source is a localised source, for example certain mainstream news are credible but localised and also how can I reference a Newspaper article.Goziextech (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you in AdvanceGoziextech (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I think you might be interested in reading about reliable sources. For ways to cite, the article wizard is quite helpful I think, but you can also read the document here. Before you do any of this though, I think you ought to read about conflict of interest here in Wikipedia, based on the draft article you have submitted recently. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 05:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

What are "WikiProjects" and how do they work? And how do you join them?

Hello. So I've been here for a while now and I have noticed "WikiProjects", how do they work? And do you need to request if you want to join them? Thanks! HouseGecko (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, HouseGecko, most WikiProjects are quite informal these days, to the point where officially "joining" is not at all necessary. All that you need to is to put the Project and its talkpage on your watch list, and then either start a conversation there, or look and see what may need doing, or contact an existing member on their usertalk page or via WP:PING and ask them the best way to participate. Some WikiProjects have grown stale over the years, but many still have style guidelines or peer-review projects for articles, and most talk pages are still watched by at least a few people. It depends upon the project (and how large of an area it covers). Just dive in and participate or start a conversation on a talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an editor!

Hi guys, I joined wikipedia in order to write an article about my company - which I now realise I can't do! Can I request that an article about it be written? I make vegan cosmetics, and I've seen an article listing vegan companies, and I'd like mine to be in there! Fairypantsuk (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fairypantsuk: Hello and welcome. Please note that not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even companies in the same field; it must receive in depth coverage in independent reliable sources that indicate how it meets the company notability guidelines. If you believe that is the case, your company may merit an article. You can post to the appropriate section of Requested Articles, but the backlog is so massive that it may never get written.
It is correct that you should not directly create an article about your company, you can indirectly create one by visiting Articles for Creation to submit a draft for an independent review and feedback. However, before you even attempt to do that, you should review Your First Article, the notability guidelines that I link to above, and make the appropriate declarations of a conflict of interest and paid editing(the latter of which is required by the Terms of Use if you have a paid relationship). I would again stress the need for in depth coverage of your company in independent sources; Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, but what independent sources not affiliated with the company say. If you just want to post that your company exists, such an article will not be accepted. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I would add that an article about your company here is not necessarily a good thing (that link refers to biographies but the principle is the same); you cannot keep others from editing it, you cannot lock it to the text you would like it to be, and information (good or bad) can be added to it as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. You can't keep bad information out, if it exists(or will exist) 331dot (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Create an article with offline sources

There is a small castle in France (Berry) called Buranlure, very famous in the neighborhood and fairly old. It is mentionned in various pages, and classified as part of the french national heritage (highest degree of national classification for historical buildings), but has very few articles online about it. The only sources are its official website and some amateur pages. I would like to create an article about it, based on reliable facts from the various books written about it I have at home, but don't know if it will work as it cannot be checked so easily. How could this be done? thank you very much in advance Berrybur (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Berrybur:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Reliable offline sources are perfectly fine but you should add as many bibliographic details as possible for such sources (for all sources actually), so other interested editors have a reasonable chance to find the sources themselves in a library or somewhere else. The castle's official website should be used sparingly and only for uncontroversial basic claims, and other amateur sites are generally not usable at all. As this seems to be your first article, I'd recommend to check WP:Your first article and to create a draft following this step-by-step guide. Experienced editors will review such a draft when you submit it, and will be able to offer additional advice. I'll also post some standard links on your user talkpage. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Berrybur, I don't see any problem here. Notability is pretty much guaranteed by the monument listing. Without doing any prolonged searching, you have basic factual data in this source, a full but not modern description here, and a shorter but more modern bit here here. I'm sure that plenty more will turn up. Oh, and there are public-domain historic images in the 1875 source, which can freely be uploaded to Commons to be used in the article. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: It seems like you accidentally used the same URL twice for your last 2 links. And I probably should have mentioned: while English-language sources are preferred, non-English reliable sources are OK as well, and also establish notability for a topic just like English-language sources. GermanJoe (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, GermanJoe, I've changed that second link – which happens to be to an English-language book. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Perfect thank you very much! I'll do that.

Very grateful for all your responsive help.

Berrybur (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

All administrators must consider it

We are here to improve wikipedia. I suggest a wikipedia project with the name Wikipedia:Articles for Improvement (WW:AfI). I have developed a draft, but it is my suggestion, admins will proceed with what they feel better. Admins must read this draft and inform me what they think about this suggestion. Sinner (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: A pro-tip, saying the words "must consider"/"must read" normally causes a negative reaction. If you'd like some feedback, asking nicely is the best way to go -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention the special addition of the red font to the header. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 13:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I meant to say a wikipedia project like Wikipedia:Discussions for Redirect and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion should be established in which Users will edit pages and improve wikipedia. For more information read this. I don't want feedback but simply want quick improvement in wikipedia.

