Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 678

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 675 Archive 676 Archive 677 Archive 678 Archive 679 Archive 680 → Archive 685

When will draft get moved to mainspace?

First-time editor needs advice: I submitted a draft for a new article a month ago. When will it be approved/moved to the main space? It's not there yet, so I'm wondering if I did something incorrectly. Heredits (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all, if you work for Abio Properties, or are on a contract for them, which seems likely to me, you must disclose it in the appropriate way, see this link. Having not done so yet, you are violating the terms of use, and I urge you to rectify this as soon as possible.
This being said... Your draft is not submitted yet, and consequently it is no wonder it was not reviewed, though even if you had submitted it the current backlog is such that a month of waiting would not have been extraordinary. To submit it, you need to add {{subst:submit}} on top of the page, but please do not do that yet.
The big problem with your draft right now is that it fails to establish the "notability" of the subject. You need to have reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in detail. For instance, this reference has one sentence from someone working there, so it fails the "in detail" thing (arguably it also fails "discuss the subject", since the subject in that part of the article is high estate prices, not Abio Properties). The PRWeb reference is worthless because, as they will publish anything you pay them to, it fails the "independent" source. The localwiki.org reference fails the "reliable" source part because it is user-generated with no editorial oversight. TigraanClick here to contact me 19:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for advice. I thought I had taken some of these steps already, but clearly had not.

Heredits (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Trying again with article on history of Hillier, Parker, May & Rowden, commercial property company

My name is Phil Jones. My friend's name is Harold and he is a former partner of the commercial property company, Hillier, Parker, May and Rowden, that was founded in 1896.

Hillier Parker was mentioned in almost every issue of the Estates Gazette, the trade magazine for commercial property, for 100 years. There is quite a lot of detail in a text-book called The Property Boom, about the growth of shopping centres in the UK, and in another book called The Property Masters.

But there's no publication specifically about Hillier Parker. When HPM&R was eventually bought for quite a large sum, the new owner did not keep the name.

So what we wanted to do was to have some sort of record of the history of Hillier, Parker, May and Rowden on the Internet for posterity. We thought that WP would be a good fit.

Unfortunately I messed up my first attempt because I didn't understand how citations are supposed to work, ie what is interesting is what *other* people have said about HPM&R. And another thing that caused a lot of confusion was that Harold saw that WP invite donations so he gave something, to support the project, and I mentioned it and some people didn't understand this.

So because of all this muddle my first attempt got thrown out even after I tried to explain without success and even after I changed it a lot according to the advice I was given. Is it worth trying again?

Philjones573 (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Philjones573. Your experience is unfortunately all too common for people who plunge into creating articles in Wikipedia before understanding what it is (and what it isn't). In general, memorialising is one of the things that it isn't for, and neither is "telling the world about something" (we're only interested if somebody has already told the world about it!).
Having said that, what you're trying to do in this case may still be a good fit: if there is substantial independent published information about the company, then there can be a Wikipedia article based on it - and in this case it will be sort of telling the world about it, in the sense that it will make information available on the internet that is otherwise only available in hard copy. However, you would need to bear in mind that the article must be based almost completely on what those independent sources said, not on what the company said about itself; and still less on anybody's unpublished personal reminiscences.
So, if among those copious sources there are some meaty independent pieces, then it is well worth trying again. I suggest you read your first article if you haven't already, and then use the article wizard to create a draft and work on it there.
On the subject of donations: this is completely uncoupled from editing Wikipedia. Nobody editing knows who has sponsored the project and who hasn't (unless the donors choose to make it public), and consequently editorial discussions do not take it into account in any way. (They shouldn't do so even if it is known, but the fact that it is usually not known makes it easier to ignore). --ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

How to add an infobox/infobox template

Hello! I have been attempting to add an infobox to a page I am editing, and when I try to preview my changes all I see is the data I've entered that comprises the infobox - not the actual infobox itself. Do I need to add an infobox template in the article first? If so, how do I do that? Malemseged (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Malemseged: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Can you save changes to the article that you are trying to add an infobox, so that we can see which steps were missing? My guesses are there is either extra spacing or the template is not closed properly. Alex ShihTalk 23:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Hello, Alex. Thank you for your response. Yes, I have just saved the changes on the Tsehai Publishers page. The infobox data appears at the top of the body of text rather than appearing as an actual infobox. Your help is greatly appreciated! Malemseged (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Malemseged: You can take a look at the comparison of difference to see what were missing. I think it'll be helpful if you can check Help:Link again to read about how links work here. In infobox however, many of the links are already preset, so you just have to enter the data. Make sure to always read the "Description of fields" in the template documentation if you are ever confused. For the record, the technical reason why the infobox didn't show up initially for you is because one of the links were missing a "]". Happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 23:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Thank you so much for your help! I read and re-read the "Description of fields" section, but did not realize a mistake in adding links was the cause of the error. I will certainly keep your advice in mind the next time I am editing. Thanks again! Malemseged (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

ISBN template

Hello

Is there a template that automatically creat a book description when giving an ISBN number?

