Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 734

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 730

←

Archive 732

→

Two in one question: gravsite information and children

Greetings. I would like to know if I can include the names of a person's children in an article about them. Also, I understand that findagrave and such are not reliable source,.but if a photo of a gravesite and its location is included on one of those type of sites can I include that information? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The usual interpretation of WP:BLPNAME is that we almost never include the names of living children unless the children are notable enough to have their own article (which would require multiple sources specifically about them, not their parents).

The photo of a gravesite would fall under original research, which we don't use. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't someone's tombstone be a primary source? You're saying a photograoh of someone's tombstone doesn't establish what their tombstone says or where it's located? Seems weird. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

More that the provenance and accuracy of the photograph can't be verified to our satisfaction. Quite aside from that I doubt that the likes of findagrave.com sends people out to verify that (say) a photo with a tombstone engraved "ROPER" is really that of famed photographer Steve Roper, the copyright status of the photo would in the great majority of cases prevent us from using it. Ravenswing 01:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to grave stones.....zero research is done by the carver. You pay for what you wish to see on your grave stone. I plan to carve my name as Chest Rockwell. See Joan Crawford#Notes for a famous example. That said is the person listed in....Scott Wilson (2016). Resting Places: The Burial Sites of More Than 14,000 Famous Persons, 3d ed.....--Moxy (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the explanation. Makes me think of a bit in Royal Tenenbaums about what to put on the father's gravestone.. Back to the children part. What if the children are all dead? Can they be included? Don't we often include the names of politicians children? This is against policy? Thanks for the clarifications. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning them is trivia unless they're independently notable, and we're not a genealogy website. I did explain all of this, including the grave stuff, regarding the dreadful Walter M. Digges article while I was fixing it. - Sitush (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

And yet in James Tod, which you referred me to as an example of uour highest wuality work, you name all his children. Strange. FloridaArmy (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, several things occur to me. (a) it may not have been me that added those names or asked for them to be added; (b) at least one of them is marginally notable, although we have no article as yet; (c) there is a significance with the "Heatly" name if you read the entire article; (d) consensus changes and it can take years to amend existing articles.; (e) two wrongs do not make a right. Hopefully this makes sense. - Sitush (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sitush, are you going to remove the names of the children from that article? FloridaArmy (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Stucked with Draft

I would like to publish about my company in Wikipedia. But I guess it's saved as Draft. It would be of great help if you can guide me with further steps if any. Kanikacejn (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You should read our conflict of interest guidelines before proceeding further. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kanikacejn. The draft in question is Draft:CEJN, which begins with this unacceptably promotional sentence filled with meaningless jargon: "CEJN is a leading global niche company with local presence implementing innovative quick connect solutions, adding value and productivity of customer applications and processes." That sentence is completely inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. Your draft goes on to discuss "our founder Carl" in Wikipedia's voice. Since Carl did not found Wikipedia, that is also unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a platform for your company to praise its founder in the guise of an encyclopedia article. Your draft is also unacceptable because it has no references to coverage of this company in independent, reliable sources. Before you do anything else, you must read and comply with WP: PAID. This is not optional. It is mandatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I found an error in Geometric Series page but do not know how to properly fix the proof

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

There is a section that says:

When a = 1, this can be simplified to

{\displaystyle 1\,+\,r\,+\,r^{2}\,+\,r^{3}\,+\,\cdots \;=\;{\frac {1}{1-r}},} 1\,+\,r\,+\,r^{2}\,+\,r^{3}\,+\,\cdots \;=\;{\frac {1}{1-r}},

But this is wrong. The actual formula is without the 1,

{\displaystyle r\,+\,r^{2}\,+\,r^{3}\,+\,\cdots \;=\;{\frac {1}{1-r}},} 1\,+\,r\,+\,r^{2}\,+\,r^{3}\,+\,\cdots \;=\;{\frac {1}{1-r}},

Since this is a consequence of the proof above it, I do not know how to properly fix it, but I think changing a bunch of indices to start at 1 and removing that first term might be the easiest fix.

98.248.144.122 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I can take a look at this one. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 07:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, the article looks right to me. Starting at 0 is fairly standard in the field. Plug in a=1, r=1/2 and you get 1+1/2+1/4+... = 1/(1-0.5) = 2, which is indeed accurate. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 07:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo is right, that part of the article indeed is correct. The expression analyzed is a sum starting with a term

a+...

, so plugging in

a=1

makes the first term

1+...

, and not

r + ...

. --CiaPan (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

How to continue on an article that has been deleted?

My wikipedia draft of VirtualRealPorn, was denied and I would love to edit it so it could be accepted. How can i do it? DanielaCPR (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DanielaCPR. Where you should start is that there's a raft of advice and links to guidelines and how-tos on your talk page. Unfortunately, there's no quickie bulletpoint reduction to be had: I strongly recommend you look over those links, look over those guidelines, and start with Wikipedia:Your_first_article. Ravenswing 08:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Transferring major edits from a Word doc

Hi all! I'm a college student and, instead of a term paper, one of my professors has asked the class to improve/rewrite Wikipedia articles related to our course subject. I've been working on rewriting an article outside of wikipedia (in a word doc on my computer) and am now looking to apply those changes to the wikipedia article. However, when I try to copy and paste the text I've written into the editor, it won't allow me to paste in the new text.