Here for single call Sinner (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to be aware of this page. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
That is certainly what I want 331dot, Once again Sinner (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
So if you want to modify the processes there, you should address those on that page by posting to that page's talk page. That said, I would participate some there first before suggesting changes. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

unconstructive edit?

Hello,

I would like to (substiantially) edit this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87a_plane_pour_moi in order to put it in accordance with the original French version of it (here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87a_plane_pour_moi) - basically, the new version would be a translation to English of the French version.

Whenever I try however, I am blocked because "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed".

Can someone please help me with this change?

Many thanks in advance.

Lexmind (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lexmind - Looking at your "Abuse filter log" you have had five edits disallowed for "Addition of bad words or other vandalism" I don't know what your additions include, but you are not going to get the text you are currently trying to add past the abuse filter. Try making several incremental edits, rather than one large one, and you should be able to work out what is causing the alarm bells to go off. - Arjayay (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Lexmind: Wikipedia languages are edited independently and articles don't have to be "in accordance" with eachother. The current English version looks fine to me. The translated version you are trying to make has poor English and many things we don't do here, already in the second sentence: Since its released, the song meets a worldwide success (15 “Disques d'or” and 5 Platinum [[Ça plane pour moi#cite note-7|<sup>7</sup>]]), it will be one of the few francophone songs to enter the [[Billboard Hot 100|''Billboard Hot 100'']][[Ça plane pour moi#cite note-8|<sup>8</sup>]],[[Ça plane pour moi#cite note-LS2001-6|<sup>6</sup>]]. You can use the "Sandbox" link at top of any page, save a version there and suggest replacing the article, but I doubt it will get support. I suggest you learn more about the English Wikipedia before trying to replace a whole article. It may have been the mention of Armageddon Dildos which triggered the filter. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

article waiting for approval since February 2017

Greetings. I created an article on an important Southern California outdoor sculpture in February 2017. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_Spanish_Music ) Since then, it has had a note at the top saying that the article will be reviewed by "someone other than the author". It seems like five (5) months is too long to wait for this kind of review. Am I wrong? Did I do something incorrect in creating or posting the article? (I am a very new and inexperienced contributor to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.) I posted a note on my "Talk" page about this several weeks ago (3 July 2017), and even that has been ignored. Please let me know what I should do, or if I just need to wait. Thanks. --Seauton

Seauton (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Unless you have user talk page followers it's unlikely anyone will see that message. I don't know why it has taken so long, there may be a reason, but we are all volunteers here. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I looked and wondered if the issue might be notability see: WP:N. I did not see any secondary sources in the references that attested to the sculptures importance. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Seauton: I agree with Ariconte's concerns above. Articles usually need to fulfill general notability guidelines, and in this case, it seems like most of what is written about the sculpture is published by Pomona College. These sources are not sufficiently independent of the topic. Would you consider moving some of this content to the main article on the sculptor? I JethroBT drop me a line 20:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Seauton. I just reviewed the article, tagged it for possible notability issues, and left a detailed analysis of the sources and what they lack on Talk:Spirit of Spanish Music. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, searching for reliable sources gives me nothing. I'm considering AFDing the article. Jdcomix (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Jdcomix, I think a redirect – for which there already seems to be consensus here – to Burt Johnson might be simpler. Not that he is particularly notable either; in fact that page could be an AfD candidate, too. Being brother-in-law to Augustus Saint-Gaudens's brother is not a great claim to fame. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

When is it okay to remove or delete edits?

I noticed the removal of edits by another user. The odd thing is, they reported their removal to an admin. Nothing in the removed material seemed to violate rules, but the editor suspected them of being a SOCK. I can provide diffs, but before I do, I just would like some second opinions. Is this normal? I am familiar with WP:TALKNO, so I'm feeling a bit confused by this, since it seems to be sanctioned by an admin, but I could be wrong about that. DN (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Darknipples, the editor who reverted is likely familiar with the editing patterns of a sockpuppet master and believed the reverted edits were made by a sock of that user. The admin was involved because socks must be blocked. If the reverted editor turns out to be innocent, they will be unblocked and their changes may be added back. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Note, Darknipples, that only edits made by socks who are actually evading blocks should be reverted on sight. Socking users who have yet to be detected, may be blocked when they are first detected, but their previous edits are not automatically reverted or removed. Under ordinary circumstances, one does not remove the talk page comments of others, although personal attacks can sometimes be an exception. Unless you are sure you know what you are doing, do not revert or alter anyone else's talk page comments. If you think there is a problem, draw attention to it in a comment of your own. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding a photo

I am wondering how to add a photo of a public person that is not a press photo.