Thanks

Orlysi (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Orlysi! Yes there is. See Template:Cite book. John from Idegon (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. I added the template but it seems I have to type the full bibliographic details. I thought it would take the details from some bibliographic database and fill it in automatically. Maybe the term for what I'm asking is "auto value"? Orlysi (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Not an answer, but Wikipedia:ISBN#Uses_and_limitations_of_ISBNs says Please do not use ISBNs alone to identify books: add a proper citation as well as the ISBN. Unfortunately there does not seem to be a way to autofill (though Special:BookSource will usually find a link with the full details).
If someone can confirm there is no such mechanism yet, it might be worth creating it. I am thinking of a template {{cite book via ISBN}} to add when editing + a bot reading whatever ISBN database there is and changing those for a filled cite book, though there might be a better way. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Orlysi and Tigraan: It's simply impossible, because ISBNs don't uniquely identify works, either in theory or in practice. For instance, multi volume works might be covered by a single ISBN (which, I recall, is a correct use). Citing a vague set of dozens of volumes is obviously not what we want to do. Sometimes publishers also neglect to update ISBNs when issuing new editions.

However, can autofill a citation template based on the ISBN (but you should always double check) by:

  1. Creating an ISBN link, say ISBN 978-0-300-14424-6
  2. Click on the link, select Google Books, and you'll arrive at The People's State: East German Society from Hitler to Honecker – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Go to Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books and paste the URL from Google Books.
  4. Fill in any necessary fields that were not automatically populated (e.g. location)
  5. Double check! In addition to the inherent problems with ISBN, Google Books habitually has mistakes in its metadata.

Regards – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Orlysi, Perhaps I've miss-read some of the above. I apologize if this was already covered. When using Template:Cite book and filling the ISBN field you then need to click the magnifying glass icon to auto-fill other fields. Then manually fill additional fields as necessary. Gab4gab (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Gab4gab is referring not to the template per se, but to its inclusion via Wikipedia:RefToolbar. The example above generates a fine ref,[1] but another taken from the documentation of {{cite book}} fails to pull the names correctly.[2] Still, it looks close enough to what the original poster asked for. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Fulbrook, Mary (2008). The people's state : East German society from Hitler to Honecker (1st paperback ed.). New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-14424-6.
  2. ^ al.], I.S.O. Playfair ... [et (2004). The Mediterranean and Middle East. London: Naval & Military Press. ISBN 1-845740-67-X.
Thanks for helping out Tigraan, I suspected I wasn't fully up to speed. Gab4gab (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks alot. That helps. At least I'll stop looking... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlysi (talk • contribs) 04:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Timestamp

The timestamp is missing here. How can I solve this problem?--Tim Stamper (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tim Stamper: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. It isn't really a problem, but for future reference whenever you encounter unsigned comments, just look through revision history to find which user added the comment at what time, and then sign the comment for them with {{unsigned}} or {{unsigned ip}} (for unregistered users). I've done so for that comment. Alex ShihTalk 05:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.--Tim Stamper (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Way to deal with IP Range block

Any users know of way to address IP range block and to bring it to attention of admins? A lot of the resources simply say to create a WP account, or email someone to have one made. But what if you already have an account, and have been affected by collateral damage?

In my particular case, it seems someone from meta.Wikimedia has blocked my IP range from all platforms! In fact, I couldn't even edit my own talk page to request an auto unblock on Wikipedia. This seemed absurd to me, that some users could actually be in a position where their only hope is to rely on the blocking admin (on a completely different site; one which I had not previously used) while effectively being prevented from reaching out to other admins for a request or review.

That's not something that usually happens in Wikipedia blocks. You have ways to reach third party admins. I couldn't edit anything.

I happen to have two different internet modems, so I'm using my second one which is on a different range. But I can't help but feel frustrated the way this block came out of the blue, and how other users may be affected. I feel like this could easily be abused; or the least its a pretty inconsiderate way to deal with...whatever it is its trying to deal with. DA1 (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey DA1. I don't know very much about range blocks, but I'm going to ping User:DoRD, who seems to be the last person to enact a range block on the administrators noticeboard, and maybe they can explain how it works better than I can. GMGtalk 10:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@DA1: I am a CheckUser, so I may have access to information about the block that most other administrators don't. I'll be glad to look into the situation for you, but I'll need some details first. I need to know the blocked IP address or range, but if you don't wish to publicly share it, you can send me an email message with the information. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to make a wikipedia page, but I don't know what to write it about...