What's the best way to go about transferring my work from my computer onto wikipedia? Thanks! Kentuckyjohnson (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that the article you're trying to work on might be locked at the moment. What is the article in question?

Also, sorry, but while Word is generally great for anything outside of this site, it's terrible for this site.

I use Microsoft Notepad, because it contains no formatting whatsoever. You can try copying your edits from Word to Notepad, see what needs to be fixed there, and then transfer it from there to the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on the First Egyptian-Ottoman War (link below). Is there a way to tell if that's locked from editing?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian%E2%80%93Ottoman_War_(1831%E2%80%9333)

Kentuckyjohnson (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: I just tried copying the text from the word doc into notepad, and then from notepad into the wikipedia editor and it worked like a charm. Thanks a bunch! Kentuckyjohnson (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kentuckyjohnson: I left a note about the "student assignment" thing on your talk page.

To answer the question about "locking": the technical term is "page protection", see this link for a complete explanation of all the protection levels. In desktop view, it is indicated by a padlock icon at the upper right of the page (see for instance the blue lock at Jerusalem). The page you linked to (Egyptian–Ottoman War (1831–33)) is under no protection at the moment.

Just so you know, you can make draft articles within Wikipedia, see Help:Userspace draft for some info. There are multiple advantages to this: you can actually see what formatting MediaWiki (the software that display pages) will render, and you can link it from Wikipedia (for instance you could leave a note at the talkpage of the article you wish to edit so that others may see what you are about to change). Additionally, you can access and edit it from any computer with internet, and it is saved about as safely as any file can be (way safer that a file on a USB drive or your harddisk). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Can't publish my article from the Sandbox.

Also I can't name my article in a way that I wish. All the instructions say that there'd be a button "more" but there isn't any. When I try to begin everything from the start I get to the sandbox again from where no publishing available. On my another account, the same story. I found somewhere (don't remember exactly) that it should lie still for four days to become publishable, but still no way for this. Please, help! Name of the page is Genesis Vision.Spacetransistor (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You wouldn't be able to move a page until your account is autoconfirmed (4 days and 10 edits), but in any case your sandbox draft is not in a state to be published as an article. In due course you can submit your draft for review through the Article for creation procedure, but first you need to read the guidance at WP:Your first article and in particular Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Spacetransistor: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. New users cannot directly create new articles until the account is four days old and has at least 10 edits, neither of which is the case for you. Even if you were able to move it to article space, it would almost certainly be deleted as promotional and as such I would request that you not attempt to move it or even submit it for a review. The draft in your Sandbox reads as a promotional piece for what I assume to be your company. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wishes to say about itself, or how it wants to be portrayed. Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties write about article subjects. If you are associated with this company, you would need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on what third party sources have written about your company. You will also need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID(the latter only if you are paid).

You also mention "my another account". In general, users should only have one account. A list of acceptable uses of alternate accounts is at WP:VALIDALT. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If I get written permission from the website I took the info from, can I re publish my article

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I wrote an article on Dr Zoe Svendsen but it was deleted as it infringed copyright as it was taken from a website from Zoe Svendsen. If I contact her and get her written permission can I re write the article, also can it be retrieved from deletion as I spent quite a time with citations etc thank you Columbian Winedot (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Columbian Winedot. You can probably have the draft refunded if the person who owns the copyright follows the instructions at WP:CONSENT. However, most content taken from online is not written in the neutral encyclopedic tone expected on Wikipedia, and content from an official website often doesn't meet our standards for reliability for all but the most comparatively mundane of claims. So while you may technically be able to retrieve the content, you may not be able to use it very much at all to write a draft that would be accepted. GMG ^talk 20:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks, I will get her permission. The content is quite academic and factual so I would like to retriev e it, can you please advise how I do that.Columbian Winedot (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Columbian Winedot. When the email has been sent, it may take a little while for it to be answered, since there is a bit of a backlog, but once it is you should contact the deleting admin, User:RHaworth, and request that a refund of the draft. (I don't know if he has access to the email system, but if not feel free to ping me also and I should be able to verify.) GMG ^talk 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks, most kind Columbian Winedot (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Columbian Winedot. Please understand that Wikipedia has almost no interest in what any subject says about themselves, or what their friends or associates say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with a subject have chosen to publish about the subject. You say the content is quite academic and factual; but (without having seen it) I'm dubious about what it might be that would be worth including in an article about Svendsen. If it's uncontroversial information about dates and places, posts she has held, that's probably OK (though then there is probably not going to be a copyright issue anyway), but this needs to be a small amount of information added to an article predominantly based on sources independent of her. If it is about the content of work she has done, that really should come from independent sources. Please see WP:IS. --ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Writing about my company

Hi Guys,

I am trying to add my company profile to wikipedia. How do I do it? Akshay Palande13 (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Akshay Palande13 and welcome to Wikipedia.

Nice of you you're asking before acting. I'm afraid I'll disappoint you, because the answer is: you don't. Wikipedia is not a service for promotional material. There is no place for any profiles here.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it summarizes information published elsewhere. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for some guidelines about topics not appropriate in WIkipedia, esp. the WP:NOTADVERTISING section.