For example, can I add a photo where the photographer has given permission for the photo to be on Wikipedia? 99.96.49.194 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)The copy

Hello IP user. It would require that the copyright holder (who is usually the photographer, but might be someone else, for example if the photographer's contract said otherwise) explicitly release the work under a compatible licence (such as CC-BY-SA), which would allow anybody to reuse the image for any purpose. The copyright holder would have to do this either publicly (eg on a a web page that they control), on the fly when uploading the image to Wikimedia Commons (but only if they uploaded it themselves) or by email to the Wikimedia Foundation. See donating copyright materials, --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Article needs to go back to draft?

So while browsing the Recent Changes I came across this William Weinbach, am I right in thinking this page has been published? If so I think should go back to the @Willweinbach: draft to be tidied up and actually to see if it meets WP:PERSON NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 00:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the article and IMO, there isn't even a valid assertion of notability. I nominated it for speedy deletion per A7 and G11. John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Non-registered user removing WP:CSD templates

Hey,

Just a quick question. Who do we go to about a non-registered user (although shown as an IP address) removing multiple WP:CSD templates without any discussion, i.e. accept, deny, etc.

I know per the rules we're not supposed to re-add it to candidacy, to my knowledge, but I didn't know what to do since it wasn't validly considered.

The autotag left behind was as follows: "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits, speedy deletion template removed" Which made no sense to me.

Any thoughts or suggestions? Snickers2686 (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Were the CSD templates valid, Snickers2686. Un like prod, there is no ban on reinstating a CSD tag unless it is decliend by an admin or an experienced reviewing editor. On the other hand, IP editors have as much right to remove tags they consider incorrectly placed as any other editor. Did this seem to be vandalism, or incompetent editing, or quick but correct action? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: It looks like they were reinstated by another user. Snickers2686 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Combating paid editing

Why can't we have a process, say a G14 CSD where we can tag all pages created by a sockpuppet or any other paid editor, for deletion. Most of the paid editors are usually identified by their sockfarms, and blocked by the keen eyes at SPI. If the pages are deleted on being identified as an obvious sockpuppet, the tribe of undeclared paid editors will decrease, as people will not be willing to pay for articles that are deleted soon. Siddhant Behl, Sujayath Ali, Karnesh Sharma and Voonik are articles created by extensive sockfarms, some of whose creators where blocked by SPIs initiated by me. However most of them cannot be ordinarily deleted by proper means as sometimes well meaning inclusionists jump at their defence, citing the references presented. If they are speedily deleted on being identified as an SPA creation, we can bypass that issue, and if they are indeed notable, we can always have the inclusionists re-creating the article. I have presented this here to vet any very obvious fallacy in the idea, and to hear from experienced editors to see if this was proposed earlier. If I get the go-ahead, this can go to the Village Pump Proposal lab. Jupitus Smart 17:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me a good proposal. Maproom (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This seems to me to be a specific WP:G5 extension to allow the deletion of articles created before the block (but not long before, and relevant to the causes of the block). I doubt you would get either your proposal or a G5 extension to pass though, unless very tightly worded. TigraanClick here to contact me 18:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Variations of this have been proposed before on WT:CSD and have not gained consensus. Indeed there was recently considerable support for totally repealing WP:CSD#G5 which permits speedy deletion of articles created in violation of a block or ban. I would oppose any such change as you suggest very strongly. If you want to propose it, WT:CSD is the place. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, the opinion so far is to thread cautiously. There has also been a failed attempt at something similar at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 61. Let me think it over. Jupitus Smart 04:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Malta

Hi fellow Wikipedians!

Malta's parliament has recently approved same-sex marriage, 66-1. I would like to change the article name from recognition of same-sex unions in Malta to "same-sex marriage in Malta". I would like to post a request on the talk page for others to comment if they would approve the change, but I have no idea how to ask the community to approve such a change. Any help would be appreciated. Andrew1444 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC) 

Andrew1444 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Andrew1444} See Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves, where it suggests using {{Requested move}} on the talk page of the article to start a talk page discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Andrew1444. Has the law gone into effect yet? If not, the page move might be premature. (See the short discussion at a related page.) RivertorchFIREWATER 03:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for asking Rivertorch, the answer to that is, no; however, Malta has recognized same-sex marriage since 2014 [[1]]|recognition of same-sex partnerships in Malta|. In any case "registered partnership in Germany" has already been replaced by Same-sex marriage in Germany despite that the German President hasn't signed this bill into law. As I mentioned above, unlike Germany there is miniscule doubt this bill will ride. Andrew1444 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

How do I verify that I am authorized to use certain text.

