Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 694

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 690 ← Archive 692 Archive 693 Archive 694 Archive 695 Archive 696 → Archive 700

Hillier Parker May and Rowden (HPM&R) partner writes

I have been asked to put this here by my friend Harold Couch who was a senior person at HPM&R. It's about the historical information about HPM&R we would like to share. Harold has asked me to help him with this because I am more familiar with how to use computers than he is.

Last month I replied to the email from Jimmy Wales asking for a further donation to Wickipedia and said I would consult with my colleagues as to the possibility of another contribution. However, in the same email I expressed concern at the difficulty we were having in getting an entry for Hillier Parker May and Rowden (HPM&R). I received a reply suggesting I should contact info@wickimedia.org which I am now doing.

I am a retired Partner of HPM&R which throughout the 20th Century was one of the leading firms of real estate consultants with offices or Associates in the USA, Europe and Asia. It was founded in 1896 and in 1998 it was sold to CB which as CBRE is now the largest real estate advisory firm in the World. It is important therefore that there is an entry for posterity of HPM&R, a major 20th Century firm.

I am, therefore, very puzzled as to why the draft article that we submitted has been rejected, particularly when I find there are similar firms with entries on Wikipedia. For example there are entries for Drivers Jonas and King Sturge which were two similar firms although smaller and less international than HPM&R. They were also founded in the 19th Century and in the last 10 years have been sold to international companies. So like HPM&R their names no longer exist as practicing firms but their history is recorded in Wikipedia. I would ask you to please spend a few minutes looking at the entries for King Sturge and Drivers Jonas, and you will see that they are very similar firms to HPM&R. However, whilst they were probably in the top 20 firms based in the UK I should perhaps point out that HPM&R were consistently in the top five firms throughout the 20th Century.

I think you will understand, therefore why we are extremely surprised that our entry has been rejected. If our submission is too detailed we are happy to make modifications, but I would be most grateful if you could advise me as to whom we should contact in order to obtain a positive response to our proposed entry.

Kind regards Harold Couch TD, FRSA, FRICS

Philjones573 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, as has been explained to you previously, whether or not you make donations does not affect the acceptability of an article. The situation regarding an article on this company has been discussed on a number of occasions, including:
I see also that you had a draft Draft:Hillier Parker May and Rowden which was rejected (after a number of comments) as explained on your user talk page. If I understand the history correctly the draft included the history of the deleted article so it ought to have been possible to compare the draft with the deleted draft. The draft was eventually deleted under criterion WP:G13 as an abandoned draft, so you can request undeletion of the draft if you wish to work further on addressing the problems identified in the previous reviews.
--David Biddulph (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Edited a template

I just edited a template (Template:Germanic paganism2). When will the changes come into effect? The Verified Cactus 100% 04:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, please disregard my question, I think I've figured it out. The Verified Cactus 100% 04:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Protecting an article

Hi there, Im Chun Siang. Would like to confirm with you whether can i protected my article to prevent vandalism?2001:E68:6024:C01:70D5:C9D9:31D5:C05C (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

If an article has been subjected to repeated vandalism, protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. Articles are not protected without evidence of such repeated vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

protecting an article

Can i protected an article in wikipedia? Chun (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

See the answer you received above. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

(moved to new section) Separate articles for tanks

Hello? I've been browsing Wikipedia and have noticed that there are many armored vehicles, prototypes or not, that may have much information about them, yet they are only briefly mentioned in larger articles but not explained further than a sentence.

I wanted to create a few pages dedicated to those prototype/relatively unknown tanks (not one page for all, but each tank/vehicle gets one page and fits within a category, like light tank, medium tank, etc. I've seen it done with other tanks and tank prototypes), provided I can find enough information about them. Is that alright? Thank you! Lil'Latios (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lil'Latios: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If the prototypes you mention are written about or discussed in independent reliable sources, I might first look into expanding the existing information on them first and then it can be decided if they warrant a separate article. Just my opinion, though. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Notify subject issue

I am writing an article named as "Murshadabad Shareef" but it can't create due to notability issue. Kindly explain how can i fix it as i don't know what to do.

Regards Muhammad Tanveer Ashraf Islamabad, Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Tanveer Ashraf (talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I assume that this is about Draft:MURSHIDABAD SHAREEF. It cites no references at all, and so provides no evidence that its subject is notable. It is full of biased and highly promotional language. It doesn't start by making it clear what it's about: is Murshadabad Shareef a person, a building, or something else? It should be possible to fix the way it's written; but unless you can provide references to sources that establish the subject as notable, any further effort will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
You have had feedback, both on the draft page and on your user talk page. In that feedback the words in blue are wikilinks to further guidance. Please don't repeatedly resubmit the draft without addressing the issues raised; to continue doing so would be liable to be regarded as tendentious editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
A simple google search suggests that the name used by the OP is a mis-spelling, and should actually be Murshidabad Shareef (note the 'i'). Using the correct spelling will doubtless make it easier to find reliably sourced references. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.173.186 (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting an article?

