Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1010

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 1005

←

Archive 1008

→

Check on Submission

How can I confirm that my submission is being reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristobal J. Alex (talk • contribs) 23:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cristobal J. Alex. Unfortunately you have not submitted any article for review as yet. What you have done is to attempt to write an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY in your sandbox at User:Cristobal J. Alex/sandbox. Whilst this is a perfectly OK place to work on a draft article, editors are strongly advised not to try to write about themselves as they are the least likely people in the world to be able to write in a neutral manner about that topic, and they would need to base everything solely on Reliable Published Sources. There is much in your essay which is totally unsupported by citations that would allow them to be verified. You would need to address this, whilst at the same time reading Wikipedia:Notability (people) to understand the criteria used for accepting articles on people here. So my advice would be to address those issues before submitting the article for review. Or, better still, leave it for someone less conflicted to write about you. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :@Cristobal J. Alex: There are several issues here, but the first is that the article draft was already rejected. Draft:Cristóbal Joshua Alex. It appears you recreated a differently named version in your sandbox and resubmitted it. The second issue it that the article appears to be about yourself. Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves because such articles are almost always written from a biased perspective. Language like "During his tenure at the Latino Victory Project, Alex was one of the organization's leading spokespersons" and "Alex is a native of El Paso, Texas, and the proud son of immigrants." is often unsourced in addition to being non-encyclopedic. Please read WP:COI. It can be frustrating, but with a few more sources, and more encyclopedic writing, I think someone else could make an article about this that would be approved. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I only figured this out because I tried to move the sandbox article to draft namespace and it said there was already something there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Good spot. It's important that User:Cristobal J. Alex realises he is not permitted to edit from two accounts at once, as he has been doing as User:Cristobal Joshua Alex, as well. This is likely to be an innocent mistake, but he should make a note of the connection on each userpage, and from now on only ever edit from ONE of these account, and abandon the other. Using both in the future could result in a block of both accounts if editing does not conform to this guidance on when multiple accounts are allowed. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not a he, but a she. I am not Cristobal J. Alex. I thought I had to create a username that was similar or the exact name of the Wikipedia submission name. Thank you for your feedback. I am completely new to the Wikipedia submission world.Cristobal J. Alex (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Maria Gonzalez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristobal J. Alex (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Finding articles that need editing

I'm a (relatively) new Wikipedian, and would love to help out some more - but I'm struggling to find articles to edit. Could anyone point me to a list of articles that just need cleaning up, grammatical fixes, etc? I don't have a lot of knowledge to contribute but would still love to help. Thanks in advance, MrConorAE ( user | talk | contribs) 23:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome MrConorAE. You can try to find those articles via the Typo team. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

MrConorAE, Let me also suggest that you visit Wikipedia:Community portal. You will find links to articles that need improvements grouped by type of correction needed. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I organise lists of species?

What is the best way to both format/organise a list of species found in a geographical zone?

Eg, is the idea to organise the species into taxologic subgroups?

Is there a template for this anywhere? I've seen a lot of variation / inconsistency with this.

Specifically, I'm trying to improve this: Smooth_Island_(Tasmania)#Biota

I'd be very grateful for your constructive assistance.

Vitreology (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vitreology. Great question, and some good examples there of how lists unfortunately vary considerably in their structure and content. I am not aware of any dictat which states how species lists should be structured, though all need to be based upon properly published checklists, floras or faunas if they aren't to be simply a random selection of 'stuff people have found out' via a mishmash of incomplete sources.

I'm probably a bit biased, but speaking as someone who spent 18 years collecting nearly a million plant records in order to publish a definitive Flora of the English county I live in (see here), I would always want to put the likely information needs of users to the fore. As far as I am concerned, an online list potentially offers something far, far better and more useful to the reader than any printed book or checklist list, and that's by offering them the ability to sort listed information according to their individual needs. Assuming you want to create a really useful and complete list of an area (and not just a random selection of a handful of taxa, badly arranged but with a few pretty picture), then the best way is to give users the option to sort species along the following lines:

Sortable in Taxonomic order (this groups closely-related species together)
Sortable in Alphabetical order by scientific name (allows listing by universally recognised names)
Sortable in Alphabetical order by common name (pretty useless, as sorting occurs by the first word - e.g. "Common", and English names vary between regions and nations
Sortable by IUCN Conservation status, or local status (takes more work, but can be valuable if properly sourced)

This can only be done if the list of species is created within one single, sortable table, and not split into multiple tables of separate groups (birds, mammals, insects, plants etc, albeit full of nice pictures). However, it is quite reasonable to keep these groups in separate, sortable tables if the lists really are complete and each quite long. Now, it's clear that, unless that table includes a numerical global species identifier to permit taxonomic sorting (which I've never seen deployed here), then the original display arrangement of that sortable list should always be in taxonomic order. This then permits subsequent alpha-sorting by common or by scientific name. To return to original taxonomic order, one simply reloads the page.