My name is Sam Rutan, and I am new to creating articles on Wikipedia. I just finished creating an article for an upcoming Netflix series called Daughters of Destiny (2017). My boss, the director, told me to use a description that she wrote for the series as the article body. However, it just so happens that this text was also used in press releases across the internet. So, in other words, the director wrote the text but since it is in articles on the internet Wikipedia is trying to delete my page on the grounds of copyright infringement. How do I reconcile this? Srutan21 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Srutan21: Hello and welcome. First, I would ask you to please review the conflict of interest policy as well as the paid editing policy since you state you are editing at the request of your boss; compliance with the latter policy is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you have a paid relationship. Regarding your question, I believe you will need to visit this page on donating copyright materials for more information. I think your director will need to be the one to actually donate the materials since you don't own them yourself. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
331dot: the text you have used appears on this page with the copyright notice "© 2017 - Copyright Wisdom Digital Media, all rights reserved." If your boss does release this text for use in Wikipedia, it will also become available for re-use, including commercial re-use, by anyone who acknowledges its source. Maproom (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Material written for a press release is unlikely to be suitable for use in an encyclopedia article in any case, Srutan21 - apart from the odd selective quote, perhaps (which is allowable within copyright rules). You should write the material in your own words, or, better still given your conflict of interest, wait for someone else to write the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. In this case, would my best course of action be to declare my COI and request the creation of an article? Srutan21 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Srutan21: You could put in a request at Requested Articles but it is severely backlogged to the point where it might not get written. You could contact a relevant WikiProject to see if someone could help you there, perhaps one of the ones listed at the top of Talk: List of original programs distributed by Netflix. (probably the Film one) 331dot (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

How to find reliable sources?

Hi, I am a new editor and just started making minor changes. Can you suggest me how to find reliable sources to do citation? V.Sai Pradeep (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, V.Sai Pradeep and welcome to Wikipedia. Finding reliable sources is one of the major tasks we all engage in here, and to be honest, it's a bit of an art in that it absolutely requires you to exercise your own judgement. That being said, there's still quite a bit of science to it to help you get started.
For starters, you can compile a list of sources by doing a google search, then comparing those sources to the Reliable sources checklist.
Also, if you know of a few outlets that you think are clearly reliable (NPR, for example) you can find specific sources by doing a google search with that source's website included with a site: prefix. So, following my example, you can search for [search term] site:npr.org to make sure that your results come from NPR's website.
If you're ever unsure whether a source is reliable or not, you can start a discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard, where other editors will weigh in. There are lots of experienced editors there, so it can also be a great learning experience.
Also, did you know that our search for reliable sources isn't particularly unique? It's a process used in history, psychology and many other academic subjects. It's called Source criticism, and our article on it, and that article's sources can themselves be a valuable resource for general practices and principles.
FInally, you can check out {{Notability}}, a template that includes some useful google search presets. Simply edit a page that you want to search for sources on, add that template, hit Preview (or if you think it should be left on the page, hit Save) and use the links that appear in the template to get started. I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Need insight: Article declined: Reason given: Not adequately supported by reliable sources

Hey People,

I created a submission "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Transfer_school" it was declined with notes - "Not adequately supported by reliable sources." I have linked the doc. with the NYC DoE. NYC DoE should have been considered as reliable. Could you please suggest, what better & reliable source should I use? I did not check with the US DoE website, coz Transfer school ain't an universal US concept. Not all states have 'em. I do can add the references of the DoE of other states; but, the article ain't that large. If I do that would the article get accepted? And, could it not be dealt with separately?

One more thing, this is my second article only. Please lend me a hand here :)

Fatnred 05:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatnred (talk • contribs)

Hi Fatnred! Welcome to Teahouse. I would suggest shortening the article to make it more concise, and be more clear about how this system only exists in certain regions of the US. For reliable sources, there appears to be quite a few available, like this New York Times article or this academic book. DoE might not be the best sources as they can appear to be self-referential. If you need my help with the article, let me know. Happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 06:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The DoE source is a primary one. It would be best to make sure that all the major points of the article are covered in secondary sources, as these have the added advantage of being interpreted and often fact-checked by reliable third-parties. It's okay to use primary sources, but basing an article on them is generally frowned upon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

What should a user do

What should a experienced user do if a new and inexperienced user is asking useless questions frequently from him Sinner (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Nazim Hussain Pak. In my opinion, experienced editors should do their best to assist new editors, and a friendly answer to a question perceived as useless may turn out to be very useful to someone trying to learn the complexities of editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Sinner (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

My talk page is becoming too big. What I should do to automatically archive 15 days old threads from it? Sinner (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak:, check out Help:Archiving a talk page which addresses your exact question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Citing books

