Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 858

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 855

Archive 856

Archive 857

→

Use of Images in News Oriented Articles

In a hypothetical situation:

Reliable text source "A" says "Perpetrators escape in a blue van.", but reliable source "B" has a picture saying "photo of perpetrators escaping their van", and does not mention the van's color in text, anywhere else.

Two choices:

A) Use the text calling the van "blue" while including a picture of a van that is clearly red? B) Correcting the 1st source, changing the color to "red"?

What I'm trying to do is compare the value or "weight" of the two different media types. Do images merely support text? Does text trump image? Editors seem very pragmatic, and I assume they will all refrain from using either source, and wait until additional information comes in, supporting one or the other. For my purposes, that defeats the whole purpose of this question.Tym Whittier (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: I shall get my own back on typos as I think you meant to say 'escaping in their van'. But where does red come into it (neither source mentioned red), and worrying on this level of trivial detail seems pointless for an encyclopaedia. No photo should be used if it doesn't add to the encyclopaedic nature of the article. Using an image of a red van would be counter-productive and would probably be quickly removed. If you meant to say that source B) had a photo of a red van, then I'd just ignore van colour and assume (from personal experience) that journalists never get all their story details right anyway. If the discrepancies you found were major ones, and both were from reliable sources, it might be appropriate to state that there were two different accounts of events, and then cite each. Go for neutrality and evenness at all times, whilst trying to make the article as good a read as is possible. I know you hate policy spouters, so I'll decline to say this situation of escaping perpetrators falls under WP:NOTNEWS! But text trumps images in my view and if you've not yet visited Wikimedia Commons you might not yet appreciate how anyone can add any old image and call it anything and not be challenged over its identify, nor do they have any sort of system in place for flagging up identification concerns, unlike here where we have this:^{[citation needed]}. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It actually does relate directly to an Article that is too "hot" for me to be willing to mess with in any but the safest of ways. It's more complex than this, but essential the RS used in the article is using text describe an event, but the Article also includes an image that appears to contradict that text. It gets more complicated, because the image is less definitive than a simple matter of color. You look at the image, you notice something about it, your common sense says "A", but the text explicitly says "B". Which opens the door to OR, and I'm staying away from anything like that for now. FYI, feel free to correct any typos in my posts, just make sure to spell my name right.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also I'm good with "policy spouters", my problem is when the policy is posted with no attempt at connecting that policy to the immediate situation. It feels more like a "go away" message, instead of a "here, go learn something" message.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Help creating an article

IN 2009 someone pulled an article about Councillor William Farrar who arrived at Jamestown in 1618, he was an important member of the community and a founder of the House of Burgess. He married Cecily Jordan Farrar who does have her own wiki page. He is noted in many documents and reference books, yet his profile was pulled.

I understand that it can't be reinstated, and have created a new page for him. I have put it in my Alvanh Holmes sandbox, but when it comes to hyperlinks, markup language (I've read the instructions) I am clueless. At 79 years I am proud that I can browse the net and do email.

I started doing something on User page Alvanhholmes: Councillor William Farrar, but when I started reading the instructions nothing made sense.

I really could use help in finishing the article to meet the technical requirements and posting it. I will be glad to provide my password to anyone who can help. The article is, I feel, almost ready for publishing except for hyperlinks and markups.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvanhholmes (talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I had a quick look at your sandbox.... First impression is - it looks good. PASSWORD - Don't give anyone your password - they don't need it to help edit your sandbox - or any other article for that matter. Will look more at your article later.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear, Alvanhholmes. Thank you for helping to contribute to wikipedia. I, too, have been frustrated that editors have pulled articles out of ignorance of the subject instead of taking the time to investigate the topic and contribute to the article in question. Please NEVER GIVE OUT YOUR PASSWORD TO ANYONE even if they say that they are a representative of wikipedia or the wikimedia organization.

As far as the technical aspects are concerned, that can be a challenge to learn. However, I'm sure that many editors can help you add these parts to the page. If you write, in plain text, the appropriate information that would be required for a citation, then other editors can visit the article and help by fixing these parts of the page. In fact, you can even add a tag to the page that puts it on a list so that editors can come and help with this aspect: Template:No footnotes. Don't expect a fast turnaround time on here though. One way that you could do this is to submit the article that you're drafting as a draft so that an experienced editor can look through it and help you with these technical aspects. This guide talks about writing your first article and has a subsection dedicated to drafts WP:FIRSTARTICLE. This 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 22:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Alvanhholmes, and welcome to Wikipedia! One thing I noticed is that the article mixes several date formats: "28 April 1583" in the lead section, but "Sep 6, 1631" in the "Sale of William Farrar's Inheritance" section. Either is okay, but consider choosing one and sticking to that. External links can be hyperlinked, but should generally be kept in references and "External links" sections rather than in the normal text sections.