If it's a long species list, I would do all the preparation work off-wiki, in Excel, and all in one go, based upon the relevant checklist(s). Whilst there, I'd add the wikilinking double brackets to scientific name and then convert my list into wiki format and test it in my sandbox, and tweak the wikilinks. There are tools available to do thos convertsions - just ask. If it's a long list, or a long main article, I'd put the 'List of..' table or tables into a separate page and link to it from that main article.

Of course, one can add extra confusion by discussing which particular taxonomic arrangement is best to use (preferred arrangements do vary over the decades, as you probably know), so I'd be tempted just to utilise whatever system(s) the various source checklists/floras/faunas you base the list upon use. If all else fails, use default display by scientific names because of their universality

Summing up, I quite like the look of the list at Smooth Island (Tasmania), though it needs wikilinking to scientific name, capitalisation of common names tidying up. The one big thing that don't like is the source of the data. This seems to be a crowd-sourced website (inaturalist) which, I would possibly ignore completely as wholly incomplete and equally unreliable unless it could be shown that some academic rigour had gone into the data collection and collation. If that is the only source of data available (and I would not conclude it to be anything approaching a 'survey' as such), I would ask myself what value adding such a random list serves to an article and whether I'd be wasting my time trying to follow the approach I outlined above. I would probably conclude that I'd be better off just simply adding the inaturalist source to the 'External links' section of the article!

Notwithstanding my last paragraph, I hope this reply is of some use or interest on the practicalities of making effective species lists. My impression is that my approach is in the minority here! But here's how I approached this problem in List of species and habitats of principal importance in England. In that particular instance I followed the arrangement used by the government body who prepared that formal selection, which forms part of our national biodiversity protection legislation. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest: Production music and trailer music

I'm a composer of production music as well as its subset trailer music. I would like to make a contribution in these areas but since I have or am pursuing business relationships with various production and trailer music libraries I want to avoid a conflict of interest. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

--Shenrichs (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Shenrichs: See WP:COI and the other articles to which it links. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

How to get barnstars

How can i get stylish barnstars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realyemabhi (talk • contribs) 04:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Realyemabhi. You can find out more about barnstars in WP:BARNSTAR, but basically it's something that another editor might decide to give to you to show their appreciation for an edit or series of edits that you've made; in other words, it's sort of like an unofficial way of thanking another editor for helping to improve Wikipedia. There are really no specific criteria that you need to meet in order to get one and getting one doesn't give you any special editing privileges, etc. The best thing to do would be to always try and make edits that show others that you're truly here to help improve Wikipedia; if you do that, someone will likely give you a barnstar someday. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the most efficient way to check which articles within a category have images?

I'm looking to check which pages within the category "Members of the New Zealand House of Representatives" have images, as I have the opportunity to take photos of some of these people where they are missing.

I don't want to manually trawl through over 1,400 pages. Is there a quicker way to filter this list?

Similarly, is there a way to filter for people who are both in the above category and are marked as Living People?

Thanks! HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: How about this search? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that looks close, but to clarify I'm looking for articles that don't have images, so I can try to photograph these people. Could the search string be reversed to do that? HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: OK. This one is a little better, also not catching articles with only |image= parms (I hope – the [:word:] class seems problematic, so this new search will include articles with |image= values that start with something other than [A-Za-z0-9_]). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic, this looks just what I was looking for! HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Accidental publishing

Help! I have accidentally published a page to a talk page, then tried to move it to an article page and now the talk page redirects to the article and I am not sure how to fix it! The article is titled Judy Kensley McKie. Thank you in advance for your help! Terasaface (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC) (Note: added section header, as it appears Terasaface forgot to do so - MrConorAE ( user | talk | contribs) 04:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC))

Hi Terasaface. Most mistakes made on Wikipedia can usually be easily corrected, but simply undoing edit and trying again. In this case, I just deleted the redirect from the article's talk page to the article, and replaced it with some WikiProject banners and other templates. Perhaps Cullen328 or 331dot (both are administrators who are quite active at the Teahouse) wouldn't mind taking a peek just to make sure I didn't make things worse.