How do you cite the existence of a book? When you are citing something drawn from a book, it seems that existence of the book is assumed. Such and such is drawn from "The Cat in the Hat by Dr Seuss, pg 3-5, published by MacMillian 1953." But in Dr Seuss bibliography, how do you cite that he wrote "The Cat in the Hat?" GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey GreatCaesarsGhost. In cases like the Cat in the Hat, where the book itself is clearly notable, it shouldn't be too difficult to find a secondary source talking about the subject as the author of the book, such as here. In other cases, where the author is notable but the book isn't, and such secondary sources are not available, the book itself may suffice as a citation that they are the author of the book, since the book itself serves to verify the information that the person is the author of it. TimothyJosephWood 13:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, GreatCaesarsGhost for quotes from the book, or the fact that this book was written by this author and published on this date, the book itself is the best source, and should be cited in preference to any secondary source. it is cited with its publication info (title, author, publisher, date, ISBN or OCLC or LC number, and place of publication, etc. In a bibliography where all books are by the same author, the author can be omitted), and a link if an online version is available. A reliable secondary source is needed for any analysis, or to help establish the notability of the book. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Social media

How can I link a social media account on a Wikipedia page as an external link so that it appears under the person's profile when googled? 204.72.144.1 (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@204.72.144.1:, see Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Editor's shouldn't be using WP for Search engine optimization, even if it's for a notable person. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, However, many people have their social media accounts as a profile on Wikipedia and it shows up when googled. 204.72.144.1 (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That is a function of google, not Wikipedia. Compare A google search for "Donald Trump" which shows his various social media links with Trump's WP article which doesn't to see what I mean. We don't promote his twitter account for example, despite him being one of the most notable users of Twitter currently. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@204.72.144.1: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it has nothing to do with social media sites, a wikipedia editor should not create links to social media sites like facebook and twitter on wikipedia, links to these sites have no use on wikipedia, they can not even stand as a reliable source for wikipedia articles. Sinner (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP Editor. In a biographical article, it is usual to link to the subject's web presence, if there is one. Best practice is to have only one such link. If the subject has a personal web site that links to the subject's facebook, linkedIn, etc, use that. But many people now have a facebook page as their primary form of web presence. In that case, we not only may, we should link to the subject's facebook page, just as we link to an organization's site in External links, or possibly in an infobox. MPants at work, Nazim Hussain Pak, do understand that a subject's own statements, on the subject's own web site or social media page, are considered reliable on the subject's article, for the subject's own statements. This is an exception to the general rule that social media are not considered reliable. Even on other articles this can apply. For a hypothetical example, in an article about a proposed new immigration bill, if President Trump used twitter to say that the bill was "Totally foolish. How sad." we could and should link to the twitter account to get the original statement, which is reliable for the fact that Trump wrote that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: the IP asked how to link it in such a way that it will appear in google searches: That is SEO, and is part of what WP is not. Your comments about a BLP's own words, while true, are irrelevant. No-one is asking whether a BLP's social media can be used to support their own statements. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
MPants at work. I am also saying that we not only may, but should include one link to the subject's web presence in the external links section, whether it is used to cite anything or not. Partly this is because it can be used to find such cites in future, but partly because a subject's web presence is a significant fact about the subject, and should routinely be included in any Wikipedia article about the subject. That may or may not result in the link appearing when the subject is searched for on Google. Google routinely takes parts of a Wikipedia article, and puts them next to links and images from other sources about the same topic. We can't control that. But the external link should be in the articel, and that is at least part of what the IP editor asked about. It should, of course, be put in like any other External link or any "Official site" in any article that has one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that, and for the most part; we already do things that way. But we do not format it such that it will appear in the snippets displayed by a google search, for example. So we're not going to be linking their twitter feed in the first paragraph. So long as any such link is either placed in the appropriate lines of an infobox, or in the external links section, they are generally acceptable unless a good reason to exclude them exists. The OP's question could be applied to an article that already contains such a link, in which case there is nothing to be done, and policies to explain why nothing should be done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
True enough, but no one told the OP that. When an editor wrote above Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it has nothing to do with social media sites, a wikipedia editor should not create links to social media sites like facebook and twitter on wikipedia, links to these sites have no use on wikipedia,... That tells the OP that such links are not acceptable even in an External links section, which is incorrect. That sort of advice is what I was responding to. The OP's question was not clear, it suggests that the OP does not understand that the results of a google search can be a mix of things from and not from Wikipedia. I want to help the OP (and others who may read this) to understand that, and what should and should not go into an article, and where. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I think we should mention WP:ELMINOFFICIAL "Normally, only one official link is included. .... Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites." - Arjayay (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
True enough, but no one told the OP that. Um... That's exactly what I said in my first two comments. I posted a link to the policy and to our article on SEO, in addition to pointing out where the feature the editor noticed originated from and providing an example of a Wiki article vs a google search result. So "no-one told the OP that" just isn't true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Trying to improve a page

Hi,

I am trying to get this page approved:

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

I believe there is more than enough press and well written but for some reason it recently got declined.

