Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 993

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 990

Archive 991

Archive 992

→

Centering image in infobox

New York & Pennsylvania Railroad - how do I get the picture centered in the box? deisenbe (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Just directly put in the name of the image - you don't need the 'wikipedia style' link with [[]] and FILE: and stuff. I think I've fixed it for you - is that ok now? Hug^syrup 14:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Page Visibility in Google

Hi, Can Someone let me know when a page will get visible in google, the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuthurmattam? Regards Biggreentreeus (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It will only be visible in Google once it has been patrolled/reviewed by a New Page Reviewer. Unfortunately there is a substantial backlog to review new pages so I can't tell you exactly when it will be looked at. Some pages I have created have been reviewed within a week or two, others are still not reviewed a couple of months later. Sorry not to be able to help more. Hug^syrup 14:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks a lot for your help.Biggreentreeus (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that the reviewer may take exception to the fact that the citations list only the home pages of entities such as The Hindu and the Times of India, and much in the article is entirely unsourced.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Page Preview of History of Slavery

The page preview of the history of slavery is not a preview of that article. It states "monkey monkey monkey." How would I change that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.250.171 (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That was vandalism hours ago, and it was corrected within a few minutes. I'm surprised that you are still seeing the vandalised version. Dbfirs 05:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is about page previews, which don't update every time the article does; there's been a few other cases of vandalism staying cached in the preview. Eman 235/talk 16:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

adding a subject

Hi how do i upload a brand new page into Wiki, which will be the hyperlink from another existing page? Sorry to ask something which must be really basic and super simple, but I've never done it ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Po. Su. Ra. (talk • contribs) 07:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Po. Su. Ra.. It sounds like you want to know how to create a Wikipedia article; you can find out a little more about this in Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. From looking at your contributions, it seems you might be wanting to create an article about someone named Sukumari Raghupathy Polavaram; if that's the case, then please also take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) because you're going to need to establish that Polavaram is Wikipedia notable for an article to be written about him. If after reading the pages I linked to above (the blue links), you still want to create an article about Polayaram, then my suggestion would be to start working on a draft and then submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation when you think it's ready for review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

One other helpful article: WP:Autobiography.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Track listing error

Hello! On my user page, there's a section titled "Track listing" with the track list for an album by Olivia O'Brien, but for some reason, the coding isn't right. I've tried to figure it out, but I can't find the problem. Would an experienced editor be able to look at it and fix it for me? Thanks! – DarkGlow (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Greetings DarkGlow, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is the problem that the "2018" only extends partway through the Was it Even Real? album, and therefore the only song in the table released in 2019 is the final one? Just making sure I understand what the problem is before I make any changes to it. CThomas³ (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cthomas3: Thanks for responding! "UDK", "I Don't Exist" and "Care Less More" were released as singles in 2018, and "Love Myself" and "Just a Boy" were released as singles in 2019. "Just Friends" was also a promotional single released two weeks before the album was released. Does that affect the track listing though? – DarkGlow (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

DarkGlow, you are absolutely welcome! According to what you just stated, it looks to me like the track listing is accurate. What doesn't seem to look right to you? CThomas³ (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cthomas3: The track listing template I copied was this, as that's how I want the one on my user page to look like. Can you figure out why the coding is all broken on mine? – DarkGlow (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

DarkGlow, Aha! My apologies, I missed the "on my user page" part and was looking at the Olivia O'Brien track listing. Yes, let me see what I can do for you. CThomas³ (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

DarkGlow, It looks like you just missed a couple of close-brackets on one of your links. Very easy to do! The way I debug tables and templates is to use HTML comments () to comment out all but the header and footer to make sure those work, and then un-comment each line until the table or template breaks. Once I was able to zero in on the offending line, it was much easier to spot the problem! CThomas³ (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cthomas3: Thank you for fixing it, it was such a tiny error! I'm so annoyed with myself that I didn't catch it! – DarkGlow (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Article Keeps Getting Declined

Hello - I am trying to fully understand why my article keeps getting declined and how to fix the issue once and for all. I would appreciate any assistance that can be provided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marlo_Hampton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Driventeam2019 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Driventeam2019: your article was declined because it doesn’t show the notability of the subject. Notability is used to decide if an article is worthy to be included in Wikipedia. For a subject to be notable, it must be covered by multiple reliable sources. So, you should find more information about your subject from reliable third-party sources not user-generated. I hope that this helps. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 18:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Replacing and out-of-date photograph with a new one

Hi,

I'm a first time user of the editing side of Wikipedia and am having difficulty in working through the process. This may have something to do with my age, 77, and the fact that I have only moderate computer skills.

I am a member of the Four Freshmen Society and when I put the name into the browser, the various links appear but on the top right of the screen the Wikipedia link is shown with a photograph of group #23. I would like to replace it with one of the current group #25.

Any help you could offer would be appreciated.