I also did some minor cleaning up of the article, but you should try and add some more categories if possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you MrConorAE !! I quickly flew above my skill level and didn't want to make it worse. I will add more categories, thanks for that suggestion. Thank you for your help! Terasaface (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Saving Drafts

Good Afternoon,

I was creating my first draft on Wikipedia. I have yet finished my draft, but I must work on other things now. I wish to save my draft, but I do not know how, and am worried I will lose my work. Can somebody tell me how to save a draft?

Thank you,

Yours sincerely, Sterling Saini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling Saini (talk • contribs) 07:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sterling Saini Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you click "Publish Changes"(just as you did to make your post here) this will save your draft. "Publish changes" is equivalent to "save changes"(and in fact used to say that) and does not mean that your draft is "published to the encyclopedia". 331dot (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request at Talk:The Hague Institute for Global Justice

Hey guys. I posted an edit request at Talk:The Hague Institute for Global Justice seven days ago and no one has come around to fulfilling it yet (more recent requests have been continuously reviewed and/or fulfilled). Would someone kindly be able to take the time to review and implement my request? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 10:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Davykamanzi:. Welcome to the Teahouse. I had a look, and it feels like your question doesn't quite tell the full story, because the edit request you posted 7 days ago seems to have been the fifth attempt, and on the previous ones Spintendo and other users responded promptly. I don't think you can be entirely surprised if people don't rush to review your request if they've already declined it what looks like five times.

The latest request does look better to me, but you'll have to appreciate you are asking for a lot of changes, so it's going to take a fairly committed editor to take the time to go through each one, decide if they should be done, and implement them. It may well be that other requests have been simpler.

Someone from the teahouse might be happy to review the request, but otherwise there's not much we can do to help except advise you to be patient. There's rarely any rush to make changes to Wikipedia, and all backlog items do get actioned eventually. Hug^syrup 10:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Volunteers wanted for article on business process management firm

Dear Wikipedians, Yesterday I started an Article (my first with this account) about Axon Ivy, a Swiss based firm, that offers business process management software and various other tools. From the moment I started I wanted there to be full disclosure: I am a PR-Volunteer and took on the task to create an article about Axon Ivy and although I tried my very best to keep the article neutral and not ad-like. Then my client made some edits and the result was unquestionably "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Unfortunately I had no say in the matter. To me this project is not about pushing the firm or their product, but about describing a publicly traded company in general terms. I looked around on the Wikipedia and found a number of articles that seem to be cut from the same cloth. Some have issues like mine - but others, such as Accenture, Appian, Forrester seem to be alive and well. Finally, my question to you guys is, whether one or more of you would be interested in going over the article, and editing it according to the Wiki guidelines. I could provide information and you can decide whether and which parts to use and which to discard - or to do some research on your end. I'm looking forward to hearing back from you, best DKNEL — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKNEL (talk • contribs) 08:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

DNKEL Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft was sourced to almost nothing other than the company's own website, or press releases from the company. These are not independent reliable sources and unacceptable for establishing that this company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Primary sources can only be used in certain circumstances, and not to establish notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, but in what third parties say about it with significant coverage(not just brief mentions, press releases, etc.) Wikipedia is not for "describing a publicly traded company in general terms"; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state and is not for merely telling about something.

Please read Other Stuff Exists; other inappropriate articles potentially existing does not mean yours can exist too. Each article is judged on its own merits. At least one of the ones you cite, Accenture, seems well sourced with a cursory glance. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy info: Draft:Axon Ivy AG subjected to Speedy deletion, so it no longer exists in Wikipedia space. David notMD (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Need assistance to transclude to an new category User:Mac_Henni/Cat

Thank you in advance. The category is already there. Mac Henni (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what it is you are trying to do, but the basic way to transclude any page is to put the page name inside double curly brackets, so this {{user:Mac_Henni/Cat}} would produce Copy of User:Mac_Henni/Cat

Teahouse IS MAD AT A CAT BECAUSE IT WAS MAD AT Teahouse!