Hi, I'm thinking about rewriting the article Politics of Estonia because it lacks content (what little it has isn't properly sourced), is slightly dated and doesn't give a properly detailed overview of Estonian politics/governance. I am also considering changing the structure, partly basing it on the Politics of Netherlands article, which seems well written and nicely organised. However, I'm unsure if such a radical change is acceptable and maybe it is preferable if I just tried to fill the gaps of the current article? Then again, the current article basically just mimicks the structure of the politics infobox. My current idea is drafted in my sandbox User:Estonian1885/sandbox --Estonian1885 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The place to discuss such suggestions is at Talk:Politics of Estonia. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I considered it but that place was last edited three years ago. I am unsure whether I'm going to get an answer from anybody there. I will try though. --Estonian1885 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Estonian1885:. Not a lot of article talk pages are continuously active, but a page like Politics of Estonia probably has lots of people watching it who will quickly see what you post there, so it's worth a try. If you don't get a timely response, I would say just go ahead and make your changes. The worst that will happen is that somebody will revert them, and then they'll have to enter into a discussion! – Joe (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

How (if at all) can I search for or filter pages to work on?

Hi, there's probably an answer to this question somewhere but I haven't found it yet via Help.

The background is that the Community Portal and some Special Pages list different categories of improvements needed to WP pages. These categories are subdivided into subject or date categories and the page titles in each subcategory are (generally) listed alphabetically. These lists are very long!

I've also found and subscribed to a couple of WP Projects that aim to clean up specific content areas.

For copy editing, it doesn't matter too much which page I work on. For researching additional references and expanding/clarifying the text on pages it does. I would prefer to work on pages that I have some understanding of and interest in.

Other than through WP projects, I haven't found a way to search or filter pages by both subject (or categeory) and 'type of improvement needed'. Is there a way to do this, if so how? A link/reference to a help page or tutorial would be fine.

This is a general question to help me learn. The WP projects have more than enough work to keep me and many others busy for years!

Thanks, Mikemorrell49 (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mikemorrell49. Good question! I think what you're asking for can be achieved using PetScan. You can ask it for a "category intersection" of the cleanup category plus the topic category you're interested in. For example, if I wanted to find archaeology articles that are unsourced, I'd go to PetScan, type in "Archaeology" and "Articles lacking sources" in the categories box (each on a new line), set the depth to at least 1, and hit do it for a list. PetScan is pretty powerful, so you can play around with things like increasing the category depth, using more than two categories, excluding certain categories, and so on.
There's also a really cool bot called SuggestBot that will periodically send you a list of articles that need improvement based on your previous editing habits. – Joe (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Joe Roe, thank you for your help! PetScan seems to be exactly what I was looking for and SuggestBot sounds promising too. I will definitely play around with these to see how they help. I'll do my best to spread the word to other newbies too. Again, thanks and best wishes, Mikemorrell49 (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Need help with a couple of articles.