Please help me??????????????????????? Lake Effect Kid (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lake Effect Kid: Hello and welcome. I would inform you that successfully creating a Wikipedia article is actually one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. As an encyclopedia, all articles must be written with independent reliable sources(click WP:RS to review what those are) that indicate how the subject is notable(WP:N). While I can't tell you what to write about, if you are aware of information on a subject that has appropriate sources, it may be possible for you to write about it. I would suggest reading Your First Article to get an idea of what is being looked for, and you may also want to do the Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial of sorts for new users, to learn how Wikipedia works.
Please understand that you don't need to create articles to be a good contributor. Many successful Wikipedia editors create few or even zero articles; they contribute to this project in other ways. Diving in to creating articles often leads to disappointment and hurt feelings, as it is rare (though not impossible) for a new user to successfully create an article. It is best to start with edits to existing articles and work your way up as you learn about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Lake Effect Kid Agreeing with the above, I suggest instead of writing an article you read the above-linked pages, maybe try the Wikipedia:Tutorial as well, and then help out by going to the Wikipedia:Community portal and taking on some of the many tasks listed there. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Page update

I recently updated a page on Jonathan P Shepherd, but alas the changes were not accepted, and it has returned to its (pre-edited) state. Is it possible to send my proposed edits (in a word doc) to someone, who might be able to advise if it looks acceptable, if not, what changes I should make before re-submitting?

The editing process is quite timely, so I'm loathe to try again without fully understanding the reasons for it being refused in the first instance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Shepherd

Many thanks for your help!Yvet2002uk (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Yvet2002uk. I'm a bit confused: looking at the history of Jonathan Shepherd, it seems to me that most of the changes you made were to remove material, and though others have edited since, I don't see that they have undone your changes. In any case, if you look at the aricle's history you can see who made what changes when, and what edit summary they left; and you can also almost always recover older versions if this is appropriate - they are all there in the history, so your work is not lost.
At this point, your best course of action would be to open a discussion at Talk:Jonathan Shepherd, and ping the other people who have edited the page recently (Melcous and Everymorning), to try and reach consensus about what should go into the article. I confess that I have no idea why Everymorning removed the {{BLP sources}} tag, and I have restored it, since the article at present has not one single reference independent of Shepherd, and is therefore contrary to our BLP policy. --ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Replying since I was pinged. I removed the tag because I had added reliable sources and removed unsourced content. It is true that those sources are not independent of Shepherd, but given that they are self published and it is clear they are authentic, I thought they were OK as per WP:BLPSPS. Everymorning (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability?

Hello - I'm new to setting up these pages, so any advice is helpful!

I am setting up pages for best selling self published authors, and the sources I have provided are from interviews, professional websites, amazon, award sites, etc., but I was denied being told that notability wasn't there- please help! I'm not sure what other sources might help them be more notable? These are indie authors, they have 100,000+ in sales, so I'd say they are fairly well recognized, so I'm unsure what I'm missing. 2606:A000:40CB:1200:381A:6A7B:7FE1:CC58 (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. There are no edits logged under the IP address you are using so it is difficult to help you without knowing which articles you are attempting to set up; if you don't wish to reveal that, I can say that interviews and Amazon.com listings don't establish notability, as those are primary sources. Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject says about itself, but what third parties state about it. It doesn't matter how many books these authors sell if no third party writes about them. You may wish to review WP:NAUTHOR, the notability guidelines for authors to learn what is being looked for, and then look to see if you have third party reliable sources which can support notability for the people you wish to write about. You may also find reviewing Your First Article helpful. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello anonymous user. I suspect the problem is implicit in your wording: the fact that you talk about "setting up pages" suggests that you are confusing Wikipedia with either a social media site or a directory. Wikipedia is neither of these: it is an encyclopaedia. The activity is not "setting up pages for" but "writing articles about" - said articles being based almost entirely on what people who have no connection whatever with the subject of the article have published about the subject. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody says (or wants to say) about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, or associates say about them: it is only interested in wholly independent writing about them. Most self-published authors (though not all, of course) have not attracted enough attention for there to be enough material to ground a Wikipedia article on them: that is what we mean when we say "notable". --ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Translating articles?

Would it be acceptable to translate an article from the German Wikipedia into English? Nebulous Nanuqsaurus 14:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebulous Nanuqsaurus (talk • contribs) 14:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Advice is at WP:Translate. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Short summary of the previous link: yes, but (1) please do not use unchecked machine translations, those are terrible; (2) you must take care to give proper attribution under the license under which de-wp operates. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Change article name

I am wanted to change the title of article.please guide me in easy way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MUHAMMAD SAFIULLAH (talk • contribs) 14:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this draft ready now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marc_Brierley Fenderstratuk1 (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fenderstratuk1. That draft isn't ready to be published yet, because readers cannot verify that all of the information in the article comes from reliable sources. You have some references in the article, but large parts of the text are unreferenced. Take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability for why this is important, and WP:BLPSOURCES for why it is particularly important for articles on living people. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Doubts.