Vern Keeling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vern keeling (talk • contribs)

Hi Vern keeling, can you tell us which page the image is on? I just looked up Four Freshmen Society, and we don't have an article about that; there is an article about Four Freshmen, but that doesn't have an image on it at all. If you can be a bit more specific about how you are searching for this it would help. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Update - I note that we have a section on the society at The_Four_Freshmen#Four_Freshmen_Society, but again there is no image. When I search for 'Four Freshmen Society' using Google, I don't see an image associated with Wikipedia. Please can you explain how you are searching in your browser, and whether you're certain that the image you are getting is coming from the English Wikipedia? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello and welcome, Vern keeling! Is this the article you are referring to: The Four Freshmen ? There are no photographs currently in the article.

If you have a photograph that is of good quality, we would happily welcome it! An important thing for you to know is that images - like text on Wikipedia - are free for anyone to copy, re-use and/or creative derivative works, even for commercial purposes. It's called a Creative Commons license; any image you donate would fall under those terms, permanently and irrevocably.

If you're OK with those conditions, the next step would be to determine who is the copyright holder, and that is usually the photographer. The copyright holder is the only one who can release the rights to the photograph. Obviously it's simpler if you are the photographer, but if you aren't, we have forms which can aid you in obtaining the photographer's permission. This guide can show you step-by-step how to donate an image.

We welcome your contributions and I hope your experience on Wikipedia is a good one. Take care! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Vern keeling I think I've worked out what the image you're seeing is. I just searched 'The Four Freshmen' on Google (without the word 'Society'), and it gives an information box on the right-hand side of the page, which contains written content that they are taking from our article, and some images at the top - however, those images are coming from a Google image search, they're not from here, and we have no control over them. As Drm310 says, if you have a photograph you took yourself, or know someone who owns a photograph they'd be willing to donate, it would be great to add it to our article. That wouldn't solve your problem unfortunately - Google use their own image search to provide pictures for the box, regardless of whether or not the article they're taking the text from has an image. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Adam Gray page

I made some small changes to the "Adam Gray" page, but one of those changes was overwritten by a volunteer. Adam is an Assemblyman from District 21 in California. He was married (no kids) to the daughter of former Rep. Gary Condit), but that marriage has ended. After creating a log-in (Mike.Alan.Dunbar), I removed two references to the marriage from his page. One of those two changes was overwritten. Are there other procedures required to make such edits? Thanks. Signed: Mike Dunbar, press secretary for Adam Gray, District 21, California Assembly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.Alan.Dunbar (talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mike.Alan.Dunbar: Welcome to Wikipedia. The article can be updated to reflect that he is no longer married. Please suggest this on the article's talk page and mark it with {{Edit request}}. As someone working for the assemblyman, you need to read and follow the rules for WP:PAID and WP:COI. RudolfRed (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Check on Submission

Greetings. I submitted an article for publication about three months ago. How can I check on a publication status update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJAlex1 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

According to your contribution record your question here is your first edit to the English Wikipedia. Your only other contributions were 2 photos which you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If you submitted an article for publication, did you do so from a different account? Do you remember the page title? Perhaps you forgot to hit the "Publish changes" button so your edit wasn't saved? --David Biddulph (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Determining that my article is Notable

How can I know if my article about an author is notable? If they have a published book, have third party reviewers, and it sells reasonably well will that be enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaLewis24! (talk • contribs)

Hi @JoshuaLewis24!:. With authors it's actually fairly easy to get a good sense of whether they will be notable, as we have a specific criteria for 'creative professionals' which you can read here WP:NAUTHOR. Criteria 3 is the one you probably want to aim for here, and I would say it is quite likely that if your author has indeed published a book that has received a reviews in reliable, independent sources then they will probably be notable. However, it does depend a bit on the sources, the depth and detail of the reviews, and how many there are. Sales figures per se don't necessarily add notability but appearing in best-seller lists would help, and unusually high sales figures, if backed up by a reliable source, could also be used to support the notability. Hug^syrup 16:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@JoshuaLewis24!: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The notability criteria for an author is written at WP:NAUTHOR. Merely having a published book that is reviewed and sold does not necessarily meet the criteria, as anyone can self-publish a book, put it for sale on Amazon, and get it reviewed nowadays. However, Hugsyrup is correct in what they say. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Careful here, Hugsyrup and JoshuaLewis24!. The criteria in NAUTHOR are additional possibilities, if the subject does not meet the basic criteria in GNG. A few reviews of one book, even in the best journals, is not going to meet Criterion 3. Several reviews can be enough to establish notability, according to the general criteria; but unless they talk at some length about the author as well as the book, they are more likely to establish notability for the book rather than for the author: notability is not inherited. --ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine - I think you're bringing up two different issues here. The first is whether meeting an SNG is sufficient if the GNGs aren't met. That, based on discussions I have had elsewhere, is a hotly-debated point but the general mood at AFD tends to be that meeting only an SNG is sufficient. Given that, it's not important whether the reviews discuss the author - what is important is whether the author meets criteria 3, and this is the second issue.