If someone could please advise it would be much appreciated Ricardomatip98 (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ricardomatip98:When a draft is declined, there is usually a reason given. This particular draft has been declined several times, usually for notability reasons, but in the most recent case, the explanation given was as follows:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
I would suggest you review that reason and check out the links provided within it. To summarize, the article basically reads like an advertisement for the subject and should be re-written in a more neutral tone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is a copyright problem

I inform users that article Nanha has copyright violation problem because a lot of its content is copied from [2]. Sinner (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: if you can identify what the copyright violations are then you can resolve this yourself. You can either rewrite the content in your own words using that page as a reference for the rewritten content or if you think you cannot rewrite the content them simply remove it with and appropriate edit summary. Nthep (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I've dealt with this, Nazim Hussain Pak. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. How to deal with copyright violations is explained at Wikipedia:Copyright violations, but it can be quite complicated. In this case, as it was a clear violation, I replaced the offending material with the {{Copyvio}} template, which generates a message box on the page with code that I used to list the case and warn the editor who added it (found using the revision history search tool. If you're unsure, you can always just use {{Copypaste}} to bring an article to other editors' attention. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Submitting draft for review

Hello! I was wondering if someone could answer this question for me. If I have a draft in the draft space currently and click the "submit for review" button, if my draft is not approved will it be deleted? Or will it just be returned to the draft space for me to continue editing. Thanks! Taylorlaties (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Taylorlaties, and welcome to the Teahouse. if a draft is submitted and not approved, the reviewer will provide a reason or reasons why it was not approved. The reviewer may also provide additional comments on what could be done to improve the draft and make it more likely to be approved another time. Sometimes the reviewer will edit the draft to make some improvement directly. The the draft, with those comments and edits (if any) will remain in draft space, at the same page name as it was before, and you (or anyone who wants to help) can keep editing to try to improve the draft and make it more likely to be approved. Some drafts are submitted several times before they are approved. Drafts are not deleted for being declined. A draft that sits untouched, no edits at all, for 6 months or more can be deleted. Drafts that contain copyright violations can be deleted, or drafts that are blatant advertisements or promotional pieces. But not just ones that do not pass review. However, if a previous review pointed out an issue, and nothing at all is done to address that issue, but another review is requested, it can be seen as wasting the next reviewer's freely given time, which is impolite. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Saving a Draft for Offline Work

Hi. I am going to be away from my computer for a while and would like to work on the draft while I am.

How do I save the (draft) file for offline use?

Thanks!

ObadiahKatz (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi ObadiahKatz. If you are like me and have a smartphone you can edit using it. If you don't or that's not an option, you can print the draft out and then manually write on the paper. The addition would then have to be typed in and saved to Wikipedia, but it might work. Or you can copy-paste the draft to your offline word processor and work on it there, then put the finished version on Wikipedia. There might also be some kind of script for what you want, but I'm not aware of one. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello, ObadiahKatz. While you can save a copy of the wiki-text, and work on that offline, you can also work on the draft right here on Wikipedia from any computer or device that can access a web page on the internet. (Although editing from mobile devices can be awkward.) Also, note that it may be the draft you created, but it isn't your draft. Others can and may choose to work on it. See WP:OWN. People are not as likely to edit drafts they did not create as they are to edit articles they did not create, but some people do. I am one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It depends what you have access to. When you say "save the (draft) file" I suspect you mean you will be away from the Internet but still have access to some computer. Use the source editor. If you start out in VisualEditor then click the pencil icon at the top right. If possible, copy-paste the source code of the page to a text editor on your computer and save it as a text file. You can edit that offline with a text editor but not VisualEditor and you cannot see how it will render with our wiki software. Only edit it as pure text and don't use any formatting features of a word processor. When you are online, copy-paste the text back to the source editor. If you are used to VisualEditor then it may be difficult to do anything other than writing pure text when you are offline. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Navigate directly to the changed section

In my short time here, I've always had to scroll around to find what was changed on a page when it came up on my watchlist. I had no idea that there was a way to navigate directly to it. I realize that the Teahouse is typically for asking questions about editing, but I thought I'd at least share, and maybe it'd help someone else in the future.

From your watchlist, you'll see a list of entries, like below:

08:48, 11 July 2017 (diff | hist)..(+180)‎..Wikipedia:Teahouse (→‎Where to find editor rankings?: re2)

Instead of clicking on the Teahouse and scrolling the the bottom (*usual place for updates*) or using the Contents window, you can simply click on that arrow before the section name.