Hi, I´m new to Wiki. I started to work here since last week when I started editing my first article. I´m interested in human rights defenders and politicians from Latin America. Last week I started to work on Erika Guevara Rosas article. She is a well-known activist in Mexico. Now I´m working on Freddy Guevara (not related to Guevara Rosas), a very interesting Venezuelan politician. I´m really enjoying this work. However, I need help. The first article I worked on, the one on Guevara Rosas, has been flagged by someone. It is very frustrating as it is mentioned that it is promotional and the sources are poor. I used sources like New York Times, CNN, Amnesty International, etc. The content I entered is the one I found on those sources and I tried to remove content from other contributors that seem to be poor on sources. Could someone help me to expand this article and the one on Freddy Guevara? Very frustrating to get such a bad feed bad as suggesting some is fishy when you put hours of work on a project for the common good. Thanks Escolarwiki (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Escolarwiki and welcome to the Teahouse.
Once you create an article on Wikipedia, it is open for other editors to critique, improve, and copy-edit for conformance with Wikipedia's style manual. The tags on the Erika Guevara Rosas article appear to be justified - it looks like you may have relied too heavily on AI and Guevara Rosas's own publications, sources which are not independent of the subject. Please accept that these criticisms are intended to encourage other editors to take part in improving the article, not in any sense a denigration of your contributions. Creating encyclopedia content often requires the talents and attention of a great many editors, since there are way too many things to take into consideration for any one editor to get it all right, especially at first. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Escolarwiki and welcome from me too. I'm a newby (2 months) too so I understand your frustrations. I had them too. I think largely due to time limitations, reviewers tend to use standard banners and links to standard guidelines in their feedback to help us improve articles. My impression is that many new editors go through the same process (and frustrations!). I took a look at the article and a few sources and even as a newby, I agree with the reviewer's feedback and jmcgnh's comments above. Perhaps the most difficult thing for me and other new editors to learn was that neither my personal opinion of a person's (or any subject's)importance nor what he or she wrote or said (even indirectly through published interviews) count as 'independent and neutral sources'. The only things that indicate someone's importance (and what is and is not important) are what others write about him/her. For example in books, newspapers, journals, etc. Take a neutral (observer's) viewpoint and include sources that may disagree with her views too. My advice, like that above, is to use your interest to research what's been written (independently) about this person. Though English language sources are preferred, non-English sources are accepted too. Having a personal opinion (or 'Point of View') tends to influence your assessment of the importance, content and tone of an article. It's a good idea to invite a couple of independent reviewers to give you some informal feedback before submitting the article for publication. For my one and only article (in Dutch) this what I did. I also requested the help of a (Dutch) 'Wikipedia coach' who helped me a lot. I'm not sure whether the English language Wikipedia has a coaching program. If not, you could just publish a request here. Good luck! Mikemorrell49 (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Escolarwiki. I have just removed the tags from Erika Guevara Rosas, because in my opinion, they are not justified for the current version of the article (I haven't looked back to see if they might have been earlier). Of course, somebody might disagree with me: that's how Wikipedia works! --ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you guys, all your comments meant a lot to me! I just worked on a new article on Miguel Henrique Otero, so feel free to provide feedback, comments or editions. Same for my article on Freddy Guevara. Peace. Escolarwiki (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Escolarwiki - a few further comments for you: You would be better off drafting al your articles in your sandbox, where you can get everything sorted before it goes live. That stops someone putting it up for deletion when it's not yet finished. This gives you time to ensure you don't breach our policies on biographies of living people, which we do frown upon. For the people you're writing about, like Miguel Henrique Otero, I think this is critically important to get correct from the outset. Please remove all references to other Wikipedia pages, whether in English or Spanish. Odd as it may seem, we don't accept these as Reliable Sources - you can link to them, but not cite them as sources of true facts. (You've done that a lot with Freddy Guevara, too.) I've removed your first reference from Otero's page which did just that, and have tweaked it to give it a better structure - please check and correct anything, especially the lead sentence which sounded rather weak to me. I don't want to accidentally misrepresent him by calling him a 'political activist' when I shouldn't. Though you're not obliged to, I always feel it's nice when a new user adds a few lines about themselves/their interests on their user page. It somehow makes you look more genuine than editors who seem to be promoting their company with little interest in learning how to edit Wikipedia correctly, or explaining what their interests are. (You don't need to give your true name or anything like that!) Hope this helps, and welcome to Wikipedia. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, re: Erika Guevara Rosas, I have added a primary source template following the removal of my initial tags. A detailed listing of her statements, sourced to Amnesty's website, isn't necessary--my take is that their import probably needs to be established via multiple outside sources. Also, a list of her published essays adds to the impression that it's a resume, rather than a encyclopedic entry. Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:885A:A64B:EED6:3A14 (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all. I´d try to follow your recommendations, all very useful. Sandbox would make things easier for me. I would work later on Otero´s lead sentence. You guys are right about the published essays on Erika Guevara Rosas. Someone added that and I just expanded the list, it looked like a resume indeed. On the sources, do you recommend not to add any primary source to articles? Peace Escolarwiki (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Escolarwiki, I'm really glad that you have such an open mind and that you are willing to consider comments/suggestions in a positive way! It sounds like you're going through the learning curve in a good way. I think that Nick Moyes's suggestions are very helpful. Like most newbies, your initial focus has perhaps been on 'product' (the page content). But to generate new'product' you also need to understand a bit about 'product quality requirements' and 'process'. I have every confidence that you will succeed in this! My own experience is that what I initially thought I could accomplish in a couple of days (just add new info, right?) actually me took a couple of months. The time difference was just learning about 'product quality requirements' and 'process'. I truly hope you take the time to learn and stay engaged in Wikipedia. As a newby, it's a totally confusing mess. But it does get a bit clearer with time. The good news is that there are plans and initiatives to reduce the confusion for newbies!

Mikemorrell49 (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

creating a page

How do I create a page of my own?HoneyBee88 (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, HoneyBee88. Writing an acceptable new encyclopedia article is a very challenging task for a new editor. I suggest that you do two things: Make some smaller edits to improve existing articles, and also read and study Your first article. Feel free to ask specific questions here at the Teahouse as you progress. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The new article submission questions

where do I say some info about the article proposal in the editor(I am creating a sandbox that I want to submit and have but it was rejected but I improved it). Also I need to upload the title screen of the game but it appears I can't in the wikipedia or Wikimedia upload screens (because I'm not auto confirmed yet). Thanks YuriGagrin12 (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, YuriGagrin12. Your draft article needs more reliable, independent sources. An interview with the game developer is not independent and does not help establish notability. You cannot upload the title screen here to Wikipedia until the article is in the main space of the encyclopedia, so do not bother to try until then. Please read our policy on non free images. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Yuri commented on this back on WT:VG and I have to disagree with the statement that "interview with the game developer" aren't independent. They are from third-party sources that opted to do an interview with the developer, so that meets a bar for notability that they decided to cover the yet-released game by talking straight to the creator. And since development information is very much key to a proper video game article, we desire such interviews. There are plenty of other sources that I find through Google NEws, such as [1], [2], [3] as a quick search. It seems completely fine at this stage. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Masem, our notability guidelinestates that:
"The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."
I do not believe that an interview with the developer of an unreleased game is anywhere near sufficient to meet that threshold. Perhaps the sources you have linked above will be adequate if added to the draft. I have not read them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
That's very much against the principles of notability. If an independent source has discussed a work in progress with a person involved via interview (whether a game developer, an actor, a producer, etc.) as long as there's no COI between that source and the person interview, that meets our bar for independent coverage - key is that the RS decided to cover the work in detail in part by speaking to the developer about it. It would be far different if we were using the developer's personal blog or the publisher's press releases for principle coverage - that's definitely not independent. This is how most of the projects involved in creative works handle this. Now, should the article be created at this point? That's less about notability and more about if it is really necessary before people can talk about it more. eg, the Film project asks editors to wait until production is confirmed unless there's very detailed coverage before that point. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello @Cullen328 Thank you for letting know this, I deemed this notable because the person created Papers,please and The republic time. Where should I go to find reliable sources for video games? Anyways thanks for responding YuriGagrin12 (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
YuriGagrin12, I suggest that you take a look at a few Good articles and Featured articles about video games to see the type of references that those articles have. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Masem @Cullen328 Wait sorry I just saw both your comments and im kinda confused, so is an interview with Lucas Pope okay or not, also I know you can't do original research but I already have the demo so could I say more on the plot as long as im not speculating? YuriGagrin12 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be fine. It's been covered in an independent source in fair detail (the interview). A lad insane talk 22:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User Signature