Criteria 3 is met if a person has: 'created (i.e. written) a significant or well-known work (i.e. a book) that has been the primary subject of multiple reviews' (to pull out the relevant phrases from the rather rambling criteria 3). So all that still needs to be established is whether the work counts as 'significant or well-known'. That's up for debate but a decent number of reviews in high-quality sources certainly goes a long way towards establishing it. End result is that I think it is entirely possible to argue that a single, well-received and well-reviewed, book can establish notability for the author and not just the book on the basis of WP:NAUTHOR criteria #3. Not saying I necessarily think that is right or as it should be, but I think it would pretty likely pass at AFD and in the end that's what matters to Joshua. Hug^syrup 17:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

More importantly, JoshuaLewis24!, since you work for the publishing company, it is imperative that you read the policy on Paid editing and make the necessary declarations, as GreenMeansGo told you. --ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The OP has now been blocked for repeated copyright violations. David Biddulph (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Questions about License for image

Hello everyone,

I have a question to ask:

Which license should be used for images taken from public release (news, blog,...)? Example: the image of biomass power plant from this page, the map from this page. I should choose CC BY-SA 4.0 license or which license? When I edited the page Renewable energy in Vietnam, all the images have been deleted due to copyright violation (I chose CC BY-SA 4.0 license for those images). I don't know much about this so can anyone help me? I have read the Commons:Licensing but I find it difficult for me to understand which license I should use.

Thanks in advance. --Tống Minh Quân (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Tống Minh Quân: I don't know what you mean by "public release". Publication of an image does not constitute release of copyright. For instance, the first page you link to above has the copyright notice "© 2015 Báo Tuyên Quang Online - Cơ quan chủ quản: Tỉnh uỷ tỉnh Tuyên Quang", so the copyright has been explicitly retained. Even if there is no copyright notice, the assumption is that the copyright has been maintained by its owner. Maproom (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Maproom sorry for making it confuse. What I mean is images taken from news online, mainly. So if I wanna use that image what should I do?--Tống Minh Quân (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Tống Minh Quân. I'm afraid that the answer is that you probably can't. Unless the image is explicitly released under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA, then it cannot be used in Wikipedia. Most images you find on the internet cannot be used. See Image use policy for more explanation. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tống Minh Quân: Whilst my colleagues above are right about not being able to use the copyrighted photograph, I do think you'd be OK using the downloadable GIS wind maps. Whilst I've only done a quick check (and data and background maps might be licenced separately - you'd have to check) the About Us statement of the Global Wind Atlas indicates the mapped data is provided under a Creative Commons licence which we always check included 'commercial use' - and this one does. So, whilst I'd ask you to check just a bit further, I think you'd be OK uploading the Vietnam wind map to Commons (assuming it isn't there already). You would need to declare is as NOT being your own work, but one released into the public domain, linking to the relevant website and "About Us" statement to assist the suspicious folk over at Commons to check that you are, indeed, validly uploading it. So, a bit of bad news and a bit of good news, too, eh? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much ColinFine Nick Moyes. --Tống Minh Quân (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

First Open a New Page - all text is missing

I spent a day writing my first article. I was not sure what to do when I finished. I did not select PUBLISH. When I came back all text was missing except for the title. Any advice is appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lola Wilcox (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lola Wilcox. If you didn't publish (i.e. save) the edit you made, then I believe it's gone for good since I don't think Wikipedia automatically backs up content like some types of software might. If you didn't close your browser, then it might be possible to use the browser's "back" button to go backwards to find the content in question; but, I'm not sure the same thing would work if you did close the browser. Perhaps there's some browser cache feature which might enable you to revisit a previously viewed webpage and then maybe you'll be able to find the content that way. Someone at Wikipedia:Reference desk might be able to give you a more specific answer about whether that's possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly and Lola Wilcox: Not exactly. The VisualEditor is saving edits in your browsers localStorage (might be also sessionStorage) until you save it on the server. The tip by Marchjuly to go back is not working in all browsers. Some browsers like firefox doesn't save contents of forms that were on https pages, if you go back, you only see a "page expired" error page. Unbekannter z34-56r-ghf-aq2-d0r (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are not able to recover your text, then, when you re-write this or any other article, we recommend that you use draft space or your sandbox where you can edit a sentence at a time and save (publish) as you go along. I appreciate that this advice is too late for the article that you lost. An autosave feature for draft space would be a welcome addition to Wikipedia, but I don't think it is likely to be implemented. Dbfirs 06:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Newbie first article help please

Hi,

I am a newbie to Wikipedia and have drafted my first article. After reading some guidelines I see that all info must have been published elsewhere to be verifiable. Problem is that the article is about my wife's grandfather and I have original knowledge not published elsewhere. This is the draft page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Wright_(Jamaica). I have a couple of references which are verified. Should I just abandon article or should I edit it, so only the small amount of verified info is left? What should I do?