I have several doubts on how to use the page creator starting with the symbols. How to use them?Error1996 (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

To be More specific I have doubts about how to use the symbols for create a page and and why is not the page-creating square appearing?Error1996 (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Error1996 - For readability and to keep the topic together, I have combined both posts into one thread, which should make it easier to follow. Happy editing. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 18:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

HELP! I can't seem to remove a single source from the citations at the bottom of an article!

I was reading an article until I got to the citations. As I clicked on the citations, one of them used a website that no longer existed. I then tried to remove the "dead citation" but couldn't. I could only remove all the citations. Help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.124.64.103 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove a citation that can't be reached. You should instead try to find an alternate or archive link. See WP:DEADLINK for more information and tips. If all else fails, you can mark it with {{dead link}} RudolfRed (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Further to RudolfRed's comment, you will find the code for the citation where it appears in the text of the article rather than in the references section. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more advice. However, as RudolfRed notes, you shouldn't remove a citation because the link is broken without replacing it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Make a article less like an advertisement.

Hello. My article Celebration Pointe was reviewed and declined because it read too much like an advertisement. I plan to revise it. However, are what should I remove or rewrite to make it acceptable?

Thanks,

FrankelGnome (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Convevience link: Draft:Celebration Pointe. Maproom (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I have come to Wikipedia because my brother edits here, is this a conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visigothic (talk • contribs) 16:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, Visigothic. The short answer is no. A conflict of interest occurs when an editor has a close association with the subject of an article they write about, not with another editor; see WP:COI for more details. Of course, you could have a conflict of interest if your brother was the subject of a Wikipedia page that you edited, or vice versa (if your brother edited a Wikipedia page about you).
However, if you and your brother coordinate to push articles in a certain controversial direction, that is "meatpuppetry" and is not allowed. But that is probably not something to worry about if you follow the policies. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Do I have to use the userbox on my page, the one about shared IP? Visigothic (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC) .

This user may sometimes share an IP address with Username.

17:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


Hello again, Visigothic. It is not required for you to use it, but you may find it to be a good idea in case the two of you are ever suspected of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry (as mentioned above). As Tigraan said, neither should be an issue if you follow WP policies... but you never know. I'm a better-safe-than-sorry type myself. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Help needed in creating new entries.

Hello,

I recently signed up to join Wikipedia's editing team, and realised many mistakes during the process of getting started. Will appreciate some guidance.

I specifically want to start with an article I (mistakenly) submitted through "talk" a couple of days ago, but would like to improve on it.

How should I proceed?

Tamupadhi 01:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamupadhi (talk • contribs)

Hi Tamupadhi. The draft is currently posted at Draft:Legal Assistance Centre Namibia. The fact that it has been declined just means you can continue to work on it, and when ready, click the resubmit button in the template. However, many people spend a great deal of time working on proposed articles for topics that cannot succeed because the subject is simply not notable (which I have not checked for this topic, btw). It is important to understand that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. While there are some non-sourcing based notability grounds for certain topics (that I do not believe in, and are often a dead end to try to use), in the main, the way to determine whether a topic warrants an article—and thus whether you are wasting your time or if there's a reason to try further—is to first search to see whether the types of sources we need to exist to demonstrate notability, do in fact exist.
  • That is: that is we are looking for the existence of 1) published, 2) reliable, 3) secondary, 4) independent sources that 5) have written about the topic is substantive detail. To unpack that a little, I think the page Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability) will help you understand what that means better.
  • If those source don't exist, do not waste your valuable time. No article is possible. If they do, now you need to do a few things:
  • Arm yourself with a general background. I suggest taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial, which will give you a bunch of general editing skills, and then reading Wikipedia:Your first article. (Actually, I suggest editing for a few months before trying to start a new article, but I'll go with the flow of your question.)
  • Now, digest those sources you found and write the article in your own words (do not copy any source's words or sentences, except for occasional use of short quotations, which must be marked as such using quote marks, and cited to the source of copying using an inline citation), including only content that was included in the sources, and cite the sources as you go, for the information they verify.
  • The draft currently cites the sources it refers to in a very opaque way, that does not make it easy on any reviewer to determine whether they meet our standards, and would make verification by readers, if the article were accepted, a painful process. Learn how to cite transparently. Start with Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1, and then see Wikipedia:Citing sources for a more involved treatment, noting that each contains see also sections linking to additional help pages, guides and tutorials. Yes, it takes work to learn the ropes—when you start with the hardest task on Wikipedia, writing a new article, rather than improving existing content (for which citing sources is also the lifeblood).
  • Do not include a single sentence in the draft article that a source does not verify, and which you are actually citing to show where the information is verified.
  • You can use other types of sources, such as primary ones, for straightforward statements of fact that are not unduly self-serving, but those sources will not help demonstrate notability.
Hope that helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Replacing dead links in article references.