Is this info listed somewhere as a useful tip and I just missed it? - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 16:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably a stupid question, but NsTaGaTr if you're interested in seeing the change, why don't you just look at the diff? TimothyJosephWood 17:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I typically use the diff if I want to see what a specific user changed vs the original content. (*for pages that I've edited, etc*). For global pages, such as Teahouse, I just want to see the response to that inquiry. Previously I've either scrolled down the page to find that specific section (*which can take a bit of time*), or I've had to find it in the contents box on the right side. I'd always hoped that there was an easier way, and this morning I just so happened to notice that the arrow was actually a link... which would take me directly to the section... :D - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 17:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@NsTaGaTr: Oh I see. I've never used it because I just abuse Page Up/Down on long discussion pages. Seems like it might be a good thing to add to the guidance at Help:Watchlist#How to read a watchlist (or Recent Changes). TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Done :) - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 18:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It's already mentioned in Help:Page history, Help:User contributions and Help:Edit summary. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Question from Truthandseek

Thank you for the invite, I have several articles ready for submission, but as of right now my main concern is having an admin that's abused his power over a subject that needs to comply with the rules and guidelines to release his hold on the subject.Truthandseek 20:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthandseek (talk • contribs)

This user has received an indefinite CheckUser block. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, PrimeHunter. I know nothing about the conflict under discussion here and have no interest in it, but I heard mental ambiguity-alarm bells at your reply. Does "This user has received an indefinite CheckUser block" refer to Truthandseek (whose account I see has been closed) or to the unnamed admin that T&s is accusing of abuse of power? --Thnidu (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Thnidu: the block refers to Truthandseek - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krisdegioia/Archive. Nthep (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Nthep: Thanks. I just looked at the sockpuppet investigations page. Yecchh. Big thanks to Vanjagenije, Mkdw, and the other contributors there! I'll stick to the Wikipediating I enjoy and can manage. --Thnidu (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Admins protecting their turf has been a recurring problem with Wkikpedia IMO. On numerous occasions I have submitted changes based on solid sources and amplifying the subject matter only to see my additions deleted without recourse. It is the primary reason I refuse to contribute money to this endeavor. When I know articles to be wrong I suspect there are many more about which I cannot be sure. Are we here to publish facts or to establish fiefdoms for the egos of censors?RDXelectric (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

We are here to publish well-sourced, relevant, encyclopedic facts. All too often what someone claims is turf protection is the reaction to an attempt to insert statements that are unsourced or poorly sourced, or not relevant to the article. I haven't interacted with you RDXelectric, so i can't say what was the case in any particular instances you were involved in. I won't say that editors, even admins, protecting turf does not happen. It does. But it is not without recourse. Mention a specific issue here, and it is likely to be looked into by uninvolved editors. Mention it to an uninvolved admin -- try me, i have no turf i am protecting. Try dispute resolution. Try the Reliable source noticed board if the issue is whether a source is reliable. If needed, post on WP:ANI. But do have your ducks in a row before going there. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
What you suggest are rather passive measures and put the burden of proof on a person rather than on a finder of fact, which makes more sense. I think a more proactive approach would vastly improve the quality of a great many articles. And the "well sourced" requirement is a red herring because facts stand on their own merit, not who said it. I have tried your systems of recourse and it always came back to the IP of an article to decide what changes to allow and that usually means little or nothing. Incorrect information is allowed to stand because it has a source. That's nuts. But by far the worst case I've seen was the removal of well sourced, highly accurate information because the IP didn't want that information included for purely political reasons. The bad taste I got from that makes me a critic of the system as a whole. RDXelectric (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@RDXelectric: "And the 'well sourced' requirement is a red herring because facts stand on their own merit, not who said it."
Oh, they do, do they? Every crank, crackpot, and conspiracy theorist says "It's obvious, I don't need to prove it", or they point to something like the National Inquirer or a scripture or some work of imagination. If there's no WP:Reliable source, it doesn't go into Wikipedia. Fugeddaboudit. --Thnidu (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@RDXelectric: I authored two initial articles on two different entrants to an industry. One is undergoing court martial; the other got speedy delete. The one that got speedy delete was better quality. I looked at the initial articles about two other competitors in the industry. If the same standard had been applied when they were posted, both would have been gone too. I am afraid I have to agree with you. My question for the Teahouse is whether contesting a speedy delete will put me on a list of troublemakers. That's not what I want at this early stage. I made the initial articles for two other topics. On the first CREW and National Security Archive v. Trump I got help I really appreciate. The second, ACLU v. Trump went very smoothly. Thanks for listening Rhadow (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
If you are aware of articles that do not meet our inclusion criteria, Rhadow, then please nominate them for deletion or list them here so that I can do so. There are plenty of poor-quality articles from the early days of the project, when quality control was less strict, and these often go unnoticed while new articles are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. As for your question, contesting a speedy deletion nomination is unlikely to see you branded as a troublemaker. Experience says that most attempts to contest fail, because experienced nominators know the criteria well and do their homework, but there is no harm in trying. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry:. If I see an article that doesn't measure up, I'll try to fix it first. The two I was talking about were about startup companies with no prospects, just the kind of flaw that others saw in my articles. In the last three years, they grew and got press coverage (still no products, though). I'm not sure that BAD articles are the problem, but rather articles that haven't been updated in donkey years. What marker do we put on them to ask people to update them? Thanks Rhadow (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
You can use {{Update}}, Rhadow. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Stupid Question ?