Thanks Liam— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamm1968 (talk • contribs)

Liamm1968 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, personal knowledge is not acceptable to source information in a Wikipedia article. As you have found out already, all information must be sourced to an independent reliable source that can be verified. There is no way to verify your personal knowledge, and no way for readers to access it. Even if you were willing to sit by a phone for eternity to take calls from Wikipedia readers, no one has fact checked your personal knowledge. Since your wife's grandfather seems to have been a government official, I'm not certain you need to abandon the draft, as most government officials merit articles, but it should only say what independent sources have said. You could try running it through Articles for Creation and see if the reviewer has any advice. Other editors also might have access to reliable sources that you do not. 331dot (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not publish WP:Original research, so you need independent WP:Reliable sources, and the article should be based on what these sources say. I'm sure there must be newspaper articles that have written about your wife's grandfather. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, so you should remove that as a reference, and find actual articles in the London Gazette or other publications. Dbfirs 06:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Liamm1968. You must remove every trace of your own personal knowledge from your draft, and include only the information that is in published reliable sources. Verifiability and No original research are core content policies. Write the content in freely flowing prose, not a series of bullet points. Summarize the reliable sources that you cite. No more and no less. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Liamm1968. In addition to what 331dot posted above, you probably should also take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends since you would be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to any content about your wife's grandfather on Wikipedia. You probably should also take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content since even if someday an article about Wright is created, you wouldn't have any special editorial control over the article content just because (1) you created the article and (2) you and Wright are connected through your wife.

Finally, you might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jamaica or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government to see if anyone belonging to either of those WikiProject might be willing to help you with the article. It appears that Wright meets WP:POLITICIAN, but the draft is not really up to Wikipedia's standards yet and reads more like a personal history than an encyclopedic article at least as currently written. Personal biographical information can be included in a Wikipedia article, but that kind of information is not really the reason why Wright would be considered appropriate to write an article about; in other words, he's Wikipedia notable as a politician not really because of who he married and his political career should be the focus of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to clarify per below. -- 07:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)]

Marchjuly I would respectfully disagree; personal knowledge or information should not be in a Wikipedia article, as it cannot be independently verified. I'm also not certain it is a conflict of interest to write about his wife's grandfather who passed in 1985. 331dot (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

By "personal information" I didn't mean "personal knowledge" but rather "personal biographical information". Sorry, if that part of my post was confusing. As for any possible COI, perhaps you're right about that; however, I'm not sure you necessarily need to be a "blood relative" for there to be a conflict of interest no matter how long ago the person in question might have died. If the creator can write in WP:NPOV way, there'll be no problems regardless of his relationship to Wright; if not, then whatever issues there might be related to COI would most likely be cleaned up during the AfC review process. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

All my edits got rejected

Yesterday, most of my edits got rejected because I had not taken from reliable sources. Then today, I made a few edits and all the references were taken from journal articles. Aren't journal articles credible sources? Kindly advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitha.piccosoft (talk • contribs)

@Smitha.piccosoft: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. From looking at your edits and your username, can I assume that you work in the advertising industry? If so, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy. Regarding your edits, they were removed with the edit summary "POV" and another was removed with the notation "not a blog"; this means that the edit was not written from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic style. If you work in the advertising industry, you may be too close to the subject matter to be able to write about it here, at least directly. I would suggest that you visit the article talk page and discuss changes you would like with other editors. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Smitha.piccosoft: It looks to me as if your edits yesterday were in fact mainly rejected because they were either promotional, or written in a style that was not encyclopedic, but more suitable to a blog. Today they seem to have been rejected either because they were an unexplained insertion of a reference while deleting part of another word, or because they were still not encyclopedic in tone.

The 'tone' issue is hard to explain, but let me give you an example. In one edit you insert "Email marketing is one of the best marketing strategies, as it directly interacts, enabling personalized communication, with the Customers". This is not encyclopedic, even with a reference, because it makes an assertion (one of the best) that is not balanced and not specific. What does 'best' mean? Who says it's the 'best'? What measurement is it based on? A better sentence would be specific about email having a particular success rate based on a specific metric, and perhaps it therefore being more popular based on a specific survey of marketers - and all of those points backed up with high-quality, reliable sources. I hope this helps Hug^syrup 13:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing me with the feedback on all my edits that got rejected. It was a detailed feedback and I could thoroughly understand why my edits got rejected. After 23 rejections, based on all the feedback given by you, I have made an edit again. I made just one edit on which I would like the feedback. Post that, if it is successful, will continue in the same pattern. Kindly advise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitha.piccosoft (talk • contribs)

The error message (in red) told you that you had "first1" but no "last1" and that the isbn was invalid. For each of those errors the error message includes the word "help" in blue, indicating that it is a wikilink to specific help on that error. You also had a space and line break before the reference citation. I have corrected those errors in this edit. I will leave others to decide whether what you added was justifiably a "major event" in the timeline. David Biddulph (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Questions about Featured list

Hello everyone,

I have another question: So right now I'm editing the page: List of gas power plants in Vietnam. Can anyone suggest me which information should I add more to elevate it to a featured list? I wanna make it to a featured list, not just rated as list article.

Thanks in advance --Tống Minh Quân (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Tống Minh Quân. I wholeheartedly applaud your aspiration - it's an attitude that I wish every content creator had here. But you do realise that a Featured Article or Featured List is the absolute pinnacle of Wikipedia content and quality, and is a really high bar to attain? You're obviously on the right track in wanting to add images (per your earlier question here). I've made some very, very minor corrections to punctuation, but the biggest problem I see is that none of you List's content appear to be wikilinked to any articles, and that would probably be its biggest stumbling block at the moment, and in its current form some might even criticise it under WP:NOTDIR. Do any of those power stations have articles about them? You could certainly link to the regions they're in, or the manufacturuers if they have articles.