If your company is big enough to gain some nation-wide or world-wide attention, so there are some important, independent third-party publications about it, it will almost certainly get into Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for criteria of notability (in Wikipedia sense) that qualify companies for articles about them, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, esp, WP:SOURCES for guidelines about what counts as appropriate source for Wikipedia.

Anyway you should generally not write about your company, whether you're its owner or an employee. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more guidelines, especially WP:PAY section if you're going to edit Wikipedia as a part of your duties.

CiaPan (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Any experienced Teahouse hosts available March 8, 12-6pm (Japan time) to man a Q&A forum for wikipedia editathon aimed at adding articles about Japanese women artists and women artists generally?

Hello I am organising a Wikipedia editathon with other professors at Temple University, Japan Campus.

Our participants will be more than half English Wikipedia users, however there were no locally available English Wikipedia experts, and on the day we are grateful to be joined by an experienced Japanese Wikipedia user but we are anticipating English Wikipedia specific issues to arise.

I am a new user and although I feel confident with the content guidelines, verifiable sources, citations, notability guidelines, neutral point of view etc, I do not feel confident with more complicated editing tasks and the review process etc. And participants will be even less so.

If anyone is available at this time and could we set up a way for students to ask and have questions answered during this time period I would be so grateful! How could we do this? We currently have a Japanese language project page set up... is that a good place? Should we make a translated version of the project page? https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E3%82%AA%E3%83%95%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3%E3%83%9F%E3%83%BC%E3%83%86%E3%82%A3%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B0/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88%EF%BC%8B%E3%83%95%E3%82%A7%E3%83%9F%E3%83%8B%E3%82%BA%E3%83%A0/20180308%E6%9D%B1%E4%BA%AC Louise000 (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Louise000, welcome to our Teahouse. It's absolutely fantastic to learn that you are also running an edit-a-thon for International Women's Day on Thursday 8th March. Please could you tell us all what time editors may be seeking help in UTC? This is the format most people seem to work in here. I shall be at Derby University, England, at our own edit-a-thon from 10:00 UTC to 16:00 UTC and (if we're not too busy) may also be online, monitoring the Teahouse for any IWD-related requests. I'm sure other hosts here will, as usual, be happy to help any editor. Are you aware of our own Women in Red wikiproject? I'm going to ping @Rosiestep and John Cummings: as they're both heavily involved in events during this month, and especially on International Women's Day on 8th March. I believe there may be a post going out to all the help fora to alert hosts thatt a number of new editors around the globe may seek assistance to edit or create articles that day. I don't know if ja.wiki has an equivalent of our Teahouse/Help desk or [live chat channel], but you could make it clear on your event page that questions can be posted on its own Talk Page - and you could ensure you monitor that, too. Maybe make a shortcut to help people remember and find your editathon page? I've created WP:Derby18 for ours - as even I can't remember its full title!

It sounds like you have enough experience - you should be absolutely fine on ther day. Most requests from new editors at edit-a-thons are likely to seek only basic advice on editing and on citing sources. It is what happens next that can be daunting for them. After the event they will want to enhance and to get their draft articles into mainspace, and may experience what might seem rather sharp treatment by article reviewers, or at the hands of page deleters. The best advice I can give you is to ensure that you capture the usernames of every single person attending your event. (Maybe a signing-in sheet or a huge whiteboard?). That way you can monitor each new editor after the event, see what subjects they are working on, give them a post-event welcome messsage, and help move their drafts into mainspace when you think they're ready, or offer support in other ways. I've been developing a handout to give participants before they leave our event to assist them further in the days ahead. Possibly this page may give you ideas relevant for ja.wiki and your event?

It's also a very good idea to encourage all new editors to put a description on their userpage about their interests in editing articles, and to state on any new draft or article that it was created as part of a themed editathon. Although I have no evidence of other editors' perceptions, my own is that if I see a new article about which I'm dubious regarding notability or content, I am likely to be far more supportive if I can be aided to appreciate the circumstances under which it was created. I'm therefore less likely to propose it for deletion, and more likely to want to help a new editor if I can tell it's not just another WP:POV/WP:COI article or WP:PAID work.

You asked if it's worth creating an English translation page. I think only you will know whether the time investment is worth it - but it can certainly do no harm, and would form a valuable record of the event thereafter, and perhaps encourage page creation on notable people in more than one language.

Finally, I imagine you have already read Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon, but there's another very good resource on planning and running these events here. And if you want more of my own view, here's a blogpost about an editathon I helped at last year, which might be of passing interest. Good luck with your event on Thursday. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Louise000. I am so happy to hear about your event. Two good places for the participants at your event to ask questions will be here at the Teahouse, as well as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. The Teahouse is best for general how to edit questions. Women in Red is the content gender gap project which specializes in questions such as "is she notable enough?", "do you have pointers about how to write a woman's biography?" and so forth. Happy editing!!! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Nick MoyesThank you, how do I make that short URL for the meetup page? We made one in English now too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Japan/ArtAndFeminism2018 Louise000 (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep, John Cummings, and Nick Moyes: No worries I figured it out! Our event is (02:00)-(09:00) UTC time. I will follow suggestion to signpost our own talk page as a place for questions but extra help welcome! Louise000 (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Louise000: well done for trying. Unfortunately I don't think you created the shortcut quite right as you've managed to create it in mainspace as AFTUJ2018, when internal shortcuts need to be in the format starting 'WP:' i.e. WP:AFTUJ2018. As you see, I've now created that for you, and have added the shortcut to your editathon's English language page. We'll need to get the other one deleted or abbreviations like these would clog up the genuine search function for normal users who might be looking for a notable articles such as this year's conference of the Association For Tickling Underneath Judges, or whatever. I suggest you just leave it for now and then after Thursday put {{db-author}} on the page to request speedy deletion of a page you created and only you have edited. If it gets deleted before then, so be it. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