And then there's the descendants section. I've tried to make it a bulletted list, but there are people I'm not sure how they're related to each other: In the first paragraph, it says "With Cicely (who had born a daughter, Temperance, with her first husband) First name unknown Bailey and two daughters, Margaret and Mary with Samuel Jordan, William sired three children." So Cicely was the mother of Temperance before marrying William Farrar. And William and Cicely had the following children together:

One whose first name we don't know and whose surname was Bailey. That wasn't the surname of either of the parents, so I assume he got it later in life, or is it two sons, one called Bailey as a first name and one whose first name isn't known?
Margaret
Mary
And then William Farrar had three children with Samuel Jordan. That's two fathers for the same children. Does that mean Cicely was the mother and we don't know who fathered each of these children?

Another issue in that section is "Col William Farrar". Is his first name "Col" or is it a disambiguator like when you talk about Johann Strauss I and II?

I also changed some place names to link to the articles about the places. Where several places existed with the same names, I left out the links unless I was fairly sure I was linking to the right one. Usually articles in userspace are meant to be edited mainly by one person, but since you asked for "help in finishing the article" I thought it was probably acceptable. Same goes for the bulletted list which I thought was easier to make an initial version of than to explain how to make one.

That being said, this article seems pretty well-written for being someone's first article here, so well done on that. – Pretended leer {talk} 14:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the date format, it should probably be as in "April 28, 1583", since this is primarily a U.S.-related topic. See MOS:DATETIES. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page

I am new to wiki. I want to publish history of a particular place. Which is based on oral narration passed on from generation to generation. There is no online source to cite as references or external source. The history is fast forgotten due lack of documentation. What is the best way to go about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterdeking (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether sources are online or not, but they must be published. Unpublished oral narration isn't acceptable as a source. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is not the proper venue for first publishing this history, I urge you to find some way to publish it. The more oral narrative that gets preserved, the more sources future scholars will have to try to reconstruct this otherwise lost history. If you have a Facebook account, you could begin by posting a summary there. If you have enough wherewithal to start a blog or put together a self-published book, you can publish in that way. These sorts of sources are not suitable to be references for Wikipedia, but they can be, when placed in context and cross-referenced with other materials, used by historians or other scholars to publish works that then would be suitable references for Wikipedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You could also reach out to a local journalist who covers the area of interest, and let them know what you are trying to do, to see if they will write about the information you are trying to preserve. Then you'd have a reliable source, and it's a start. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Masterdeking. Perhaps if you cite the historical place you are interested to write about and preserve, there might be people here who have access to published information. Darwin Naz (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Help helping a new, and elderly, editor

Hello everyone. Me and two other editors have been helping a new 79 year old editor to improve a draft of an article that he's working on in his sandbox. However, I think that so far we've all only really been able to help with formatting, copy editing, and identifying passages that needed to have citations. I am a relatively new editor and don't have confidence in my ability to advise him on what to do next. Would someone be willing to help us advise him on next steps he should take? He's gotten into the habit of messaging me on my talk page if you want to read any of that, but there's also some more up to date conversation on his sand box's talk page. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure... fighting Ageism is always a good thing. Will discuss on the draft's talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Onel5969. Wikipedia already has enough problem with crowd-sourced system bias, so that is exactly why I'm enthusiastically giving this attention. I really do not have enough experience to advise him on what to do next.

Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 03:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries Shashi Sushila Murray, please discuss on the sandbox talk page from this point forward. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

How to create an article?

I am new to Wikipedia and don't know how to create an article.Please tell me how?Anit13 (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please read and study Your first article and follow its advice. You can ask more specific questions here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You can also start doing minor editing first just so you become familiar with the tools necessary to publish your article. You will also gain insights regarding the language, structure, tone, and quality of accepted contents so you can adopt it for your piece. Good luck! Darwin Naz (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Thegooduser/Nightpedia.js

Script not working. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome again to the Teahouse, Thegooduser.

You are more likely to find help on fairly technical issues like this user script at Village Pump - Technical. I see what the script is attempting to do, in general, but I'm not in a position to try to install it and debug it right now. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Article Review

Hi,

Can someone look over my article and give me some feedback before I attempt to move it over to the mainspace? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kadebose/sandbox

Thanks Kadebose (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I already did once, and you took no notice. There are dairy cattle over most of the world – but you draft is written entirely from a US standpoint, and details just one scheme for evaluating them. Maproom (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I agree that there are more means of evaluation throughout the world, and I am currently in the process of gathering information. I was hoping to get some feedback on what was already written, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadebose (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kadebose. It is much too detailed for an encyclopedia article. You have essentially reproduced the judging guide in a couple of sections. Articles aren't how-to guides or user manuals. See WP:HOWTO. Just summarize what the criteria are, the percentages are fine. Do it in text instead of in tables. The references link to the manuals themselves for readers who want more detail. Judging dairy cattle seems to be quite different from Cattle judging, which relies much more on the judges verbal reasons. This book has some of the history of the development of the dairy type classification used in judging, and says "Linear classification is based on measurments of individual type traits instead of opinions" StarryGrandma (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the citation for the article Meera chandrasekhar, UMI, Columbia, USA

(Rangakuvara (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)) You have written about removing the template. please guide me.