I would suggest three things: Firstly, look at how your list is named against those of similar pages categorised under Category:Lists of power stations by country. Yours is the only list title I could find that is structured in that way. As a user coming here to search for information, I would probably first search under "List of power stations" (or power plants), rather than by the fuel type. I wouls also hope to find links to related articles or lists in a "See also" section.

Secondly, look at List of power stations in Pakistan to see a helpful page with a good introductory paragraph that seems at first glance to cover the topic well. Its table contents seem easier to understand, too. Is there already an article about power stations in Vietnam? I couldn't find one from your list. If there is one, please link to it in the lead; if there isn't one, my advice would be to add sufficient introductory text so that it fulfils that purpose and expand it accordingly to cover all fuel types (or create a separate article for that topic).

Thirdly, are you aware of Peer Review and the criteria for a list becoming an FA candidate? You may find a lot of guidance and ideas by visiting Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. One good way of identifying weaknesses in one's own work that one wasn't aware of, is to go and critique that of others attempting the same thing. So this link allows you to see other lists which editors have requested a 'reviewed'. Once you've addressed mine and other any other people's suggestions here, you could then put your up for peer review and gain further positive criticism. All the very best with this. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Thank you so much for your comment. I have some opinions about it I'd love sharing:

I used to edit a list called List of power stations in Vietnam (answer to your question, yes there is an article about power station in VN). At that time, I did ask a question on Teahouse (here), I was advised to split into different article for each type of power plant. Until now I have split the page list of power stations into different articles: List of coal-fired power plants in Vietnam, List of gas power plants in Vietnam, List of solar power plants in Vietnam. I will update List of hydro, biomass, wind power plants in the near future.

So do you think it would be favorable to combine all the articles I have split into List of power stations in Vietnam again? Because I also wanna make all my list pages upgraded into Featured list, so will it be easier for just one page (power stations in VN) or different pages I'm doing right now (Gas, coal, solar power plants)?--Tống Minh Quân (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tống Minh Quân: I am sorry if you've had different answers from different people at different times. Unfortunately that's the way Wikipedia works; there is often no single answer or definitive way of doing things. I think you should ask what is more important: creating helpful and accessible information for users, or achieving the hard to achieve - that of creating a featured list? Why not convert List of power stations in Vietnam to a simple article about power stations in Vietnam and then link from that to each of those lists? (I'm afraid that when I first answered your question I had not appreciated your contributions in related fields. I then saw that and came back to add my comment about a 'see also' section. I'm not sure I can offer much more in the way of advice especially as I have to get to work now. Again, my very best wishes. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you so much again for your recommendation --Tống Minh Quân (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I see that a phrase that i wanted to read about does not exist here, so i would ask for tips, because i believe a page on the topic should exist. If it already exists within other wikimedia projects, let me know Creesperings (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Creesperings, found this. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

How can important stories be told when secondary sources are not known?

In my travels, I came across a story about a man, Yoshiaki Osako, who was the third person (Clancy 1912, Sulkowsky/Bartha 1936, Osako 1968, Dautheville 73, Gerber 1978) to ride around the world by motorcycle.

Helpfully, Wikipedia has a page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_long-distance_motorcycle_riders that lists people who have completed adventures of this nature. Sadly Yoshiako's achievement is unlisted. Understandably, Wikipedia has strict guidelines for making such claims. One of those guidelines requires that a reliable secondary source must be cited. The only source I know of, is the book written by Yoshiaki himself. A further complication is that the book exists only in Japanese.

How can Wikipedia be updated to reflect Yoshiaki's achievement when no secondary sources exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegrenade (talk • contribs)

If there are no secondary sources his achievement won't appear in Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi @Thegrenade:. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not necessarily the place for telling important or interesting stories if they can't be backed up with reliable sources. That can be disappointing, but the standard for something appearing on Wikipedia is not necessarily is it true, but is it verifiable. A book being in Japanese isn't an issue at all (so long as you can understand it, or you can find an editor who speaks Japanese to help you!) but you're right that a book by the subject isn't a reliable source because it is not independent. Was the book reviewed at all? If so, the reviews would probably mention the accomplishment and they would be more reliable, being independent. You could also ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan to track down sources and explain documents or webpages to you if you don't speak Japanese. The very simple answer to your final question though is "if you really can't find any reliable secondary sources, then sadly Wikipedia probably can't be updated with this achievement" Hug^syrup 11:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Countering bias : editors declining to apply Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes)#Self-identification

Editors at Talk:Mahican#Requested_move_26_July_2019 are declining to apply the the primary applicable guideline (above), claiming that the spelling of today's Mohican tribe should be ignored because the opinion of non-Mohican academics is more important than that of the tribe itself, despite the fact that Britannica uses the tribe's preferred spelling. They don't seem to understand that the self-identification guideline is meant to protect tribes against the very arguments that they are making. 2TWarren (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@2TWarren: That guideline says that their self-naming should be considered, not that it must be used. Also, WP:COMMONNAME applies. Work with the other editors to get consensus. RudolfRed (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