oh gosh oops! Thanks for helping to fix it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louise000 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Can users who are not autoconfirmed users save drafts

Hi I'm organising an editathon in Japan. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFTUJ2018

Can users who are not autoconfirmed users save drafts? We will have several autoconfirmed users at the event but also people who will be registering an account for the first time.

Can those people save their sandbox to drafts? If they only have access to sandbox then they should be instructed to only work on one article during the day I guess. Louise000 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Louise000 - all editors can use the draft space to work on draft articles, this includes both newly registered and unregistered users. I'd recommend the use of the article wizard

- TNT^❤ 14:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

And there is noting to stop any user from creating more than one userspace draft; you are not limited to calling it .../sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Louise000 there is no limit to the creation of userspace or draftspace pages. Users may create as many userspace sandboxes or draft pages as they like. It's only mainspace page creation that is limited to autoconfirmed users. As you are autoconfirmed you could move pages created by non-autoconfirmed participants to mainspace (after ensuring that they comply with the minimum standards of course). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Louise000: Will you have any administrators at your event? Or do you have someone with account creation permissions for both wikis? If not, I believe you could encounter problems trying to create lots of new accounts on en.wiki at the event. I don't know how ja.wiki operates, but there's a limit of 6 new user account creations per day from any single IP address on most wikis unless you get prior permission, or have an admin do it. I urgently advise you to check this. The work around is to ask as many people as possible to register prior to the editathon, or to do so on the day via their own mobile connection rather than the event's own wifi. I'm sure each wiki will have its own rules, though with account creation being more global, it's possible that limit applies in Japan on ja.wiki, too. Please read this advice how to get round the issues. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Nick Moyes: we do not have an adminstrator but we have a few people with account creator status. We have urged people to get their account ahead of time and hopefully that side is not too bad. Armed with the draftspace link above from @David Biddulph: I think we will be ok for the drafts part too. It's just that the "move" functionality you see in the sandbox does not exist for users who are not autoconfirmed so it's extremely counterintuitive in the first few days as to where you can save stuff if you want to work on multiple drafts. Now I know, I can tell others. Good luck with your own event! Louise000 (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Glad that's sorted. Obviously, even brand new users can save content into Draftspace without being auto-confirmed. I get the feeling that many of those running editathon events like to move articles themselves if they're ready, or steer an editor to do further work if they're not. I hope your edit-a-thon tomorrow for International Women's Day goes well, too. Weirdly, my local university has just emailed to ask if I'd bring my passport along so as to prove my eligibility to work! I guess I'm open to offers (!), but it seems unusual to ask that of a volunteer. Best wishes from the Teahouse! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Goodbye

I am done with Wikipedia. it is full of people who have no respect for new editors and they are rude, disrespectful and full of hatred.

Farewell Noodlebomber (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Noodlebomber, we welcome new editors who make a sincere effort to comply with our policies and guidelines. However, we do not welcome people who are here to promote themselves. Farewell, and good luck to you on other websites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Noodlebomber: - So Long, Farewell. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

How can I add a photo in my article?

Please help me to add a picture in an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalpa.mkm (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Jalpa.mkm. You may want to take a look at our tutorial on images. Other than that, with a few comparatively rare exceptions, images on Wikipedia need to be licensed for unrestricted public use, and the vast majority if images available online cannot be used in this way. Often the easiest way to get a usable image is to simply take a picture yourself, and upload it to Wikimedia Commons under a compatible license. GMG ^talk 18:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

What To Do With Valid, Unsourced Information

I'm brand new and joined just to clean up this page a little: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_High_School_(Maine) But I don't want to step on toes, so I have a lot of pesky newbie questions. To start with, there are several items that are citing unpublished sources, e.g. a fallout shelter sign located at the school. (At least, I think that qualifies as unpublished, correct?)

I believe the information to be accurate and useful, but without a source, is deleting the information the right course of action? I hate to lose good information, but I wouldn't know where to even begin trying to get a reliable source for that.

Convivian (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Convivian. A pretty good flowchart for what to do with unsourced information goes a little bit like:

If you can, find a source and add it to the article to the support the content
If you can't find a source, and the information is about a living person, especially contentious information, remove immediately, consider contacting an administrator to have the material redacted from the page history if particularly bad
If you can't find a source, and the information seems likely to be true and relevant, and likely to have a source if someone had access you don't happen to have (like library access, scholarly journal access, or access to sources in a different language), then add {{citation needed}}
If you can't find a source, the information seems unlikely to be true, or unlikely to be particularly important, remove the information, consider posting a note on the article talk page about what you removed.