I have what may be a stupid question. Occasionally (not very often, which is good), an editor who either wants a draft approved or wants a new page in article space kept will forward me, the reviewer, additional information, such as a long set of references, and will ask me to approve the draft or to agree that the page is appropriate to be kept, based on my having seen the references and other information. Why does an editor think that I or another reviewer can approve a draft or an article based on information that isn’t in the article? Is this a stupid question, or am I asking about a good-faith but completely mistaken outlook, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I have seen the same sort of thing. I think it is mostly a good faith effort by soemoen who really doesn't well understand how Wikipedia works. I think that often such people believe that if I or some other perceived "important" editor, can be convinced that the topic is valid, we can wave some magic wand and the article will be approved, or kept from deletion if it is at an AfD. Actually, in the latter case, posting a list of sources in the AfD discussion will sometimes convince people that a topic is notable. If it is an editor with a declared COI (but not a PR firm employee) who should not edit directly and the sources are online, i will sometimes choose to verify them myself and then add them to the article. I suppose you could do that when a draft creator sends you a stack of sources, but few reviewers would, and I wouldn't expect it.
I think that most people who do this truly don't understand that the sources must be used and cited in the draft to do any good here. Sometimes I have been able to explain it so that they get it. Sometimes not. Sometimes they never respond, so who knows. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I think DESiegel hit the nail on the head. I'd like to add to that that there is a lot that goes on here which relies on how an article could look if edited just so, as opposed to how the article actually looks (consider AfD's, where the lack of inline citations is often given as a rationale for deletion, only to fail in the face of a slew of editors pointing out that plenty of RSes exist for a very similar example). With no policy or guideline pages explaining when the existence of something -as opposed to the presence in the article of something- is applicable, I think a lot of new editors get confused. In the example I gave, of course, there's the fact that the "slew" of editors often adds in those sources as they find them, which is, I believe, the rub for the editors you mentioned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Actually, the case that made me ask this is an employee editor. I had proposed for deletion an article on a company. The PROD template then showed that there had been a previous deletion discussion. The conclusion had been Delete. So I then tagged the article for speedy deletion as G4, previously deleted. I then explained that if they wanted a new version of the article approved, they would have to go to requests for undeletion to get a temporary copy of the deleted article or deletion review. The article was then in fact deleted as G4. I was then asked to look at a lot of sources. I said that any conversation could be here, with other experienced editors, and that if they want the deleted article restored, just follow the procedures for the purpose. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN says it, but in a sort of negative way, by saying when sources in the article are required. So does Wikipedia:Citing sources. WP:BLUE is quite relevant, particularly its section "Citing everything". Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#General standards and invalid reasons for declining a submission particularly points 1 & 2 are obscure (in the sense of not widely read) but are highly relevant. So is WP:ATD and WP:ARTN which says: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. That is really the one to quote in AfD discussions, i think. It is the converse of WP:OVERCOME. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
As to burden, I am seeing that there are at least two types of articles where the AFD community will keep an article based on the knowledge that the sources are out there, even if they aren't in the article. Articles on secondary schools, and on films that are in production, are likely to be kept at AFD even if the sources are not in the article. Film notability guidelines say that a film that is in production is only notable if there has been coverage of the production itself. However, the AFD editors, for a film that is in production, are likely to say that the sources about the production are out there, and that one should have looked for them before taking the film to AFD. Films in production are just a case, it seems to me, where the notability guideline is interpreted inclusively. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I have seen articles on artists, bands, musicians, and companies kept on such grounds. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTEX Industries (2nd nomination) comes to mind as a recent example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AceProject (3rd nomination) is focusing more on the sources already in the article, but wouldn't really differ much if they weren't. Come to think of it I should have included WP:BEFORE in my list above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh and WP:NEXIST is relevant too. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_641&oldid=1138689912"