In plain English it states: "If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title." Mohican is overwhelmingly the most common form (9 million Google hits vs 177,000), and yet the editors insist on deferring to non-Mohican academics, ignoring the only form of the name that most English-speakers have ever heard. They utterly ignore the Mohicans themselves, even when one of them posted. I have to tell you that when this gets into the media, Wikipedia is going to look pretty racist. 2TWarren (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi 2TWarren. The Teahouse is not really the best place to try and resolve a disagreement such as this and in my opinion comments such as I have to tell you that when this gets into the media, Wikipedia is going to look pretty racist. made anywhere on Wikipedia are unlikely going to convince other editors that your position is the right position. There's a discussion about the proposed name change currently ongoing on the article's talk page; there's nothing wrong per se with trying to get more editors to try and participate in said discussion, but you need to be aware of WP:CANVAS (particularly WP:CANVAS#Inappropriate notification) and try and assume good faith when it comes to those who might disagree with you by avoiding turning the discussion into WP:USTHEM with edit summaries like this and comments like this (which by the way might be mistaken for some kind of threat per WP:NLT). -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Marchjuly. I will contemplate all that you have written. Would it be appropriate to remove this discussion from this page at this time? 2TWarren (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@2TWarren: I don't think it's necessary to remove the thread altogether, but maybe another host will collapse it as being resolved. FWIW, my comment had nothing to do with whether the page should be moved, but you'll have a better chance establishing a consensus for that if you focus on why the page should be moved in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines than focusing on the motivations of other editors also involved in the discussion. Moreover, even implying that some sort of off-Wikipedia action out in the real world is going to be taken in order to achieve (or at least try to achieve) the outcome you desire is almost never going to be received well by others and actually may serve more to hinder than help foster constructive discussion. Wikipedia discussions typically don't work well when they end up (even unintentionally) becoming WP:BATTLEGROUNDs.

Now, if you posted anything anywhere in the heat of the moment that in hindsight you might feel was a little too heated, you can always go back and amend things per WP:REDACT; discussions can get a bit energetic now and then because editors are people not robots, but a little tweaking can sometimes help show other that you're more interested in being WP:HERE than WP:NOTHERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)>

I am simply frustrated by exchanges like the one above, in which I cite an unambiguous policy, "If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title." Personally, I actually prefer the spelling "Mahican" because it is what my Dutch ancestors called them during the roughly century and a half my family lived among them in the Hudson Valley, but I recognize that "Mahican" is rarely used in English, and it is not how the tribe self-identifies in English. This seemed to be such a straightforward edit, but I am beginning to see why the Mohican who posted at the beginning of the discussion left. I don't have time for this. 2TWarren (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Fashion & Photography Related Articles

Hi, Can anyone help me out with the above links, and make me understand whether i can work on this particular topic. As i am into fashion and photography. So, i am keen on working such articles. So, mentioning below the links:- https://www.cinetalkers.com/rupali-suri/ http://www.stylingstars.com/bollywood-actress-rupali-suris-fashion/ https://www.theprevalentindia.com/bollywood-actress-rupali-suri-signs-ram-gopal-vermas-south-film-lakshmis-ntr/ http://womenpla.net/105-shoes-no-giving-up-actress-rupali-suri/ https://www.newsbugz.com/rupali-suri/ http://www.planetbollywood.com/displayArticle.php?id=s092716073549 http://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/hindi/2018/jun/04/rupali-suri-bags-role-in-inside-edge-2-1823520.html https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/bollywood-actress-rupali-suri-signs-ram-gopal-vermas-south-film-lakshmis-ntr-1942708 http://www.5dariyanews.com/news/267518-Working-with-Zeenat-Aman-a-dream-come-true-Rupali-Suri https://monvoyage.in/index.php/2016/09/21/cut-will-find-blood-pani-puri-says-foodie-rupali-suri/ https://eventaa.com/surirupali07-1449308476-3611 http://www.televisionsworld.com/exclusive-no-exercise-or-diet-are-expensive-actress-rupali-suri/ https://www.bollywooddhamaka.in/postname/rupali-suri https://www.ap7am.com/lv-301495-rupali-suri-signs-rgvs-film-lakshmis-ntr.html http://www.ritzmagazine.in/tag/rupali-suri/ https://www.dailyhawker.com/entertainment/rupali-suri-in-ram-gopal-vermas-lakshmis-ntr/ https://www.forevernews.in/rupali-suri-takes-up-kickboxing-lessons-for-inside-edge-2-119720 https://archive.siasat.com/news/rupali-suri-bags-role-inside-edge-2-1364434/ Arjunsingh5478 (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I quite understand the question. You are of course free to work on Fashion and Photography related articles so long as you do not have a conflict of interest. Which articles specifically are you interested in? I don't really understand the relevance of the links, however. Are you wanting to create an article about Rupali Suri? A lot of those links don't look like reliable sources to me, they look more like gossip magazines/websites, but I haven't evaluated every single one.