i recently changed my user signature it is in color you will see it below, Is it an okay color for people who are color blind? Thegooduser talk 23:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: I think teal is distinct enough from the white background even if someone is colour blind :) If you did something like Username that would be more of an issue (I can barely read this example!) . Umimmak (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Title for draft article about a legal case

Let me preface my question by saying that I am neither a lawyer nor a legal expert of any sort; however, I have started drafting an article in my sandbox about a recent court case in which the Minnesota Legislature sued Gov. Mark Dayton. As I have been writing, I have realized that I don't know how to properly title the article. MOS:LAW#In_the_United_States provides guidance, but it seems a bit too technical for me to be sure I'm interpreting it correctly and, it seems to focus on US Supreme Court cases. (I also don't have access to the Bluebook that the MOS references.) How far should the full title of the court case be consdensed for the title? Thank you for your assistance. ebbillings (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ebbillings: I'm not super involved in law, but my suggestion would be to look at how others refer to this case (I.e., defer to WP:COMMONNAME). Quickly searching I'm seeing the possibilities Minnesota Legislature v. Dayton and Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dalton. TBH, I don't think the article title is that important, it can be changed later by consensus if needed. You also might want to ask the WP:LAW talk page since editors there would be more likely to have access to the Bluebook. :) Umimmak (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Checking reliability of sources

How can I find out if sources I want to use are acceptable? For example, my source for saying that someone gave a talk at a Rotary Club luncheon, is a calendar entry on a Rotary Club website. JimHabegger (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse.The first step is to read and become thoroughly familiar with our guideline on reliable sources. You can always discuss a potential source on the talk page of the article you want to add that source to. For a more thorough discussion, try the Reliable sources noticeboard. As for your specific example, ask yourself why an encyclopedia article should include the fact that somebody spoke to a local Rotary Club if nobody took note of that talk other than the club itself. Without knowing more, that sounds trivial to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