Hello Rangakuvara and welcome to the Teahouse.

I think you're referring to the article at Meera Chandrasekhar which has maintenance templates regarding references and external links. If you would like to see those templates go away, what you need to do is convert the current in-line external links and the list of general references given under "External links" into in-line citations, preferably using one of the accepted footnote styles. If this recommendation means nothing to you, I suggest looking at the page referencing for beginners.

A fair amount of work is needed to bring this article into compliance with our standards for biographies. Too much of the material does not appear to come from any identifiable source. Also, while I think it's plausible that the subject can be shown to be notable, I'm not sure the current article does that very well.

One more thing: you seem to have adopted the convention of placing your signature (I assume you're using the ~~~~ convention or one of the signing buttons) at the front of your comments. The convention used by nearly everyone else on Wikipedia is to place the signature at the end. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

External links

I was wondering if linking to an artist's Soundcloud, Spotify and Youtube channel is allowed? Spotify and Soundcloud are free streaming sites and don't provide direct money to the artist, and the Youtube channel is run by them where they have their music videos (I have NOT linked their music videos on their page at all, just their YouTube channel). Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! Metallicat3627 (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Metallicat3627: Hi, possibly Wikipedia:External links can answer your questions, especially the WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:LINKSTOAVOID sections. --CiaPan (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@CiaPan: I have tried looking on there and all I have gathered is that I cannot use social medias, YouTube videos should be avoided (nothing was stated about links to channels), and links to anything the person directly profits from (Spotify and SoundCloud are free and the artist does not directly profit from it.) I'm just a little unsure if these links to the artist profiles and not directly to songs, videos, etc, are allowed. Metallicat3627 (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Metallicat3627, the safe route would be link to the artist's website and leave it at that. One would assume all the links you're enquiring about should be on the artist's website, and if they are not, that would be the artist's problem not ours. Regarding the stream links, I cannot see how they would impart any factual information that would add to the reader's understanding of the subject, so they'd be more promotional than useful. Pillar policy WP:NOT clearly states we are not here to promote anything. John from Idegon (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

What to do with InternetArchiveBot?

Hi all,

I have been editing for some time, but one thing I never really understood is what to do with the messages that InternetArchiveBot leaves on the talk pages. I know that if there are not-dead links, we should report them, and if there are better archive links, we should also report those. Therefore, if the links that InternetArchiveBot are good, do we just leave its message on the talk page? Or are we supposed to archive those messages somehow?

Thanks in advance for the help! :)

ChunyangD (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hellp ChunyangD, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'll be interested to see what other editors have to suggest. I used to check each of the links and update the section with a "checked" template, but ever since the reporting request changed, I stopped doing anything at all with these sections.

As for archiving, the sections are properly formed for the archivebot(s) to do their job, if the talk page is set up to be archived. My suggestion is to just leave them be for now, but maybe other people have a better suggestion. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! It seems like the best thing to do is nothing in that case. I will leave it be! ChunyangD (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

HELP

I am not good with coding. But I manage a law school's social media and digital marketing pages. A lot of the information on the page Wikipedia has for them is incorrect and outdated which is unfortunate because the search results appear when googled. Is there someone I could submit changes to to be made ASAP? I am referring to the page about Birmingham School of Law in Birmingham, AL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.100.148 (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alabama IP editor. You clearly have a conflict of interest. If you want to get anything accomplished here on Wikipedia, then I highly recommend that you register an account, which is easy. Then comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure. I know a highly experienced editor who lives in Alabama who may be willing to offer a few words of advice. Do you have any suggestions, Drmies? Wikicode is not very difficult in my opinion, and I am a 66 year old construction worker, not some millenial techie. If you study the Cheatsheet, you will know how to do the vast majority of things that most Wikipedia editors do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Make that Help:Cheatsheet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

If it's worthwhile doing, it's worthwhile learning the code for. It's not that hard, and there's Visual Editor too... Drmies (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume that you are Psterling92 who asked the same question at the Help Desk before anyone could answer here. The same advice applies, wherever you ask the question. It would be best if you suggest changes on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 12:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Look over some bold edits?