If you can clarify exactly what you are wanting to do, that would help. Hug^syrup 12:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

this was posted at my talk page - I have moved it back here to keep the discussion in one place and allow other Teahouse editors to contribute Hug^syrup 14:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Hi thanks for the revert. As i am into fashion & photography, so i wanted to know whether i can create a page for it, as i am new to it. So, gathering information and working on creating of the article. So, i stumbled upon Rupali Suri page, as there is no page for it and it's related to my interest. So, wanted to know, whether the citation criteria for it is matching and if not, how should i go ahead. Should i research for more links, which has more information about it.--Arjunsingh5478 (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Arjunsingh5478: I have moved your reply back here to keep it all in one place. There is no need to move the discussion to my talk page, and by keeping it here you may get input from other experienced editors. It is fairly unlikely that editors here at that Teahouse will take the time to assess all of your sources in detail and give you a response - it's possible someone might, but I'm afraid I won't. The best approach, if you think your topic meets the notability guidelines is to write a draft and submit it at AFC, where it will be reviewed by an editor who has volunteered to review articles in detail, assess the sources included in them, and give feedback. What I will say, in general terms, is to make sure any sources that you add meet the requirements at WP:RS and that in particular they are high quality, independent (not promotional or in any way linked to PR) and that they cover the subject in detail, not simply passing mentions. Hug^syrup 14:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Why merge rather than redlink?

Hello to my helpful hosts. Another day and another question from me! I have started a draft of an article on Barbara Blackman O'Neil, who was a suffragette in St. Louis in the early 1900s. Typing in her name redirects to an article about her husband, David O'Neil, which mentions her, but doesn't cover her life adequately. First: I wanted to ask if there has been an article on Barbara Blackman O'Neil that was merged with her husband's. How could I search for something like that Second: Why redirect to her husband's article rather than redlink? If someone knew she was probably going to get searched, wouldn't a redlink be a better idea? Or not? Help me understand the action/policy. Thanks, as always.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi DiamondRemley39. You can view the underlying Barbara Blackman O'Neil article (without being forced through the redirect) here (you can also get here by clicking on her name where it says 'redirected from' when you go through to the David O'Neil article). Anyway, once you are at the original article, you can check the history to see that it was never a full article, and also the logs to see that it doesn't seem to have been deleted in the past. That pretty much tells you an article has never existed.

As to why redirect, it's usual to redirect a term if it's a likely search term (which this is) and there is at least some useful content to be found at the end result of the redirect, which again, in this case there is. Not very much, to be sure, but definitely more useful than simply a 'this page doesn't exist' (which I assume is what you mean by leaving it as a redlink?). There is nothing, however, stopping you from turning the redirect into a full article once you have something written that is adequately sourced. I hope this helps. Hug^syrup 15:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Draft

How do i get my page published?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azz619 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The reply to your previous question included a link to WP:AFC. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

... but before you submit your draft for review, you need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which your subject has been discussed at length. Dbfirs 13:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Could someone help me with my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._P.C.Thomas,there is a note which says This draft may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards? The specific problem is: None of the links go to the mentioned articles Please help improve this draft if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. and the is another note which says This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. Find sources: "P. C. Thomas" educator – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this template message), please let me know which part of the article is looking like an advertisement, and also let me know which references have to be removed.Biggreentreeus (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Biggreentreeus, why is your Talk page a Wikipedia article called Thuthurmattam?--Quisqualis (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Minor observation, it's the User page, not the Talk page. From the article's history, it looks as if Biggreentreeus originally wrote the article in their User page and then moved it to the correct title, leaving a redirect from their User page to the article. This obviously needs cleaning up, but I'm not sure myself how it should be done. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.24.56 (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

On finding that one is ephemeral

I have never contributed to Wikipedia before, but I came across a list of pieces of music in unusual time signatures. Well it turns out as a lifelong musician I happen to know quite a few of those, and I saw that many of them were not on this list.

So I created a Wikipedia account, went to the list, tapped the convenient "[edit source]" link above the subsections of the list to which I had additions (the list being organized by time signature), typed a few in, noted the formatting so that I could conform my additions and link the artists in question to their respective Wikipedia pages as I saw other entries did... tapped Publish changes... reviewed them to make sure they looked right... (moved them within the subsections when I realized they needed to be alphabetized...) and was satisfied I'd done my little part. Happy to have contributed.

About five minutes later I came back, and all of my additions had been expunged. Like I hadn't even been there.

I performed the entire above scenario a second time, and got the same result.

I have no idea why my contributions were rejected. I suspect it's because I did not cite to a written source... although it would have been nice to have been informed, whatever the reason.

Furthermore: this particular page is not a piece of scholarly writing, and it's not even *about* scholarly writing: it's a *list of musical works* in certain time signatures. You don't need a scholar or a researcher to certify that something is in a given time signature: time signature is *something you hear*. It's *in the music itself* when you hear it.

Why wouldn't the article's author *want these entries*, even if they were incomplete? Doesn't he *want* his list to grow and be as comprehensive as possible? Every example I cited is easily pulled up on YouTube by name: go and listen to them for yourself if you doubt their accuracy!