A quick thought on my Wikipedia experience

Something magical happened to me a few weeks ago. While I was working on a paper on human rights violations in Latin America, a name kept popping up on the articles I was reading. It was someone working for a leading NGO on Human Rights. I googled that person, and I found she had a Wikipedia entry in English. It was really poor and badly developed with a brief intro and just a couple of empty headings. I feel curiosity and googled other names from the region and came up with nothing from Wikipedia. Then I thought about doing something myself and change that. I opened a Wiki account and started first doing some research on the human rights activist that had a weak Wiki entry. I worked for a couple of days, gathered some info and started developing her Wiki entry. It was a magical process. Every day someone modified my entries and the text looked different every day. I was fascinated by this democratic process. At that point, I did not understand too well the intricacies of Wiki but tried to do my best. I kept an aye out on this article for a few days and kept interacting with other people that worked continuously on it. Some changes were made for worse, others for good, but the process kept me hooked. I began gathering more info on other subjects and began working on three different articles. Yesterday something different happened. This first article me and some others put so much work was flagged as fraudulent and deeply flawed. I felt horrible, but asked for help, while keeping working on the other ones. A subsequent exchanged followed, received critical but helpful feedback, and hopped to learn and improve my novice skills as a Wiki contributor. It was not an easy task as the subject of the article was someone who work to criticize and made statement on human right violations, and the flaws were related to those statements. But I kept committed. Then, something else happened: the article and all the work I put on it was removed by someone who, following an exchange between two experienced editors on the flaws of it, made a comment when editing that felt horrible: “Well, come on you two, we haven't got all day!” And went to delete all good and flawed sections of it. I felt like a boy who was been bullied at the school playground. My advice here is, be patient while enforcing Wiki policies, and be nice and constructive on people´s work no matter how flawed it may look. People here contribute with they skills and free time for the greater good. Don´t destroy this beautiful place. And a last one: pay more attention to areas and people of the world that are poorly covered. Take advantage of people that are able to speak different languages to improve Wikipedia flaws. I will kept working here but today my spirit is crushed. Peace. Escolarwiki (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Escolarwiki. In just a couple of weeks, you have made significant contributions to three new biographies, and you deserve congratulations for that. Well done. It is very unlikely that you or any other very new editor would fully understand all of our policies and guidelines so quickly. In this case, more experienced editors have determined that some of your sourcing and writing style does not fully meet our standards at Erika Guevara Rosas. This is not at all surprising and is a very common experience for new editors. Instead of feeling "crushed", I suggest that you take this as a learning experience. The content that has been removed is in the article history and can be at least partially restored if it is properly referenced and written neutrally. The best place to discuss this matter in detail is Talk:Erika Guevara Rosas, where you have not yet commented. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I will invite the editor who removed that content, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, to comment here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Escolarwiki, when you quoted Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's edit summary above, "Well, come on you two, we haven't got all day! ;) :p. (TW))", you omitted the smiley. Even so, I am unable to account for FIP's action. Maproom (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Flippancy is less than useful. There is a discussion on the talk page. Cheers, — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 21:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, just seen that Cullen323 has already nodded in that direction, and yes, that was the thinking. Let the material be returned piecemeal, with proper sourcing. 21:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
A really common problem for new editors, Escolarwiki, is that they start without a thorough comprehension of the guidelines, and I've always thought that the come-on of 'The encyclopedia anyone can edit' makes it sound too easy. The truth is that all articles, especially biographies, have pretty stringent guidelines. In this case, much of the content wasn't adequately sourced (more on that in a moment); there was a lot of unnecessary exposition regarding the political background of each region, which had nothing to do with the subject of the article; and the tone, as others have said, was resume-like. That wasn't solely your doing; I notice that a single-purpose account laid that groundwork earlier this month. Simply stated, for Erika Guevara Rosas's statements to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, they would need to have been mentioned by multiple outside sources--that would establish their import. Merely lifting them from Amnesty's website isn't sufficient...it needs to be proven that other WP:RELIABLE sources recognized their significance. Perhaps one or two quotes are acceptable; we surely don't need to know her opinions about every global conflict. That would even be too much for an article on a president. I'm happy to copy this to the article's talk page, if so desired. Thanks for editing here, and best of luck. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, maybe my statement was not fully understood. I have no issues with constructed and polite criticism. I have enjoyed the process of adding information to articles here, and I know that there is a long way to go to get the necessary experience to be a successful editor. I welcome all comments and critics, and really appreciate the time and effort that everyone has taken to provide me with feedback on my short time experience editing articles here. My issue is with sarcasm and negative feedback, that, in my opinion gets close to bulling. Laughing at someone work is not polite. Anyway, I just wanted to say this. On Guevara Rosas article, my experience is that this was the hardest of the 6 articles I been working here. She is someone who makes a living by criticizing governments on human rights violation, is extremely political, and is very well known all over the region, as she is often on the news. So, when I decided to work on her article, without fully understanding, as you all have mentioned, the guidelines, I relied on primary sources. The good news for the people who want to follow on editing this subject is that in my notes on Evernote, I have plenty of non primary sources that are easy to find on the web, although many are in Spanish and Portuguese. Best to all and peace. Escolarwiki (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Escolarwiki what, if any, is your relation to GetAware (talk · contribs)? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
None Escolarwiki (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

how to submit for review after editing?

hello, I just finished editing my article on Agnieszka Kurant and I do not see where to submit it for review? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Agnieszka_Kurant

thanks!

Avantgaertner (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Avantgaertner: Hello and welcome. I have added the appropriate template to the draft you wrote to allow you to submit it for review. Click the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the bottom of the template. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

How to Post article ?

Gourav H Bais (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)I am New to Wikipedia How can I post my article? It got rejected at first attemptGourav H Bais (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gourav H Bais: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure if you are referring to your sandbox content or to your user page content. Either way, unfortunately neither is suitable as a Wikipedia article. Your sandbox content seems to be a personal philosophical statement, while your user page seems to be a resume style page to promote yourself. You may have a common misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It is not social media for you to tell the world about what you do or free web space for you to use as you wish. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to be notable. I would suggest that you use actual social media for what you seem to want to do. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Help me how to edit my article

Wikkkk9 (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Please, help me how to edit my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikkkk9/sandbox in a way to be submitted. For example feel free to delete words or lines. I edited it after deletion, but I'm not sure is it OK now. I think it worth be in Wiki, but don't know how to write everithing right. Thank you!

Hello, Wikkkk9. Please read and study Your first article before you do anything else. Your sandbox looks like a piece of promotion, nothing more. It does not look in the least like an encyclopaedia article, which needs to be nearly 100% based on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about her in reliable places. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the subject of an article says, thinks, or has published except where independent people have written about or quoted it. I haven't looked at all your references, but as far as I can tell, they are all to items by Dimitrova, not about her: these are not what Wikipedia wants. Especially for living persons, it needs references to in-depth pieces about the subject, by independent people.
One more point: I may be wrong, but I am guessing that you are Dimitrova. If that is the case, please understand that writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, because you are likely to find it hard to write in a sufficiently neutral manner. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not showing the changes in preview

After creating the changes the contents are not showing i the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranjal4kumar (talk • contribs) 11:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pranjal4kumar. It's not clear what page you're referring to. Thus far, you've only made three edits, including the one on this page. In each case, the changes you made are displayed, as far as I can tell. If you are continuing to experience a problem and can provide more detailed information, please come back to the Teahouse and let us know. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep failing a page review - have respectful disagreement with reviewer

Having issues with a page I have created for submission - it keeps failing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Torokina/sandbox

I have removed external links, but I am currently failing the Average Professor Test used to determine that the person is a notable academic.