Hi all,

I had flagged John J. Bursch's wikipedia page in the ToCleanup queue a while back, but it looks like noone actually did anything about it. If you look at the history, it clearly looks like a resume that was written by the person it was about - all of the initial edits was by a user called 'Burschjj', and this (and Michigan Solicitor General) were the only two pages that this user has ever edited. Furthermore, if you examine John Bursch's Linkedin page, under Experiences - Warner Norcross & Judd, there is actually a line that says "For additional matters, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Bursch".

In any case, I went ahead and made several bold edits. However, this is the first time that I have made radical changes on a BLP, and I wanted to see if some experienced editors could take a look and make sure I didn't make any mistakes. I know that my references aren't properly formatted - I will try to get to that in the near future.

Please leave me a comment on my talk page for general advice, or leave a comment on that page's talk page for discussion on the article!

ChunyangD (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@ChunyangD: I did a little bit of (very minor) additional cleanup, but I do agree with your changes. The page does feel a bit résumé-like but I do not see anything promotional to remove (maybe some of the lesser awards should go); that they point to the Wikipedia page from a LinkedIn profile is no reason to delete it.

You might also want to take a look at WP:OUTING for future reference. I think you are in the clear here ("outing" the subject of an article is OK, and imagining User:Burschjj is JJBursch is a reasonable inference based on in-Wikipedia data), but be careful in the future. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Tigraan: for the fixes! My apologies for the accidental outing - is there anything I should do at the moment to fix? (ie, deleting the above discussion? But I'm not sure how to go about that properly...) ChunyangD (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything about the "outing" that needs to be fixed. All you did was point out the similarity between "John J. Bursch" and "Burschjj". You should have pinged Burschjj to alert him (the editor) to this discussion – but I've just done that. Maproom (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Article rejected for reading too much like a story

Hello, I have had an article rejected for reading too much like a story and including opinions. However, the whole point of the article is that it is factual and includes no opinions or biases of any kind. It is a article explaining a technology and there are therefore only a limited number of non-biased sources (sources not from companies promoting the technology) that can be found.

I have included the article intended below- please help me to edit this in a way that will be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Hornett (talk • contribs)

I have removed the copy from here; here is a link: Draft:Ultra Narrowband 331dot (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

For a start, don't put the section headers in all caps. Another suggestion I have is to remove your "Introduction" section entirely, and instead place the text in the lede section (before any headers.) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The rejection notice says nothing about "story", it says "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article." I've done a little to improve the formatting. Maproom (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Assistance with Draft: 99designs

Hi,

The editor who reviewed Draft:99designs in AfC suggested I come to Teahouse for advice. I am a pretty experienced Wikipedia editor after several years of editing, but have a COI here as a paid consultant to 99designs. The particular objection in AfC is that the article "reads more like an advertisement." I try my best to abide by the five pillars and NPOV, but I'm aware that when working on a paid assignment, unconscious bias can seep into an article. So I've taken a fresh look at it and made extensive revisions, which are enumerated in the Comment above the Draft. I'd appreciate any further suggestions and/or a fresh review. Many thanks! BC1278 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I think by trying so hard to be neutral, you wound up being a bit too long winded and veered into promotional territory. I culled a lot of the unnecessary info. Should be fine now. None of the sources are or were self-published sources, despite the rejection note left for you. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It could also do with a few more links to articles like graphic design and San Francisco. It also contained a rather long sentence in the lead section when I first saw it, but it seems that got fixed. For reference, here's what I wrote when I first saw that sentence:

Hello, BC1278! Wikipedia articles should use formal language, but I noticed the longest sentence in the entire draft is in the lead section. As explained in make technical articles understandable, the most important information should be in the lead section, which should also be the most readable one:

The company initially ran design competitions for client work, with only the winning entry getting paid, a business model that divided the design community.

And the following is two sentences, and the longest one is 14 words:

The company first ran design competitions for client work, only paying the winning entries. That business model divided the design community.

But I'm not sure the lead section needs to contain that much information. I guess it could if citations were present in the lead section itself. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User: timtempleton and Pretended leer. Is one of you willing to look at it again, make any further changes, and move to the mainspace if it's ready? The article took about 3 months to get looked at the first time and it's back to the end of the line. Cheers BC1278 (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278