this. Why you would do that in a category is what I'm not getting. If you want to add categories to a page I would strongly suggest using WP:HOTCAT. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mac Henni: The source of User:Mac Henni/Cat says | usercategory Wikipedians who see, but do not necessarily own, pets. Are you trying to make uses of the userbox add the user to a category called Category:Wikipedians who see, but do not necessarily own, pets. There is currently no such category. If you want it created then it seems a long title with limited connection to the userbox. Userboxes don't have to add a category. The correct code is | usercategory = .... If you want others to use the userbox then I suggest picking a more descriptive name than User:Mac Henni/Cat, e.g. User:Mac Henni/Mad at cat. There are dozens of userboxes about cats. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Create new page for Chaz Ebert

What is the process in creating a page for Chaz Ebert, wife of Roger Ebert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyrinNew (talk • contribs) 11:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@MyrinNew: - you would need to follow the process at WP:AFC to create a draft and then submit it for review. The first thing to do is make sure you can find enough sources to establish Chaz's notability - that means detailed coverage in reliable, independent journals, news sources or books. It's best to find those sources before starting to write the article, and using them to write it. That way, you will be certain a) that enough sources exist before you spend time on an article about someone who may not be notable and b) that all of the content in your article is from a reliable source. Hug^syrup 12:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I would add that she would not be notable merely for being married to Roger Ebert, as notability is not inherited. She would need to meet the definition of a notable person herself(she may, I don't know) 331dot (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

how to create a disambiguation page for my page

Hi team,

please let me know to create a disambiguation page for my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laksanmd (talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Laksanmd: - a disambiguation page is created much the same as any other page, although there is some guidance you should read here about how to set it up. However, first, what is your page and what makes you think it requires a disambiguation page? Hug^syrup 11:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Laksanmd and welcome to the Teahouse. Disambiguation pages point to articles. They cannot point to user pages. Dbfirs 14:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Increasing diverse voices with a Wiki 101 approach: Editing should be accurate and unbiased but not difficult.

Thank you for replies - and... Just saw that this is message is part of "6 hidden categories"? What does that even mean? Why would they be hidden? I feel this scene has been created by fans of Dungeons and Dragons -

USER FRIENDLY - Increasing your editing pool requires the platform become more User Friendly. If the democratic process of this behemoth makes it challenging to modify - then create a representative governing board to move things along.

Make Wikipedia editing easier. Friendlier. All this open source product is made by.... analytical people who see yet cannot explain their logic.

You will not change the product output, unless you change the mode of input

Wikipedia can become the paradigm, or part of the paradigm, that erases geographic abstracts called "countries". Currently, you are a tribe of white men. I know you're trying to change it, but the culture, and the ancient restrictions - I'm looking at my screen as I might as well be in 1980 folks.

I'm not here just going to complain - I'm going to continue to work on figuring out how to EASILY enter data into this old beast. I'm committed to improve the information provided to this incredible global resource. I'm going to start a Wiki group, with your permission, when I move up near Yale.

As for non-English speaking editors - Google Translate will eventually make it possible for people all over the world to participate in Wiki - if you let them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityfolk (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

GOAL: To increase the number of women editors, diverse editors, and non English speaking editors by making Wiki editing accurate and unbiased but not difficult.

MY STRATEGY: Make the initial process a RESULTS BASED EXPERIENCE

BACKGROUND: In the two Wiki events I attended knowledgeable, friendly editors actively walked around and made sure we were comfortable and entering information correctly. Megs Wacha sat chair by chair in the MOMA library with me as I made my first entry at the Arts + Feminism event.

THE PROBLEM WITH AN EXAMPLE: However, there is an awkwardness due to the lack of process for Wiki editing. I'm sure that now that you're on the "inside" the repetition of the activity makes you think that it's pretty straight forward.

It is not.

For instance, I worked for several hours on an entry covering a multiple-day Women Composer's Music Festival, checking in with the numerous editors at the meeting, and, as there were about 100 entries of composers, performances, and pieces over this long festival, left it partially finished. When I tried to open it to add to it later on I discovered - it had been deleted by The Unknown Editor.

Luckily I had a business card of the attendee who'd given a brief 'how to' presentation, and she somehow brought it back to life.

MY KNOWLEDGE BACKGROUND FOR WIKI EDITING: I was a librarian for six years, have numerous Microsoft IT certifications, have made websites, and am a writer by trade. To improve my skills I'm taking a Super Researcher mini-course at the CUNY Grad. School of Journalism. <<I'm saying-without-saying I'm not your "Where's the mouse?" "Do I right click?" kind of editor.>>

SOLUTION: 1) MAKE THE FIRST FEW EDITS EASY EDITS For beginner editors. This can't be a "pick what you choose," unless choices are culled so the subject isn't overwhelming and in threat of being deleted by The Unknown Editor. You don't toss a non-swimming adult into the deep end: you let them paddle about and let them touch bottom for a while first.