Hello, some of the source links in the article I've been editing lead to pages that don't exist anymore. I've found one page that has been archived, how exactly do I replace the old dead link with a new? Is there a particular process for doing it? Apologies if my question is difficult to understand, I'm still an amateur when it comes to citing sources. Manytoomany (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Manytoomany, thank you for looking to help replace dead links, to find an archive link, see WP:DEADLINK for more information and tips. If all else fails, you can mark it with {{dead link}}. As for leading to cite sources, it maybe good to have a read of Help:Referencing for beginners. NZFC(talk) 06:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Every page should have a comment/ discussions section/ box

Every page should have a comment/ discussions section/ box so that mistakes spotted/ concerns can be discussed first before changes are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.174.7 (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi IP user, Wikipedia works off a policy of BOLD, revert, discuss so users quite often are invited to make the changes themselves first. As for discussion mistakes and concerns on articles, every article has a place for that and that is on their talk page, please see WP:Talk. NZFC(talk) 06:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Rights of editing

I work as a software expert and browsing around Wikipedia for information, it struck me that the wiki page about this subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_lifecycle_management) is not up to Wikipedia standards:

- some of the tools listed therein are not generally considered Application Lifecycle Management platforms (e.g. Enterprise Architect is a UML modelling tool)

- certain widely used enterprise tools are missing from the list (Siemens Polarion, codeBeamer ALM, Kovair ALM Studio, Helix ALM)

- the notability of some of the tools mentioned can be challenged (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PractiTest_(software), a tool I had never previously heard about, only has two references, one of which is the vendor’s own website).

As a wikipedia novice, I come to the teahouse for guidance on amending these issues. While I do have a level of expertise on the subject, I’m not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, and so wasn’t sure what course of action I should be taking. Should I just go ahead and fix the above issues? Is there a special group of software experts to discuss any arising questions with? Reka Moksony (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Reka Moksony. Thank you for wanting to help us improve Wikipedia, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, in general, if you see an article that can be improved, you're welcome to go straight in and improve it (see WP:BRD). But please bear in mind that all information in Wikipedia should be referenced to a reliable published source: please don't just add information because you know it: find a source, and cite that. If there is information that is wrong, you can remove it - but if it seems to be cited to a source, you should investigate to see how it happens that wrong information is cited (perhaps the information has been vandalised since being inserted? Perhaps the source simply doesn't back up what was said? But if it's more complicated, see the next paragraph below). In any case (but especially if you remove information) make sure you give a meaningful edit summary, so that people (and bots!) will not mistake your edit for vandalism.
If you're at all unsure, or think the changes you want to make might be controversial, then open a discussion on the article's talk page - every article has one, though in some cases nobody has created it yet. If there is little traffic on the talk page, you might also like to search for a suitable WikiProject and ask for input there. --ColinFine (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Reka Moksony: The main issue with outdated or incomplete articles tend to be sources (see WP:RS). Since Wikipedia requires citations to backup claims being made on its articles, sometimes third party sources may be hard to come by. Or they exist, but users haven't bothered to cite them in the article accordingly. If you want to expand the article, best course of action is to find such resources.
For citation formatting, see Wikipedia:Citation templates. You add those in at the end of a sourced line, or after statements that could potentially be disputed. DA1 (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Reka Moksony:, It's not generally required that the content of articles be notable, only that the article subject is notable. (see WP:N#NCONTENT) Related to that the PractiTest (software) article has been tagged as possibly not notable. However, notability is based on the published sources that exist, not just the sources referenced in an article. Gab4gab (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi All thanks for all your support. Than I found a good way to add my improvement proposal to the Talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Application_lifecycle_management- of the ALM article, and if nobody has objection I made the changes. IN the first round I add some article with citation and add those tools to the list. In a later stage maybe some non relevant tool can be deleted. What does it mean if a page section was last talked in 2009-2010? does it mean nobody care about this page content?

Reka Moksony (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Help with improving entry and removing template message

<Pings/link: archived Teahouse post; Cordless Larry; Maproom; David notMD.>

This is a response to a now archived question "Help with improving entry and removing template message" (Archived question 676)

Many, many thanks to @Cordless Larry and @Maproom for their suggestions on editing.

@David notMD, I am a studying photography as part of my degree and was researching Stuart Roy Clarke as part of a project. I obviously came across the entries on Wikipedia and thought that, after some of my research, I could help clean them up. It is my first foray into Wikipedia editing and I am reconsidering any further involvement with Wikipedia after being totally unsuccessful in my efforts.

Thanks, @Wikipedia Encyclopediadia (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopediadia When I began editing I had many of my edits reverted, or else revised beyond recognition. I was also queried about potential conflict of interest. I hope that you consider that you can move past the steep part of the Wikipedia learning curve, and find comfort in improving articles. Which can involve deletion or addition. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment @David notMD. I probably had a bit of reaction to the article I thought I'd improved now being up for deletion. It might be the wrong move to just give up before I try and get better and more conversant with Wikipedia editing.