I believe the person who the page is about does pass the average test, quite easily. The reviewer disagrees. Regardless what side of the climate debate you are on, the subject is an important figure on that side.

What happens now, I do not know. We are at an impasse.

Thanks - I am open to suggestion,

Torokina Torokina (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Torokina. Even though he discovered Thalassiosira torokina Brady, he has not worked in academia long enough to do work that meets WP:PROF. The article is full of references to things written by Brady. (You don't need to provide references for his selected publications, the publications serve as references for themselves.) Instead you must make the case that he is well-known by providing sources that have been written about him rather than by him. They need to be in-depth, not just mentions. They need to be independent of him, not interviews, and published in reliable sources. This is explained at this link. Reviews of his book will help but they too have to be published in reliable, independent sources. Since the book was not reviewed in the usual places, you may need to find out which alternative climate change sources are considered reliable. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Starry Grandma, I have added all of his publications (many) in at least 5 academic journals inc. Nature & Science, plus he won an esteemed academic award from Northern Illinois University, plus he was made an Honorary Associate of Macquarie University - all listed. This would seem to exceed that of most scientists! His work has been cited over 240 times according to Google Scholar, which I have also added. Do you think now this page could be approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torokina (talk • contribs) 12:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Torokina, I am sorry to say he does not meet the requirements of WP:PROF. Most academics do not. Please read the list at WP:NACADEMIC. The awards need to be highly prestigious, national or international, not those awarded by an institution to their faculty or alumni. Significant impact is not determined by the total number of papers written or by the total number of citations of all the papers. As a rule of thumb he needs several papers cited 100 times or more. He has one paper that was cited 27 times and another 25 times. The others were cited less than 10 times each. Whether or not he is well-enough known for an article will depend on the impact he is having on the climate change debate. For that you need the type of in-depth reliable independent sources I mentioned above. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


Idea for a new tag

I have been wondering, where is the right place to pitch the idea for a new tag?SamHolt6 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: What kind of tags? My instinct tells me either Wikipedia talk:Template messages for minor proposals or WP:VPR for something major. Alex Shih (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: I was wondering if anyone has ever proposed a tag similar to our current UDP tag, except it would be placed on articles that have been the subject of disclosed paid editing. My concern is that, while disclosed paid editing is displayed on the article's talk page, the vast majority of Wikipedia readers never find themselves on an article talk page. Any suggestions? I doubt I have been the first one to broach this topic.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@SamHolt6: Maybe Template:Paid contributions? A lad insane talk 00:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
More or less what I was looking for, thanks. But is it usable?--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@SamHolt6: I think so, I checked the usage and it's used on a few articles ([4]). A lad insane talk 02:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

How to get my article accepted?

Hello, 

      How can I get my article accepted?

Please see below for details, Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drewmutt was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. The comment the reviewer left was:

References currently only point to the subject, not independent media coverage of it. Additionally, Wikipedia strongly discourages writing about topics you're close to or created.

How to fix this article? This is my first time doing this in wikipedia.

Thank you,

Apsia (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)A P Sia Apsia (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Apsia and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to publish details of your own creations. You will need to wait until your creation has been written about at length in independent WP:Reliable sources. Self-published sources and listings do not establish WP:Notability. Sorry to disappoint you, but best wishes for your comic creation work. Dbfirs 07:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
What are these reliable sources? Could you suggest these reliable sources?

Apsia (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC) A P Sia Apsia (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Apsia, we do not know that. It is up to you to find suitable reliable sources, totally independent of you and your work. Frankly, we are not here to help you publicize your work. If no-one has written about your work in detail in reliable sources, then your work will not have an article here. Further, before you continue on your efforts to publicize yourself here, you need to read WP:COI and WP:PAID. Currently your efforts are in violation of Wikimedia's legally binding Terms of Use. John from Idegon (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Need a minor title change

I accidentally capitalized both words of my article, can I change the second word to have a lowercase?

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BD50:53C0:5BF:9CAC:D508:506C (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous editor. You need to use the move function to change the title. You may not have the power to do that. If you post the exact name of the article, someone else can do it for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this draft is now ready - what next?

The draft has been through several changes following the excellent advice of denizens of the Teahouse, for which many thanks to all! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marc_Brierley

What do I need to do next? Is it automatically reviewed etc.?

Fenderstratuk1 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fenderstratuk1: To be honest, there are still many issues with the draft, but I think you should re-submit it for review again, as the process is certainly not automatic. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Fenderstratuk1. When you want to submit it for review, edit it to add {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top. Looking at your references, I think they are probably sufficient to establish notability; but I would recommend that you take out all the citations that are to commercial sites. For any of his works that are notable, you will be able to find a non-commercial site that covers it (preferably a review form an independent party, but sites such as the Johnmartin one will do, as long as they are reliable sources and not fan-sites. I don't know if that one qualifies or not). --ColinFine (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Who will help me with my article rated as C ???