BC1278 - I haven't gotten around to applying for AfC move rights, so can't move the article myself, but even if I had, since it was rejected once, it would be better to let an uninvolved editor do the move, if they agree that it's in good shape. Shouldn't be a problem as far as I can see. It's neutral and properly sourced. A view of the history can see several additional neutral sources I pulled out that further substantiate notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed it and put it into the 'pedia. Another editor will review it prior to it being indexed to google as is standard since we instituted NPP. John from Idegon (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all your assistance, John from Idegon, TimTempleton,Pretended leer Very soon after the article moved to mainspace, a flag was added: "Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention." I have added back the five sources that were removed as part of the editing. Even without that, though, as noted by TimTempleton before, none of the sources are or were self-published sources. And, none of the sources were trivial mentions. Perhaps the editor who flagged the article discounted the credibility of Australian news media, where a lot of the coverage comes from? I'm not sure. But the flag makes no sense to me based on the grounds cited. Could someone take a look? Thank you for your help. BC1278 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278

There is now a discussion at Talk:99designs#Notability, so further comment should go there. Thanks again. BC1278 (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Delete my biography

I would like to delete my biography Betty Thayer I am retired and do not want people contacting me, nor do I really deserve a page at this point. How can this happen? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathflat8 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You could try AfD. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bathflat8: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You will want to email info-en@wikimedia.org and confirm your identity with Wikipedia. A lad insane is correct that AfD is probably your best bet. Articles are not typically deleted simply because the subject does not want one, but you could certainly argue you are not notable enough for an article, if that's how you feel. You may want to review the notability criteria for biographies to help your argument. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bathflat8:: First, I slightly edited your comment here to link the article you are enquiring about. To me, it appears your bio can be deleted as not notable without much problem. It's a very poorly constructed article, IMO lacking sufficient indication that you are a notable subject, so I proposed it for deletion. That means that if no one disagrees with my proposal, it will be removed in ten days. John from Idegon (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixing link in edit summary

I accidentally linked to MOS:PLAINLIST instead of WP:UBLIST. And I can't change the link itself because it was in an edit summary. We already have redirects like MOS:COLOR and MOS:LISTGAP, so I guess MOS:PLAINLIST could be created. But should it? In which situations is it acceptable to create new redirects in MOS namespace?

And yes, I did make another redirect today while fixing a red link in the Assistance dog article, but this question is about MOS to Wikipedia redirects. And I've noticed I'm more likely to get edits reverted in Wikpedia namespace than in mainspace, so I'm asking before doing this. – Pretended leer {talk} 21:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pretended leer. Edit summaries cannot be changed. A dummy edit can be made with a new edit summary in serious cases. There is no "MOS namespace". Names starting with "MOS:" are in mainspace like articles. Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects is only an essay but says: "Currently, the general consensus seems to be that most newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted, that very old ones might retain their value for extra-Wikipedia links." I wouldn't create MOS:PLAINLIST. A redirect at WP:PLAINLIST would probably be uncontroversial if it isn't added to the shortcut box at WP:UBLIST. One shortcut in such boxes is usually sufficient. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Does Talk:99designs#Error in edit summary solve the problem? Also, do you think redirecting WP:PLAINLIST to WP:UBLIST would be confusing, considering that template:plainlist also exists? Also, I think I'll avoid linking to MOS: stuff from edit summaries in the future. I might still use MOS:BOLD since WP:BOLD is something else, but I'll avoid stuff like MOS:LISTGAP and MOS:COLOR. That way I probably won't make more mistakes like this one. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pretended leer: Talk:99designs#Error in edit summary was unnecessary. I have never seen a talk page post about an edit summary mistake. The mistake was harmless so a dummy edit was also unnecessary. Edit summary mistakes are common. Cross-namespace redirects to templates are rare and editors don't expect them. There is no problem redirecting WP:PLAINLIST to the same as WP:UBLIST. {{Plainlist}} is even linked there if somebody is looking for it. By the way, the edit summary is included in "Show preview" so you can test links. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter. I've copy-pasted WP:UBLIST into WP:PLAINLIST, as that seemed to be the easiest way to make a redirect with the right templates/categories. – Pretended leer {talk} 20:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Can I see some examples of excellent Wikipedia pages

Hello, can someone give me links to some excellent Wikipedia pages, so I can model all the pages I am working on after them :-) Especially, I am interested in navigation, tables, info boxes, placement of photos, and referencing style. Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Seahawk01.

I suggest looking at Wikipedia:Featured articles. In order to become a featured article, a page undergoes some rigorous reviews, so these should be the pages to use as examples or models of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: wow! I just clicked a random few: Ceratosaurus, An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory and Pisco sour...very nice. I really need to learn advanced referencing! Thanks Seahawk01 (talk)

Seahawk01, there's also Wikipedia:Good articles, a lower bar but still good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I like these too, thanks. It's good to see the best Wikipedia has to offer! Seahawk01 (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Accidentally messed up 49ers Roster Template

Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemaan (talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Seraphimblade has fixed it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Mikemaan, I reverted the edit you made to the template to fix the formatting. Edits are always reversible and can be reverted if you make an error. We also have template sandboxes so that you can try edits to templates without your edits affecting live articles, and then copy it to the main template once you've got it. Templates can be a bit fiddly, so don't feel bad about it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page

I need help on how to solve this problem.