Encyclopediadia (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Writing a plot summary of a book

What is the general consensus for writing a plot summary of a book? It's a little confusing about using citations. I see some entries that have several paragraphs without a citation and others that seem to have a citation after every other sentence. It would seem that if you're writing a summary you wouldn't need to quote unless you took a particular statement from the book or elsewhere. Can you help me understand this process a bit more. Thanks.

Mjr524 (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mjr524. Some links first (the first two are specific to your question; others are relevant to writing an article on a book):
The general consensus is that you don't need to cite sources for the plot section, because the work itself verifies what it is about, but citing sources for a plot summary is best practice, and of course, any interpretation or analysis whatever worked into a plot summary must be cited. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the helpful pages.

Mjr524 (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Should I create an article for ATESS?

I have noticed that there are many Wikipedia articles on various Air Force units within the Canadian Forces. My unit, ATESS, does not have one. We are referenced on the pages for CFB Trenton and CFD Mountainview, and an article exists for 6RD, one of our predecessors. I feel we are unique/notable among RCAF units as we are the only Aviation manufacturing organization, but it seems as if I may violate Conflict of Interest.

Griffy42Griffy42 (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Griffy42. Wikipedia has lots of articles on squadron level units. See for example List of squadrons of the South African Air Force. Our full notability guide on military units can be found at WP:NUNIT. Since you do have a conflict of interest, you should consider first creating the article as a draft, and submitting it to our Article's for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by a volunteer prior to publishing. GMGtalk 14:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me to get approval?

I just published the article about Detensor spinal therapy method and it was declined because they consider it like advertisement. But there is no any kind of advertisement at all. Can you help me to fix it?Albert-bell (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

For easy reference: User:Albert-bell/sandbox shoy (reactions) 14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Albert-bell. Just looking at the beginning of the draft, "meets the basic requirements for an ideal system for the recovery of the spine" is not a neutral statement of fact, but a partisan evaluation. So is "This is _ensured_ by ... " - 'ensured' is an evaluative choice of word. Even worse is the blatant "Detensor spinal traction therapy advantages are", which makes it clear that the whole article is at the very least promotional. No article should use any kind of evaluative language unless it is directly quoting an independent source.
More generally, the thing to remember is that in an article about Detensor therapy, Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything said or published by Detensor or by Dr Kienlein. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with either have chosen to publish about the therapy: the article should be limited to a summary of what such independent sources have said about it (and if there are not enough such sources to ground the article, then there can be no article: this is what is meant in Wikipedia by notability). At present, all the references given are either connected with Kienlein, or are primary sources, (which cannot contribute to notability). Further, since this is an article about a medical subject, the more stringent limitations on sourcing in WP:MEDRS will apply. --ColinFine (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

How to change the title

Hi Editor, I would like to change the title of my essay to "George White 1648-? East India and London Merchant", is this possible. Tothaman Tothaman (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Tothaman. It is possible (using the move facility) but not advisable. WP:PRECISION explains that we use terms in brackets after names only to distinguish between different topics of the same name, and only the minimum reasonably required to make that distinction. If there happened to be no other articles on people called George White, then the proper title of that article would be "George White". Since there are, it needs a distinguishing mark. "George White (merchant)" looks appropriate to me. --ColinFine (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Pages on Wikipedia are called articles, not essays. White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The article George White (merchant) cites only one source, which does not mention White. Unless you can add some much better references, to establish that he is notable, it is in danger of being deleted. Maproom (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the best way to create a page about an author and considering COI

Hi, I created a page entitled Irfan Horozovic, a writer from Bosnia and Herzegovina with over 40 books published but without a lot of content in English. I am his daughter so there is a COI and I am not sure how to go about this. The page is literally a translation into English of his 1. bio (as published in his book) 2. bibliography. Any advice is welcome and thanks in advance. Taida Horozovic (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Has he been sufficiently covered in secondary sources? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Taida. The best approach would probably just be to wait for someone else to write the article, but if you are determined to write it yourself, then I suggest creating a draft for review via Wikipedia:Article wizard. That way, experienced editors will review the draft to ensure that your conflict of interest does not result in a biased article (or an article that is perceived to be biased). I should also point out that a direct translation of published biography is likely to be a copyright violation and therefore inadmissible. Wikipedia articles should generally be written from scratch, quoting sources selectively where relevant. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

When is a discography page appropriate?