In any of these steps (except for number two) if someone reverts you, discuss the changes on the article talk page and try to reach a consensus. If someone reverts you on number two, consider contacting an administrator or posting at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. GMG ^talk 17:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Convivian! The key rule about sourcing is this: "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (Emphasis in the original) That the school has a fallout shelter sign is a fact no one sane's going to challenge; any public building in the US of a certain age has a likelihood of having one. But I can pick out a few items in that article that could stand to be cited to reliable sources:

"The Bath High School Alumni Association is one of the oldest in the country, and one of the highest returning alumni in the U.S."
"The students take pride in the school's proud tradition of championships, including six state championships in boys' basketball (1956, '62, '63, '87, '88, and '89), two state championships in baseball (1953 and '88), five state championships in football (1968, '69, '70, '71, and '72), and one state championship in Boys' soccer in 1988."
"MTV's Made was filmed at Morse High School in the fall of 2004, starring Jackie Buck, a then sophomore wanting to "step out of her sister, Jenn Quintana's shadow" and have a part in the school's talent show, MOHIBA."

Those all involve claims of notability and importance. Ravenswing 19:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

my first article, status? (did I even submit it for review correctly?)

I wrote my first article (User:Romeham/sandbox). I also tried to disclose that I work for the organization that the article is about. I know it's not best practice for me to be the article's author, but I'd heard about long delays when an article suggestion is submitted and wanted to be more timely. I researched and cited the article thoroughly to avoid editorializing.I got pretty confused with the disclosure stuff, and I'm not sure if I successfully submitted the article for review (it's been 3 weeks and nothing seems to have changed with the article, but I'm honestly not sure I'm looking in the right place). How can I check on 1) the article status 2) if I successfully disclosed that I work for the organization? Thanks for any help!Romeham (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Romeham, and welcome to the Teahouse. You draft is not currently submitting for review. The "Submit your draft for review!" button should do the trick. I don't see where you disclosed your conflict of interest, if at all. Please read WP:COI to see how to do so. I would I also like to say that I removed parts of your draft that were copied from an outside source, which is not permitted. Do not be alarmed by the big template at the top, I am just requesting that your first two revisions no longer be visible to the public for copyright reasons. It's not as bad as it sounds, don't worry. :) JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help!Romeham (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsure if external links to Google maps domestic residences are accepted in Wikipedia?

I am a new contributor working on my first article in the sandbox stage. Most of Wikipedia's style/coding issues are making sense to me, but I have run into a questions about two external links. I reference the homes occupied around 1910 by two key figures of the article and have linked the addresses to Google maps. Since the key figure in the article made an important move out of a small home containing six siblings and her parents, I think it is notable to allow readers to view the actual buildings to allow for more understanding. But, does Wikipedia permit external links to Google map sites of occupied domestic residences? Gracenoteseeker (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gracenoteseeker: Ignoring issues of privacy for the current residents, a problem with the Google maps link is that Google Maps wouldn't necessarily confirm that that's the residence in question (especially since they incorporate feedback from any rando on the net). Wikipedia favors professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, especially secondary or tertiary sources. We do not use original research. If you have another source that establishes that that is the house in question, you should use that one instead of Google. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Ian. I have made some edits and just finished posting the article. 216.36.148.160 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Explain!!!!!

Why do u guys have to ruin our fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.255.13.111 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2018‎ (UTC)

Because we're awful, terrible people, who really only set up this site in the first place to attract vandals so we could annoy them. GMG ^talk 17:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the group, but I ruin your fun because I take riotous relish in your disappointment. I live for the ecstatic high that is correcting factual information. Your pain, my friend, is the field in which I frolic, and even the most verbose vocabulary is unable to adequately explain just how must joy I derive from reverting vandalism. Every edit is a sign that I, and that all those who defend this bastion of human knowledge, am winning, and ruining the fun of those who seek to demolish this great enterprise brings sheer joy, like that of a kestrel in flight. So, my friend, fall, gall thyself, and gash gold-vermillion, for there are but three mere constants in this celestial voyage we label life - death, taxes and editing spoilsports. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Poetry on the Teahouse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Word! Many words! Lovely words! (I think I will save this somewhere.) Thanks, @Stormy clouds:. With respect, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I found some general dishevelment involving Caridina cantonensis

I've been working to contribute more of my aquarium hobby knowledge to Wikipedia, and was revisiting this article I created a while ago on Blue Tiger Shrimp (to upgrade the citations):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caridina_cf._cantonensis_var._blue_tiger

Looking around Wikipedia, I noticed that we have another page on "Caridina cf cantonensis", only it's focus is "Caridina cf. cantonensis var. bee", and the article is using the common name of that particular variety of the species only (Bee Shrimp), whereas I led with the scientific one for my article name.

This is made more complicated because of this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freshwater_aquarium_invertebrate_species#Shrimp

This page has redlinks to three more variants of this species:

Caridina cf. cantonensis var. crystal black, crystal black shrimp
Caridina cf. cantonensis var. crystal red, crystal red shrimp
Caridina cf. cantonensis var. tiger, tiger shrimp

That page also has a red link to the scientific name for bee shrimp. For now, I fixed the red link to point to the proper page, but surely there's a convention for this on Wikipedia somewhere? Do we lead with the scientific name or the common one? Should all the variants be merged onto a single, all-encompassing page, or is it appropriate to have them broken out?