I created a page and received information below.

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Owerre Ede-Oballa a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterdeking (talk • contribs) 13:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The previous article has been returned to its previous content and title. If you want to start a new article, read the advice at WP:Your first article, & start a draft which can be reviewed. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:On This Holiday

Can some experienced editor who hasn't looked at this draft yet please take a look at it, and make sure that the reviewers are right, and are not just "stuck"? This draft has been submitted seven times in the past month, both before and after the album was released, and declined seven times. I am not sure that I understand the details of the musical notability criteria well enough to know whether the author is right that the Billboard chart performance establishes notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the draft talk page with some advice. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The draft is also at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:On This Holiday I cut a lot of what looked to me to be promotional in attempt to save it, but that does not address the music notability question. David notMD (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Addition of a new popular picture book series.

I created a draft page yesterday and submitted it. "Paris Chien Adventures."

I received two messages from Wikipedia Commons that 3 images I uploaded were deleted for copyright violation. I created the images and am the owner of the copyright:

File:Bowker-ParisChienCover-4th-2018.png File:Front cover of children's picture book about a dog on vacation in the South of France. .jpg File:Front cover of children's picture book about a Norwich terrier in Paris who helps a lost daschund puppy..jpg

Can you tell me how to respond to the user/s directly show that I have not violated any copyright? so that the images will be restored. I do not want the page I worked so hard to create to be deleted.

I have searched but still cannot find how/where to respond to the Users who sent the messages. One is Patrick Rogel and the other is Incnis Mrs

Parischien (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Parischien. This is a little complicated, so apologies in advance if it's a bit confusing. Wikimedia Commons is a repository of media for lots of projects, one of which is the English Wikipedia. Commons only allows free images. Now even though you may have taken a picture of the cover of the book, this is considered a faithful reproduction of a 2D work, and so the copyright of the original 2D work still applies, meaning it's not free.

Now, we can upload some non-free files locally on the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use, and this typically includes book covers. However, we can only use non-free media on published articles. Also, unfortunately getting all the "paperwork" right on non-free media can be complicated on its own. So what I would recommend is that when the draft is accepted and published, if you will submit a request at our Files for Upload project, someone can upload the file in a way that ensures it won't get deleted, and add it to the published article. GMG ^talk 14:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Parischien. I understand your message a little differently from how GreenMeansGo does: I think you are saying that you are the original artist for the covers, and own the copyright in them, not just in the photos? If that is the case, then Commons will accept your images only if you explicitly and irrevocably license them under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which will allow anybody to reuse them in any way, for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute them. If you are willing to do this, then please follow the procedure in donating copyright materials. But if you prefer to keep control of the rights, then the only way they can be used in Wikipedia is as non-free images: in that case, please follow GMG's advice. --ColinFine (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Parischien purely going off your user name resembling the name of the article you're trying to edit, I'd also recommend reading WP:PSCOI and if appropriate asking non-involved editors to help rather than editing the page yourself. valereee (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC) 15:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC) 15:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Two Articles

Hi There, I have two articles I would like to submit for review to publish. One has already been submitted and is in the review process. I can not figure out how to submit a second article. Please advice. Thank you! JJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ Erick (talk • contribs) 18:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi JJ Erick, welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed [1] the old redirect code from User:JJ Erick/sandbox. Please do that when you want to change a redirect to other content. You can create as many sandboxes as you want, e.g. at User:JJ Erick/sandbox2, User:JJ Erick/sandbox3, ..., or subject-specific names like User:JJ Erick/THE GRIMM. Click "Contributions" at the top right to find pages you have edited. The bottom has a "Subpages" link to list your sandboxes and other subpages. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

When you want to submit your sandbox draft for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. Before doing that, you ought to format it in accordance with the Manual of Style. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you (talk) and PrimeHunter for the feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ Erick (talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Does this qualify as a reliable source?

Hi there!

I know that Wikipedia articles should be backed by at least 3 credible sources, such as Entrepreneur or New York Times. I was wondering if a contributed article counts? For example, if the owner of a company is an expert in outsourcing and has authored 3 articles in different credible sources. Would that count? Or does it need to be an article written about them?

Thanks in advance! Hannah— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awordsmithpdx (talk • contribs) 18:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Awordsmithpdx. There's no hard fast rule for how many sources a subject needs to be suitable for a Wikipedia article. The answer to "how many sources" is pretty much "enough to write an article with, without going beyond what the sources say".