Hi, I have a general question that isn't at all urgent. After an artist has been established as notable and become the subject of a Wikipedia article, when is it appropriate to branch off their discography into a separate article, and when is it appropriate to keep it as part of their article? Does the discography have to qualify as notable by itself? Thanks, Airbornemihir (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Airbornemihir, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, the discography page has to be notable. For all practical considerations, discographies tend to be "list" articles, and list articles need to meet WP:NOTESAL. Your best bet is if the particular discography has been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking that most discography articles are split from an artist or groups main article because of size considerations. Does anything split need to have 'stand-alone' notability? In any case MOS:DISCOGRAPHY may be helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Gab4gab. WP:SPLIT: "refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia)." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Citing Press Releases

Do you have any insight about how to cite a press release? I know a press release is a non-independent source, but according to this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources) they can be acceptable if referenced/cited correctly. Thanks! Hwilson51 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Hwilson51. There is a template that you can use to cite press releases: {{Cite press release}} Mduvekot (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Hwilson51 (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Hwilson51. Yes, you can properly cite a press release, but you should use press releases as sources very sparingly. Proper citation is only the first issue. Press releases should be used only for routine and utterly non-controversial content, Iike a company's new headquarters city or the name of its new CEO. Press releases should never be used for any evaluative or remotely promotional content, and the opinion of uninvolved editors should always be respected when there are questions about such usage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

List of pages of a category

In the page Category:Southeast Asian haze, the list looks weird: some pages (1997 Indonesian forest fires, 1997 Southeast Asian haze, 2006 Southeast Asian haze, 2017 Southeast Asian haze) are correctly listed under 0-9 section, while others (2009, 2013, 2015, and 2016 Southeast Asian haze) are listed under S section instead. How can I fix it? Tony Beta Lambda (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tonyxty: Hint: edit those pages and find the {{DEFAULTSORT}} declaration, usually close to the article's end. --CiaPan (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The sorting key can be also defined separately for a specific category. See for example
[[Category:1997 disasters|Southeast Asian Haze, 1997]]
in 1997 Southeast Asian haze. That means the page can be sorted differently in different categories. --CiaPan (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@CiaPan: Thanks for helping! Tony Beta Lambda (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
See more at Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

resubmitting draft article after editing

Hello - I have edited my draft page after some usefull feedback. However I'm not sure how to resubmit. Am I missing something obvious? KPepino (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. In this edit you removed the previous review's comment & feedback, including the line that said "<!-- Do not remove this line! -->", & in doing so you removed the resubmit button. I've reinstated the comment & feedback, & these will be removed if & when your draft is accepted for publication. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you - will know for future! KPepino (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

changing title

Hi,

How do I change the name of a page Manifesto (2015 film) to Manifesto (2017 film) - as the correct release of the film is 2017.

thanks! 83.244.237.110 (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you don't, as the article makes very clear that its World premiere was in December 2015 at the Australian Centre for the Moving Image (who had commissioned it, and where it continued to be shown until March 2016), and it appeared at three further venues in Australia, Germany and the USA during 2016. Wikipedia counts single-venue (and even single-screening) showings (such as at film festivals) as releases, not just extended, general theatrical releases (i.e. to multiple venues), so if the former came first, they take precedence.
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, particularly Section 4.6 Release. You might want to investigate Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.210.199 (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Returning to wikipedia

A user has broken limits of WP community patience. He has used four accounts as sock. All the users from his area have been blocked as his socks - which are about 20. Now he wants to return to contribute constructively. He is not able to use UTRS for lack of email account. What he should do to return to wikipedia. 13:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.98.36 (talk)

You have been given advice at User talk:Nazim Hussain Pak. Continued socking from IP addresses will reduce even further your chance of being able to return in 6 months time. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
(ec)Welcome back, Nazim Hussain Pak. It appears that yet again you have failed to take the advice given to you. Continued efforts from different IP addresses will surely not go well if you ever try for that 'second chance'. You've asked for the ability to return constructively, and yet you still fail to grasp the simplest concepts presented to you by experienced members of the community. Surely there are other efforts that you can invest your time and effort into. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 13:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Adisa Kabiru

Dear All, I created an article unbehalf of Adisa Kabiru but it was decline. Is there anyone in house who can be of help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildanceforever (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Guildanceforever and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read your first article carefully: I strongly advise that you take the suggestion of spending a few months editing existing articles, to learn how Wikipedia works, before you attempt the difficult task of creating a new article. But I will note that if you attempt to create an article "on behalf of" somebody, you are likely to have problems. Wikipedia articles should be created on behalf of Wikipedia: noone else. An article about somebody is not created on behalf of that somebody, and may contain material that they do not like, if that material has been reliably published somewhere. --ColinFine (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
ColinFine also forgot to mention a much more important point: if "on behalf of..." means writing that article was part of your job (your boss told you to do so and/or you get money from it), you must immediately read WP:PAID and make the necessary disclosure. Otherwise, you are in violation of the terms of use, which is grounds for being forbidden to edit. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise, I am not been paid as the article is to be created unbehalf of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildanceforever (talk • contribs) 14:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to create a Wikipedia page about a topic that is nonexistent, how may I start?