Additionally, this problem may be more widespread. For example, the page on Wikipedia for the shrimp species "Neocaridina davidi" focuses entirely on "Neocaridina davidi var. red" and is titled "Cherry Shrimp" - a common name for the red variety which, yes, is the most well known variety of this species. However, there's also var. green (green jade shrimp), as well as varieties in blue, orange, gold and black, and others. Neocaridina davidi also includes the variety commonly known as "Rili shrimp" which are basically striped, and come in a GREAT many other color varieties - dozens.

What should we do about this? I'm flummoxed. LaesaMajestas (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi LaesaMajestas—it looks like there is a Portal:Fish and a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes/to do looks like a place where an inquiry can be made. I'm new to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes so I'm not familiar with that Project. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'll check and see if it's pertinent to arthropods/crustaceans too. If I copy/paste the question over, that doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies (like canvassing or something), right? LaesaMajestas (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, Bus stop, I notice that by page view statistics, that page goes days without anyone looking at it. Rather than sit by and wait for someone to see my questions, I'd rather teach myself the right thing to do and be bold about my edits. But I don't know how to start doing that. LaesaMajestas (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't see anything problematic about reposting this question at for instance Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes/to do. But I hope I am not giving you misinformation. You are quite correct, and I had not noticed, that that page has not been edited since 2014. One thing that I noticed was that Caridina cf. cantonensis var. blue tiger doesn't have a Talk page. Also, if I click under "What links here" (under "tools") I find that no other articles link to it. Those are just the things that initially jump to my eye. Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You have asked some very good questions about article titling conventions and I am not able to answer them. I hope somebody else weighs in with information on that. Bus stop (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes might be helpful. It has a section Common name or scientific name. Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Fish names and article titles also looks like it might have relevant information. Bus stop (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, LaesaMajestas. I think WP:TREE#Article titles has the information you want: "In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique (e.g. "Cuvier's dwarf caiman"), they should be used for article titles." --ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello LaesaMajestas. Welcome to the Teahouse. It's taken me rather a long time this evening to structure some helpful advice for you, and I see in the meantime you've had some suggestions from others. What follows might seem a complex approach, but I plan to take it step by step, as I feel you might need to do a little more than simply renaming an article or two. But it's worthing being bold. I'm afraid your question is liable to tap into a lot of my personal bias against articles written by aquarium enthusiasts and also of Wikipedia's naming conventions for fauna when it comes to most invertebrates. It seems to me that quite a number of articles about taxa of interest to aquarists are based on extraordinarily poor sources, and are also neither scientific nor encyclopaedic in nature, focussing more on how to rear the species at home, than describing the taxon from a scientific perspective.

At first look, my feeling is that all these trivial subspp, vars and (it's almost a joke: cf.) pages for Caridina may merit merging together into one page. So, just as you would do with any other topic, you need to look first at 'reliable sources'. Joe's Fishy Website is not the sort of place to start. Let's look at the World Register of Marine Species and see what it says. You'll find accepted and invalid names shown and listed there (so be keep an eye out for which is which (See this entry for Caridina). My suggestion is to then take a look at the sources used in the Wikipedia page on Caridina. It uses both the WoRMS list, plus another scientific paper which reliably states that some shrimps, previously thought to be a single species have been analysed and proven to be two separate one.

So, I'd probably print off the WoRMS list and annotate in the handful of other taxa from the 2007 molecular study, then compare that with the list in the Caridina page. I suspect the two might actually match pretty closely. Then I'd delete all invalid names or synonyms from the Caridina article that might have crept in. Having done that, I'd look at List_of_freshwater_aquarium_invertebrate_species#Shrimp and check and then remove/redirect as appropriate any invalid names (whether blue or red-linked). All the red-linked entries there using cf. in them can go immediately, in my view. In species-naming terms Cf. means "compare with" i.e. "we don't know what species this is...it looks close to that one". (It's the nomenclatural equivalent of having an article about someone called Jackson who looks a bit similar to Michael Jackson, but we aren't sure, but we'll create another article entitled Jackson cf. Michael, anyway - if you get my drift!). Those blue-linked taxa in that list which have "cf." in their name can - if they link to a properly named and valid species page (as some do) - simply be renamed without the Cf. (I would first want to ensure each was on my printout of the WoRMS list.

Noting which taxa (vars. cf.s etc) I had removed from the list of aquarium invertebrates, I'd consider looking for any reliable sources that describe them and, if so, I might add a brief note or a new subsection on varieties and forms to the appropriate species page. If you're up for the task, it's the kind of thing I'd actually want to do with paper printouts of each article in front of me before making any online changes.

You asked about common names versus scientific names. Now, I've spent my life working using scientific names, not common name, albeit of plants not animals, so I rather hate what Wikipedia asks for in this guidance on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), as I much prefer Latin names to be used for all but birds, mammals and hepetiles. But, ignoring my personal bias, I'd still advise you to think, first and foremost, of articles by their scientific names. Once you've got those names sorted, you can consider whether each article about a species is named correctly by the most commonly used form of its English name. If you try and sort out articles by English names you'll get into a right old mess. Bear in mind this helpful guidance from the naming convention page Do not use vernacular names when it is not clear to what the name refers.