Hello Teahouse moderators.

concerning the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_(1963_novel) Two questions:

I had written an article in August and sent my draft. To my great surprise, it was rejected. I had been told I did not give enough sources and so on. Therefore, I sat down and added as many sources as possible and text I know about that book. I would like to mention, that before I had started to correct my article, I had visited many pages of famous authors, like Margaret Mitchell to inform myself how that was done by other Wikipedians.

Again the article was re-rejected but with another reason. Now it was too much information! My summaries too long and not allowed on Wikipedia. I went and deleted as much of my texts. I like to mention, that even though this was my so-called first article for these moderators, I have at least written three other articles on pages (under my same name) which already existed - and no one complained about them! I know that you can look this after and know that I am telling the truth.

I guess to contact these moderators who declined my article, was wrong – they were the only ones so far on Wikipedia who did not answer me - only with templates, where so many things were added, that it looked to me as if I was an an alphabet. When I told the last moderator, that he probably had not even read my article - all of a sudden my article had been accepted - without a comment to me - and to my surprise the article was taxed as a Category C article!

One section was marked with this here: This section is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (November 2017)

I admit I have no idea what is meant with that. I had written for help, but no one has answered me so far. So I come to you and ask if someone here at the Teahouse is kind enough to help me with my article so that it can leave that Category C. I do hope I am not punished for being so honest that English is not my native language! Thank you for looking at my question. Best Laramie1960 (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Laramie1960. I suspect you'll get more detailed feedback from others shortly, but here are a couple of thoughts. First, a C-class assessment is pretty good for a new article. When first assessed, most articles are judged stub class. Also, we have more than a few articles that are far from new and are on major topics but are still C class. So, think of it as a testament to your diligence, not as something that needs to be immediately overcome. It's good that you want to improve it, however, and that leads me to my second thought. In looking over the article, the "Review" section (which, as you noted above, is tagged for being presented as a list) is what immediately catches my eye. First, it should probably be titled "Reviews" (plural) or "Reception" or something like that; "Review" isn't quite grammatical. Second, it most certainly should be converted from list form to prose. That means getting rid of the bulleted list and writing regular sentences and paragraphs incorporating the information found in the list. I wouldn't incorporate all of it, though: it's currently too detailed, and the extensive French quotations are neither necessary nor desirable. I hope you find this helpful. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Laramie1960, you've been here longer than I have. I took a quick look at the page and I can understand the reviewer's comments and 'C' classification. To be honest classifications are new to me. As a complete newby here, my suggestions are:
  • try to take less personal interest in the page; there's no need to describe all the characters or the author (who has a separate page)
  • focus (through external references) on what makes this single book 'notable' (= interesting enough to justify its own page)
  • summarize only the information/reviews that external sources provide. Anything else is your own opinion or 'original research', neither of which are accepted as the basis for WP articles.
  • discuss agreement and/or differences of opinion between the external sources rather than discussing the book or author. Your own research, knowledge or opinion is not relevant for WP.
There are indeed a lot of bullet points in the current page. I think that if you focus on 'how the book has been written about' and less on 'what the book is about' a lot of these bullet points will become redundant.
Best wishes,

Mikemorrell49 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Can an editor help with a page just submitted for review?

Hi, Two different users (RHaworth and General Ization) have commented on my draft page Draft: Kal Spelletich in the last day since I submitted for review. Unfortunately their comments are opaque as to what is needed for acceptance.

As I understand RHaworth's last message, he deleted the page.

However the draft still seems to appear and disappear for different users.

Can anyone explain what's happening? How can I guide this page through acceptance? Is there a fee required?

Thanks Marylee1234 (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi the link to the draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kal_spelletich

Thanks

Marylee1234 (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Marylee1234! An article in mainspace by the title of Kal Spelletich was deleted today by RHaworth after having been nominated for speedy deletion by General Ization. That does not affect your draft, although it was you that created the article in mainspace. Please do not do that again. The reason it was deleted leads me to believe it was blank or pretty close to it. Review takes a considerable amount of time due to backlog. Just be patient. Your draft is in the queue and someone will review it eventually. When they do, assuming it passes review, the reviewer will move it to mainspace. If it fails review, you will be advised as to what it needs to pass. John from Idegon (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: The page deleted from mainspace consisted only of a link (URL) to the article in draft space. General Ization Talk 19:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you John from Idegon! Your comments are very helpful. Things are kind of opaque. I asked a couple of people in my circle to look at the draft and they reported that they saw the page then didn't. So perhaps they were looking at the problematic main space article. I'm sorry I mistakenly create an article in the main space. I won't do this again!
I'll be patient.
Again I appreciate your polite and helpful response.
Marylee1234 (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Marylee1234. Consider this unreferenced sentence from your draft: "Kal's projects challenge and subvert the boundaries between art, the audience, and play." That is evaluative and promotional language in Wikipedia's voice that uses the word "subvert" in a non-standard way. This type of non-neutral language permeates your draft article which reads like it is written by an enthusiastic fan rather than a neutral and disinterested observer. I suggest that you read the neutral point of view and rigorously remove every trace of unreferenced evaluative language from the draft. A minor but significant point is that we refer to to people by their surnames rather than first names like "Kal" except when a person like Cher is widely known by only a single name. I suggest that you cut the reading list way back and do not repeat those publications in the references. If those publications can be used to cite biographical information, use them that way. Otherwise, eliminate them. A lean, tightly referenced draft has a much better chance of being accepted than a bloated draft with lots of references that do not support any assertions in the prose. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cullen 328, Thanks for your response and pointers! I've revised the quote that include the first name of the artist so that it's clear that this is a direct quote, not my opinion. If you have time to take another look, does that work?