HEllo I am trying to create a page abut common units in the Command and Conquer universe, and i was wondering how I may start writing this page. May someone please help me with this? Thank you SpaceMarine0713 (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@SpaceMarine0713: Hello and welcome. You should read Your First Article before attempting the very difficult task of successfully creating a new article. I will say that unless the aspects of the C&C universe have in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources(WP:RS), they probably would not merit an article on their own. They may merit inclusion in the article about the game itself, but you may want to search for a smaller wiki dedicated to C&C and it's minutiae. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

10 years ago... I made a mistake.

10 years ago, when I was just a wee 13 year old. I used to edit frequently but I would also vandalise occasionally. As minors do, they're immature and I was too. Am I still welcome to begin editing again? JayTurnr (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@JayTurnr: Hello and welcome. Without knowing anything about your specific case, in general I can say as long as you recognize what you did wrong, won't do it again, and intend to contribute positively, there should be no problem with you contributing. I will say that if you were blocked under what I assume to be a different name and the block has not expired, you may need to formally request to be unblocked under that name, but if there is no block involved, you should have little issue contributing. Wikipedia usually responds well to people who admit past mistakes and express a desire to change or a new maturity. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The blocked accounts are presumably those at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iamandrewrice and at WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Spliting articles

So I want to split an article on a page that is not really active. I only put up the tags a few days ago so I might be a little impatient, but are there people that go around and decide if to split articles or is it only the users on the talk page? If there are people, how long would it take, and if not should I just go ahead and make the articles myself? Sadonyx (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sadonyx: is this about Yo-kai Watch? You have already received a response to your proposal at its talk page. It seems to me that the responder was right. Maproom (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure, Maproom? As far as I can see the last comment on the talk page (I've corrected your link) was from Sadonyx when he/she proposed the split a few days ago. There had been a previous informal discussion last year, but the only contribution which I can see to this month's discussion is from Sadonyx. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
So should I just give it a month and see what happens?

Sadonyx (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing semi-protected page

I cannot find clear instructions to request editing privileges for a semi-protected page Rutlandright (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Semi-protection is explained at WP:SEMI, and as your account will have been autoconfirmed you should be able to edit a semi-protected page directly. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, David! Rutlandright (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump Puerto Rico

Someone needs to try to fill in that Puerto Rico was visited by Trump via blue map chart.Vinnylospo (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vinnylospo. Because of the prominence of any president of the United States, normally any articles about aspects of a current one are updated very quickly—usually within a matter of hours. In short, I am betting if you do nothing it will just happen, and quickly. Nevertheless, the place to post about this is not really here, but the article's talk page. Every article has one, and in this case, it would be Talk:List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump. Another pl;ace to post might be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Donald Trump. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Vinnylospo: It's about File:Domestic trips made by Donald Trump in 2017.svg so it requires a user who can edit SVG files. The most recent update was by Wykx. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The map has been updated by another maintainer MB298. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Should this business be included in Wikipedia

Several people outside of the business have asked why it is not in Wikipedia. trū Shrimp has been featured on the front of the Wall Street Journal, Star Tribune multiple times, Associated Press and Reuters along with all the major aquaculture and agriculture publications. The company has created new methods for land-based shrimp aquaculture. The Minnesota-based company is almost three years old and is actively building multi-million-dollar production facilities globally. They currently operate the one of the most state-of-the-art shrimp labs in the world. People are interested. I have no emotional connection; however, I do think this is information that would benefit people. Thanks, Ryan208.83.188.152 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that trū Shrimp is a division of Ralco, which is not itself the subject of a Wikipedia article. It might make more sense to start by creating, or requesting, an article about the parent company. Maproom (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the direction forward. Appreciate the help.

Ryan 208.83.188.152 (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. To answer the question you say people have posed, because no one who has an interest in writing an article and who has the ability has rolled up their sleeves and written it. That's essentially how all articles end up existing. We see this question, often taking a variety of forms, from as anodyne as how you report it, to an outraged: "how dare you have an article on "X" but not "Y". It all redounds to people thinking of Wikipedia as a monolith or it having "staff" that cull what will be written—some idea of there being a centralized and official entity or body that makes decisions on what topics to include. The truth is so much more organic and chaotic. In short, we are all volunteers, writing by our own lights, with no central guidance but for a cobbled together structure of policies and guidelines that have been built through sprawl, and not top down, though with an ethos in place—guiding principles—but very far from what would exist if there really were the structure people imagine there is, and generally writing about what interests us each personally. To answer your question about whether an article should be written, it depends on whether it is notable, which in turn can be answered by finding out whether there exists: 1) published, 2) reliable, 3) secondary, 4) independent sources that 5) have written about this topic is substantive detail. Your question already indicates that that may be the case. To answer an unstated question flowing from all this, no article will happen until someone like you goes ahead and writes it because they want to fill the gap they perceive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_678&oldid=1088678785"