I hope this advice isn't too off-putting. I was going to advise you to ping the original article creator, then realised you did say it was you. So in a sense I fear you have muddied the waters a bit by your own original naming, so a rename may well be in order. You have had some good suggestions above for asking for help at other projects. I am undecided whether to advise you to post a talk at WP:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes if you needed support. Unfortunately, WP:WikiProject Aquatic Invertebrates is defunct, though maybe WP:WikiProject Animals might not be a bad idea if you get stuck. As always, it can help to leave an explanatory note on the relevant talkpages either before or after working to clean up the muddied waters, so to speak.

Despite advising you to work with paper printouts of the relevant lists in fornt of you, I might at the same time build one master list of names in a spreadsheet, using a row for each name, and one column to indicate the source of that name (be it WoRMS list), genus page in Wikipedia, or the host of other weird pages, and any vars/forms they might list. I'd include all the rubbish names, scientifically invalid names, too, and have another column for what action I want to take on that taxon, and another for when that action has been taken. I'd have a column to indicate whether the taxon was validly listed in WoRMS, and ensure that I addressed all the remaining invalid names/pages by merging/redirecting or deleting. I'd have another column for 'common English name(s), and ensure that I sorted through things at the end so that a user can reach the desired article on a species by both scientific and commonly English names. Where one English name is used for two or more species or varieties, that can be solved with a hatnote to point out the alternatives

Hoping this might give at least a little clarity on the way forward in resolving a plethora of pointless redlinks and invalid page names, and at least a little sense of how to get unflumoxed. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, goodness me, thank you so much, Nick Moyes. I've just gotten through quite a snow shoveling and am sitting down to dinner, so I will reread this in more depth tomorrow when I can really absorb it. It looks like I have quite a project to work on. :-) In the meantime, please be forgiving of me for the original article I created -- if memory serves, it was my first attempt, and I was pretty rough around the edges still - especially with those sources. I had created the original article title from the red link I'd found in the list I mentioned above, and assumed (incorrectly) that I was on the right track. I'm an aquarium enthusiast, but I do quite a lot of research on my topics, for the betterment of the species under my care. My goal is to expand on and contribute that knowledge, not necessarily to further the aquarium hobby, so to speak. You might better appreciate the content of the article I created on Parathelphusa pantherina this past weekend. Thank you again, so much, and I look forward to learning from my second visit of this response! LaesaMajestas (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, LaesaMajestas} - my apologies if I sounded a bit critical or aquarist-written articles. I applaud you for wanting to address and improve this group, though. I'm afraid I'm not going to be around for the next 24 hours+, so if my ramblings above don't make any sense, you might wish to contact me on my Talk Page with any questions. I say this because visitors here can find it confusing when, after 3 days, the discussions get moved into the archives section and seem to disappear. Enjoy your tea - I'm off to bed. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

International Women's Day Wikipedia Event

Hi! I am part of a group of Australian scientists who will be hosting a Wikipedia event tomorrow for International Women's Day.

Several people will be creating new Wikipedia pages on women scientists in honour of this event, using the same IP address at our workplace. I have previously participated in events where we were encouraged to contact Wikipedia to just pre-empt a higher level of activity from the same IP, and receive any additional advice or support in case our pages by newbies get flagged. We have circulated information about linked to Wikipedia's How-to-Guides and tutorials. Is there anything else I should be doing to prepare for this event? Many thanks! Zuleyka Zevallos 10:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzevallos (talk • contribs)

Hey Zzevallos. If you haven't already, you may want to check out guidance at Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon. I have also dropped a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, in the hopes of avoiding suspicion of a large amount of related edits coming from related IPs. GMG ^talk 12:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging @Megalibrarygirl: who has experience running events and may have more specific advice. GMG ^talk 13:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Zzevallos! One of the biggest problems that people run into when writing about women's biographies is establishing notability. WikiProject Women in Red has some good resources to help you out. This essay about writing women's biographies is a good start: Primer for creating women's biographies. The essay includes everything you need to know to write successfully about women on Wikipedia. If you need any help at all, feel free to contact me or any of the editors involved with Women in Red. You can post questions on our talk page, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, I think the people who will be reviewing these pages should review WP:BITE as well. No offense hopefully, just a reminder to people reviewing these new articles. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _{Very Busy} 22:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yoshi24517 Yes, you are probably right that they should review BITE. But it wouldn't be the first time something like this raised suspicions enough where someone reached for the block button before they figured out the whole story. GMG ^talk 22:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Should a task be created in Phabricator to lift the ACC limit temporarily for the event per WP:EDITHON? Yoshi24517 ^Chat _{Very Busy} 22:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh. Hmm... Probably too late for that, since they recommend you start a week in advance. No idea what the backlog is there, but there is usually a backlog everywhere for everything. I suppose any account creator or Steward could help out (I don't have access to any of the account creation stuff anymore.) Probably easiest to have them make one before hand, or make one with their mobile device if they haven't already. GMG ^talk 22:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Derp. It's included in the admin toolkit. MLG above I'm sure would be happy to help out if need be. But probably don't want to send a request to ACC since it probably won't be processed in time for the editathon. GMG ^talk 22:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all so much! Zuleyka Zevallos 03:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzevallos (talk • contribs)

re notable person article: resume considered a reliable source, better way to list articles subject has written