While pieces in major respected publications are usually considered reliable sources, this is not always the case. If someone is writing about their own company, then regardless of where it is published, it would not be considered an independent source for our purposes, which means we're comparatively limited on what kinds of things we can use it for. So for example, Nature is among the most widely respected scientific journals in the world, but if someone from Nature is writing in Nature about Nature, then we have to automatically doubt the information at least a little, because it would seem unlikely that Nature would publish information about itself that was unflattering or scandalous even if it were true. GMG ^talk 18:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Awordsmithpdx, and welcome to the Teahouse! The sources meant to establish notability has to be about the topic, correct (the other thing will make "us" yell WP:NOTINHERITED!). More at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Your hypothetical NYT article doesn't have to be all or even mostly about the company, but the more the better and it must be more than just a passing mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft page move to mainpage

I'm having trouble moving the GROUNDFLOOR page to the mainpage article space. I previously submitted a question without a subject/headline, so this is my second attempt. The page can be found here: Draft:Groundfloor

In the past, it appears that the company paid for edits, which I am in the process of finding more information for. Certainly there must be a way to disclose these, and I was wondering what that process is...

Best, Marisa

Neurogal913 (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Neurogal913: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm a little confused, are you saying that you think paid editors have edited that draft without declaring it? 331dot (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

ReeceMay was blocked for undisclosed paid editing to that page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Neurogal913: There may have previously been undisclosed paid contributions, but you also would likely be considered a paid editor if you are employed by "Groundfloor"(as you originally posted here) and are trying to create an article for the company. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editing for reference. Now, even if you're not getting paid or otherwise compensated for your edits, you still would be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about the company or anyone associated with the company on Wikipedia, and therefore would be expected to only edit according to the aforementioned COI editing guide. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I will find a non-biased third party to contribute to the page. And yes @331dot, paid editors in the past edited the draft and didn't declare that they were paid to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurogal913 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Neurogal913: Thanks for the response; however, anyone you "find" or "solicit" off Wikipedia to contribute to the page might also be seen as having an WP:APPARENTCOI. Try asking for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet, Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment or some other possibly relevant WikiProjects to see if someone might be interested in helping contribute to the draft. You can continue working on it yourself, but you should submit for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation when you think it's ready and you should disclose your COI per WP:DISCLOSECOI. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sources not considered reliable

One issue that a New Page Patroller suggested I should fix, on the recently created article "Camp Nyoda" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Nyoda), is the citation of IMDb (which is not considered a reliable source). Do I also need to remove the related information (since my only source is IMDb)? Thank you! Srannamartina (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone already removed the IMDB citation but left the related information. If it's plausible it can be left in, but tagged with {{citation needed}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article from MIT about Wikipedia

I wanted to share this with the help desk and teahouse.

http://news.mit.edu/2018/wikipedia-disputes-unresolved-study-1106

TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Thanks for that. That article is about RFCs that don't close. You may be interested to know that there are also edit wars that don't end: Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars describes some of them. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Haha - great stuff. I was looking for obscure cricket players and Mormon general authorities at that link. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding an article

Hello I want to add an article . How can I do this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safidonese (talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Start at Wikipedia:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Urgent !

Once you have received the go-ahead to edit a "semi-protected" article how do you go about it ? Rocket blastoff (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, by go ahead I assume you mean you made an edit request on the talk page of the article? If so, the page can only be edited by an editor with autoconfirmed status. If a user has confirmed your edit, then they will most likely make the change themselves soon after. Kosack (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing problems

I want to create the Tottenham Hotspur U-23 players' pages . How do I insert the "infobox football biography" thing in a visual edit ? And will it matter if I only cite the name of the Website I have got the information from ? What do I do I do if I want to use a picture that isn't there on Commons and I haven't clicked myself ? Rocket blastoff (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rocket Blastoff. Welcome, and thank you for wanting to make Wikipedia better. Creating new articles is one of the harder tasks in editing Wikipedia: I urge you to start off by reading your first article. You should only try to create an article about one of the players if that player meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and I suspect that several of them won't. (Notice that I say "an article about" not "a page for": these are rather different things, but only the first is relevant to Wikipedia).

As to your specific questions: I am not familiar with the visual editor. I believe there is a mechanism for inserting templates, and you will be wanting to use the template "infobox soccer player"; but it is often easier to copy an infobox from a related article and make the required changes, and I don't know if there is a way of doing this in the Visual Editor.

You almost certainly can't use an image that isn't on Commons, and you didn't take yourself. Only if the owner of the copyright has explicitly released the image under a licence acceptable to Commons (either on a website where it has been published, or by email following WP:donating copyright materials) can you use it. But, please don't concern yourself with images until you have determined that the subject in question is notable, or your effort will be wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Community Assistance

Hello!