Also there's a ton of info on this artist. I see your point about making this tighter and more focused.

Thank you!! Marylee1234 (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Marylee1234. I would have had no way of knowing that this was a direct quote without running plagiarism detection software. Including unattributed quotations is a major problem and you must weed every single one of them out of the draft article. The article should be primarily your own originally written prose with very little material cut and pasted from other sources, and that in quotation marks and properly attributed. How about this sentence: "His work explores the poetics inherent in brain machine interfaces currently at the forefront of scientific research for medical, militaristic or consumer applications." Is that a quote or your own original writing? If you wrote it, then that use of "poetics" violates the neutral point of view and the whole sentence may constitute original research which we do not allow. If someone else wrote that, then it must be in quotation marks and properly attributed. Or paraphrased. Remove all unattributed quotes immediately, please, or the entire draft is subject to speedy deletion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

creating a wikipedia page

How do I create a new wikipedia page for an organization?TimothySas (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@TimothySas: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first ask if you represent or work for the organization you seem to want to write about. Certain policies may be applicable to you in such an event.
I would also say that successfully creating a new Wikipedia article is one of the hardest things to do here. It takes time and practice. The most successful users at creating articles started small by editing existing articles first to learn the ropes. However, if you still want to attempt to create an article, please first read the text at WP:YFA and then visit Articles for Creation where you can create and submit a draft for review. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I would add that Wikipedia is not a place for companies to have pages, but is an encyclopedia that has articles about subjects that are notable (WP:N). Not every company merits a an article here, they must meet the guidelines at WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Timothy, just to add to 331dot's feedback, as a relative newby here, my experience is that it's not as easy as you might think. Not because of format or procedures, but because of policy. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and everything is set up to prevent it becoming a 'dumping ground' or 'promotional space'. If you think an organization is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, the very first thing to do is to justify that. If you've not already done so, search for external, reliable, and independent references that show that the organization is sufficiently 'notable' to be included in an encyclopedia. These references could, for example, be in newspapers, journals, books, etc. Publications based wholly on press releases or interviews with executives/employees don't count as 'independent'. Unless such references can be found, the organization is unlikely to be sufficiently 'notable' to be included. Depending on where the organization operates, it may be more 'notable' in countries/languages other than English. If you can justify the organization's notability, two more things to bear in mind are:
* the content of any article should only contain information derived from its references
* all articles (including those on organizations) should be neutral and avoid promoting the organization in any way
* potential 'conflicts of interest (COI)' between contributors and articles should be explicitly mentioned; in general, contributors who have a potential COI are advised to request independent reviews prior to publication

I arrived here (clueless) with the same question you have. I learned the hard way by having my well-intentioned article quickly and justifiably rejected. So my advice is to spend time researching the 'notability' and sources before investing time on the article content. Good luck!Mikemorrell49 (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Getting Page published - notability of sources

I have been trying to get a page posted about a company called Makolab. They are an international company that features on the Warsaw Stock Exchange. They already have a page in their native Polish language, and I have been trying to replicate the page for English - especially given their international status.

Wiki PL site:https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/MakoLab

However, everytime I try to publish the page, I am notified that the sources I used were not notable enough. Please help.

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by MineralMinds (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

MineralMinds: en:Wikipedia uses the word notable in a peculiar way (click that blue word for details). It's not the source that needs to be notable, it's the subject. It see that pl:Wikipedia has different standards for notability from en:Wikipedia. I can't read Polish, but I can see that the pl:Wikipedia article cites only two sources, the first one being the company's own web site. That is not enough to establish a subject as notable, by the standards of en:Wikipedia. I don't know whether acceptable (by the standards of en:Wikipedia) sources exist – if they do (they don't need to be in English), and you can cite them, then you may be able to get an article accepted here. Maproom (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeking clarifcation on next steps

I look forward to reviewing Wikipedia pages at the Teahouse. 00:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC) I will review the Teahouse fully before making another inquiry. Thank you for your kind assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:4cc8:d200:1d42:5643:e9fe:b1f4 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2017‎ (UTC)

Hello, anonymous IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Apart from your two comments here, you don't appear to have made contributions to any articles yet. So, whilst we can try to give answers to specific questions you may have in the future, here is a useful page to visit with lots of helpful links: Help:Getting Started. Or you could try out our interactive Wikipedia Adventure tour. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_694&oldid=1138689968"