Hello, I am working on a notable person article in my sandbox. Aside from brief bios online with the subject's articles mentioning his teaching experience, some of which I would like to mention in the article, the only place that lists his academic credits is a self published resume at http://independent.academia.edu/ Is this considered a reliable source? I have been combing the reliable source help sections and it seems like I could use this but want to check. (Ironically, after all my research for this, he just put up a personal website which probably has this information. I don't even want to go check it at this point because it is self published.)

Also, I have listed some articles from the different genres of his writing, showing his range. I think there may be a smoother way of illustrating this so if you have any suggestions on this, as well as the entire article, it would be appreciated. Ogmany Ogmany (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ogmany. I'm sorry, but it sounds to me as if the subject is by definition not notable. Wikipedia is essentially uninterested in anything said or published by the subject, or their associates. If you cannot find published material about him that is wholly independent of him, then there is literally nothing that you can put in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ogmany:, I have read through your draft. Given that his general notability seems well-supported by the NYT, Frontline, PBS, Daily Beast, etc., I think you are within policy to use less exalted sources to support the teaching, etc. My understanding is that even a CV may be used as a reference, but not as a claim to notability. So you should be good to go! Good article, btw. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Tribe of Tiger. Very much appreciated. Ogmany (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit a persons birth and death dates

I have tried to edit Jill Melford's wiki page for both her birth and now sadly death but I keep getting error code...I'm obviously doing something wrongAjl12no (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you did not provide a reliable source for her death. We have to have a source before we can add a death date. ~ GB fan 14:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ajl12no: - I have also added a hidden note to make this a bit clearer for occasional editors. You'll find more info about sourcing for such biographical articles at WP:BLP: we need to make sure, that this information can be directly verified by a published reliable source. GermanJoe (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought that as her son, Alexander, I would be a reliable enough source; I will be cremating her on Monday. I have her birth certificate which also has different dates to those supplied (actually born 1931)Ajl12no (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is one of verifiability. We can not verify who you are or the information you have. That is why we require published reliable sources for the information in the article. ~ GB fan 15:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:RS for guidance on what is and what isn't considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Also, a birth certificate (and also your claims as a relative) are considered to be WP:PRIMARY sources. Iffy★Chat -- 15:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss. Can you point us to a published obituary, so that we can correct the error? Dbfirs 15:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

For my part, I can't find an obituary, either through Google or Google UK, and IMDB (usually reasonably good at picking these things up) hasn't any notion of her death either. Ravenswing 17:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... nor can I! There should have been one by now. Alexander, can you find one? Dbfirs 17:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

All a bit fresh I'm afraid and no one has written anything yet. Putney Vale has her booked in for cremation on Monday at 4pm...perhaps they supply information. I wonder who supplies the information to all these bodies (google etc) anyway?Ajl12no (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Is uploading a copy of her birth certificate to someone a way of proving her correct birth date at least, or is that digitally dangerous?Ajl12no (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Appears you or someone else solved referencing DOB by using ThePeerage. Once there is a published obituary that can be used as a reference for DOD and other facts. Make sure article reads past tense. As mentioned above, sorry for your loss. David notMD (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks David...think my cousin has helped with the DOB. Not sure Obit will be done as she was neither mother Theresa or leader of the western world, however after the funeral I will look into it further. Thank you again, Alexander.Ajl12no (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

What/How to revised the content on my Deleted Wikipedia page

Hi,

Could you help with specific update we need to make on our Wikipedia Page so that it can be accepted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr_Batra%27s_Healthcare

Thanks. Prakashtridev (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Prakashtridev and welcome to the TeaHouse. When Waggie reviewed the draft, he/she left comments for you about the problems with the very promotional nature of the article, and also the need for more reliable sources (especially not relying too much on press releases). The promotional tone is overwhelming from the first sentence: "Dr Batra’s™ Healthcare is at the forefront of modernizing Homeopathy by harnessing contemporary medical practices and technological advances to maximize the benefits of this holistic science to its patients." Frankly, wording like that sounds more like an advertising brochure than a neutral, balanced encyclopedia article. Do you have some relationship with the organization? If so, it can be very hard to keep a balanced point of view. Specifically, I recommend collecting good quality independent references, then re-writing the article to summarize only what those sources say. And if you do have some association, be sure to follow the guidelines at WP:COI. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Prakashtridev. I'm afraid you appear to have a (very common) misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia has no role whatever in your online presence, profile, or any other aspect of your publicity. Promotion of any kind is forbidden in Wikipedia. An article about your business does not belong to you, you have no control at all over its content (though you are welcome to make suggestions), and should feature almost no material that comes from you and your company in any form, whether your own publications, or interviews or press releases. The article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection whatever with your company have chosen to publish about it - and if there is not enough such independent material about the company, then it is not possible to have an article about your company (the Wikipedia jargon is that it is not notable). Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)