I'm looking to request some straightforward, factual corrections to the Intercom page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercom_(company) - but because I'm affiliated, I don't want to be disregarding the rules. If these updates seem straightforward to someone here, is there any way these could be updated to the Intercom page? Thanks for any assistance!

Remove software from second sentence, because Intercom is for any business with a website Add Sydney to the list of Intercom offices Industry should be “Enterprise Software”, not customer communications Change David Barrett’s title in the list of key people; he is a co-founder but no longer at the company/ OR remove David Barrett from key people Add Karen Peacock (COO) and Alexandra Shapiro (CMO) to the Key People List Update the last sentence in the upfront paragraph to reflect Intercom’s current customer and conversation count: As of October 2018, Intercom has 30,000+ paying customers and powers 500M conversations monthly. Citations for the #s: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2018/10/10/intercom-launches-smart-chatbot/#5c825323365a http://customerthink.com/intercom-launches-ai-powered-chatbot-to-answer-customers-most-common-questions/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyssa Nectar PR (talk • contribs) 17:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Alyssa Nectar PR. Thank you for being up-front about your conflict of interest. What you have done, making the request, is exactly right, except that you should have done it at Talk:Intercom (company). I have copied your request there, and added the template {{request edit}}, that will bring it to more people's attention.

Please note that (assuming you are in some way paid for this work) you are required to make a formal declaration of the fact: see PAID. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

How to publish Company Page

Greeting ! I am new to this platform and have no idea about it. I have tried my best to publish the page but due to not fulfilling some wiki criteria it has been removed. Is their any one who can help me out to so. Here is some about my company We are Privately held company in India since 2008 and during this time period we have developed many software. They are PetroGenius - For Petrol Pump Owners WebTrans - For Fleet Industries AutoGenius - For Automobile Industries Vaanijaya - For All Private Financier GeniusHRM - For Business and HR And many other. The software I have mentioned they all are Authorized such as AutoGenius - Is authorized with HeroMotoCrop and we used to provide them all over india DMS operation. PetroGenius is authorized by Rajasthan Petroleum Association and distributed all over India. We are serving more than 4052 outlet of petrol pumps, Private financiers, Showrooms, Workshop and many Business organization. Is there any one who can create a wiki page for us or provide us the tutorial to do the same.

Thanking You Cogxim Technologies Pvt Ltd — Preceding unsigned comment added by AutoGenius (talk • contribs) 07:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AutoGenius. The very first thing that you should do is to comply with our mandatory Paid editing disclosure, and familiarize yourself with managing conflicts of interest here on Wikipedia. Then, read and study Your first article and our notability guideline for corporations. Please use the Articles for Creation process which allows an experienced, uninvolved editor to review your draft article. Always defer to experienced, uninvolved editors acting in good faith I. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Your phrase "for us" is a common misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. People (and companies) do not 'own' Wikipedia articles. Once an article is accepted, other people are free to add or subtract from is as long as citations are provided. A second problem is your User name. Names are to be for people. You could be AaravAtAutoGenius, but not just AutoGenius, as that is the name of one of the software products your company developed. As stated on your Talk page, your User name has already been deleted and the account blocked until you apply for a new name - instructions there. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Ras Al Khaimah

Hiya. There has finally been consensus (years too late) to change Ras al-Khaimah to Ras Al Khaimah. That's dandy, but it's left a million nested categories and templates using the al-Khaimah spelling. I started to try and clear this up but it's a mammoth task and it gets so tortuous you get mixed up and things start dropping/getting broken. Do admins have the ability to do a global search/replace of al-Khaimah to Al Khaimah and make it all go away? Same thing, BTW, with Umm Al Quwain, which was previously Umm al-Quwain. Cheers Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Arjayay, I summon you [2]. Do you have any advice? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyediting

A template message on the article Camp Nyoda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Nyoda) indicates that copyediting needs to be done. After looking through the manual of style I have tried to make the necessary changes. What other copyediting should be done? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srannamartina (talk • contribs) 03:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

A couple of minor points: "lead" should be "led" in a couple of places; and to my British ear, personalising the camp by using "she" and "her" sounds odd, though we do it with ships! It was the camp name that meant rainbow, not the camp itself. "Relinquished the helm" doesn't sound encyclopaedic. Dbfirs 11:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I've made those changes. I was also wondering about the inclusion of nicknames, which I currently have in parenthesis - I know it's generally discouraged but all the nicknames I've included are the names exclusively used by the people in question, and many are uncommon nicknames (Ginner for Virginia, for example). I would love some advice on what would be best. Srannamartina (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Great! I made those changes as well. Any other suggestions are very much appreciated. Srannamartina (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding TV episode writers to a chart

I'd like to add episode writers for the Mummies Alive! cartoon,but I don't know how to add new sections to the "Episodes" category. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingFlywheels (talk • contribs) 13:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)