Anyway, this experience tends to demotivate me to contribute further to this enterprise, and that makes me sad. Am I out of line? Is this article's author/enforcer out of line? What should I know that I don't?— Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceB01 (talk • contribs) 22:14, August 6, 2019 (UTC)

l Hi BruceB01 Welcome to Teahouse. If you look at the article's history page (click "view history" on the menu bar atop of the article), you would see the editor who reverted you edit did leave a edit summary of why the your edit were removed - see here. Info added/change do need source to support the claimed for verification - see referencing for info and instruction. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, BruceB01 (in the future, please sign your posts to talk pages by typing four tildes at the end of it, like this: ~~~~). In such cases, page history, located here in that case, can be checked.

Having one's edit "reverted" may not be a pleasant experience, but it is how editing Wikipedia works. In that case, Jerome Kohl (who reverted you) did leave edit summaries pointing to the problem that your edits are not sourced, as you suspected, even though edit summaries tend to be a bit laconic.

Wikipedia is (or should be) very picky about sourcing, and in particular, even something that is obvious to a subject matter expert should be cited to a reliable source. (The reasons are multiple, see WP:V for the details.) That is unfortunately not done in many articles; for instance, in my work topic (physics), lots of technical articles contain long and unsourced mathematical derivations, which should really be cited to a textbook. In the case of List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures, many entries are linked to Youtube videos, which is problematic because one needs to be a subject matter expert to hear the time signature. (Plus, I would bet at least some of those are links to copyright violations, which we should never link to.)

Furthermore, when it comes to a list, we do not necessarily want them to grow. The full guidance is at WP:LISTCRITERIA, but in summary, for the 99% of lists where one cannot expect exhaustivity, we want to have some objective inclusion criterion for that list. I am not sure what such a criteria would be in the case of List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures.

For these reasons, I would be tempted to say that List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures is not a good choice of a list for Wikipedia and should either be altogether deleted, or trimmed down significantly to instances that have been discussed in the scholarly literature (or music critic pieces or the like). But I will wait on others to comment before filling in the paperwork. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks already - and possibly in advance - for the responses, especially on protocol: very informative. I will save for reference.

I am saddened - if not particularly surprised - that something as elemental as time signature should be regarded as only "obvious to a subject matter expert". It makes me wonder whether, if I tried to add entries to a list of birds with red plumage, they might be rejected because the color red is only obvious to a subject matter expert and therefore requires a reliable source. Not unrelatedly: I am being asked to "clarify, please, whether or not [9/4] is actually an unusual time signature". I don't even begin to know how to respond to that. Should I consult a subject matter expert on unusualness? Maybe another one on clarity? I can't name more than 2 songs in 9/4 offhand, and I probably know tens of thousands of songs. That sounds pretty unusual to me, but what do I know... BruceB01 15:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello BruceB01. I know you are being facetious about the birds but you are in fact quite correct: if we had a list of 'birds with red plumage' then we would indeed require a reliable source to say that a particular bird had red plumage before it could be added to the list. You may find that absurd, but that is how Wikipedia works - we cannot and do not rely on what is 'obvious' or 'common sense'. And to the second point, related to that - I'm afraid it is not sufficient that something sounds pretty unusual to you. We don't necessarily need an expert in unusualness, but we would need a decent reliable source referring to the 9/4 time signature as unusual. That's not such an unreasonable request, really, and nor is it necessarily all that hard to fulfill given the number of books and academic writings available about the theory of music. Hug^syrup 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi BruceB01. There is a difference between 'red', which is an objective property that everyone could agree on (unless, I suppose, someone wanted to add a russet and reddish-orange bird, in which case I can imagine a lengthy edit war with multiple parties being blocked...), whereas 'unusual' is obviously more subjective. In the first paragraph of this article however, it says "Unusual" is here defined to be any time signature other than simple time signatures with top numerals of 2, 3, or 4 and bottom numerals of 2, 4, or 8, and compound time signatures with top numerals of 6, 9, or 12 and bottom numerals 4, 8, or 16. So, if the music you are adding complies with that definition, and you can evidence that, then go ahead and reinsert it with a source; if it doesn't, then it's probably not a valid addition to the article. Hope that helps. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@BruceB01: There are two issues here. One is verifiability: unlike Hugsyrup, I would think "the bird shown on photograph X has red plumage" does not need a source (the Wikipedia guideline is WP:BLUE). The other is specific to lists: we have to pick an objective criterion to list items in a possible list of red-plumage birds; one such criterion would be "is listed in the Encyclopedia of red-plumage birds by Dr. Redbird" if such encyclopedia is a well-received reference on the topic of red-plumage birds.

With regards to verifiability of a rythm, what seems obvious to you might not seem obvious to someone else. Have a look at the equations in the article Ideal gas law - they all look very obvious to me, and probably to anyone with a bachelor in physics. Yet, they certainly need a reference even if it's just math. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for these responses. My one remaining confusion is why I should have been asked to clarify whether 9/4 is unusual, when by the definition quoted above it is plainly not. It may be that the author of this list added that definition after requesting the clarification, so as to render his own request moot. But this is not an interesting enough question to pursue further. I have great respect and admiration for the work you all do here. That is not a joke. BruceB01 17:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)