2) HAVE A CLEAR, EASY TO ACCOMPLISH PROCESS. Note: Even adding THIS entry into "Teahouse" (I don't even know if I'm in a room with editors - but I'm assuming I am - why not call it Editor's Room or something? Why make it arcane?), when I simply want to "Bold" something I see parenthesis: why the heck shouldn't I just see BOLD text? Where's the WYSIWYG in 2019? Why make it weird? I was around for UNIX, and we used abbreviated terms because character count and bytes were computer precious. That was thirty years ago.

2) INCORPORATE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SEARCH ALGORITHMS Algorithms exist that can perform searches. Why aren't they used? Can we collaborate with a large A.I. company to assist our work? I feel like I'm working with not a pen or pencil or computer, but with a stick in the dirt. Here's one such Search Engine: {down below, again, says to use ref ref so} ref https://lucene.apache.org/solr/features.html ref ~ I bet my bottom dollar that some company would LOVE to say they donated the A.I. Search Engine to Wiki.

I want to draw in more editors. We need to make this easier to use. Perhaps editors need to be involved in the AI vetting process.

I will continue to edit, but I'm hesitant to leap back in - especially after the deletion of all my work on my last edit job - that was overseen by an editor! Yikes. [I see below "Sign your posts on talk pages: Cityfolk (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC) " again why? - so Cityfolk (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC) CityFolk

@Cityfolk: - welcome to the Teahouse. Many of the ideas you have highlighted are issues that Wikipedia is well aware of, such as making editing easier, creating an inclusive and welcoming environment, and using technology to improve the encyclopedia. However, because Wikipedia is not run 'top-down' but 'bottom-up', with all decisions made by a huge and varied community, these changes are often slow to implement. When changes have been dictated 'top-down' in the past they often do not work and have to be removed. Either way, The Teahouse is a place to ask specific questions about editing, and I am not sure what your question is? Hug^syrup 12:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Cityfolk, I understand some of your frustrations, having been involved with a small number of Women in Red Editathons myself. Firstly, we ask you to sign your talk post a) so we know who is saying what, and when, and b) because an editor is only only notified of a reply to their post if the recipient username is included and the editor posting the comment includes their signature within the post at the same time. See WP:PING for more details.

I agree with you about how demoralising it can be to have a new page immediately put up for deletion by someone else. That's why we encourage everyone to start either editing a topic in their sandbox or as a draft (via Articles for Creation). Only when it's ready need it be put into the main encyclopaedia (aka mainspace).

I also agree that it's incredibly valuable to collate and share the usernames of everyone attending an editathon for a number of reasons, not least of which is to be able to monitor editor involvement and to offer post-event support and guidance. (See my personal notes on this here). I think it is valuable to give every participant a printed handout to takeaway to offer them help after the event. I create a 2-sided A4 handout from this page: User:Nick Moyes/editathon/handout1. I'd be interested if you have any feedback or criticism to offer. You might like to see the self-help notes for organisers at Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon and make any comments on its talk page, if you wish.

To make general editing easier, and less like html, the guys at Wikimedia Foundation created Visual Editor. Have you tried it? But even here at the Teahouse (a safe, friendly name, rather than an arcane one, in my view) the basic wikisource editor still has easy button for things like bold and italics. Highlight the text and click the 'B' button. Yes, you'll see the markup code inserted, but this isn't a bad thing as it introduces new editors to the basic and most powerful form of editing here. Most experienced editors find the lack of control in Visual Editor too limiting. For those simply wanting to edit an article, and not go off into talk pages and the like, they do indeed get a WISYWYG experience with VE.

Finally, I can't comment on A.I., though the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) do have teams of developers working on free tools for everyone to use and wouldn't be able to tie themselves in to corporate deals with software that's controlled by another body. Whilst complicated searching is possible here, I admit that I find doing more than the basic searches quite challenging. Sometimes I resort to using Google to find stuff, even when I know the page I'm looking for is actually here within Wikipedia. I really appreciate your comments you've made today. We do have a formal venue for making specific suggestions on how things work, and that can be found at Village Pump, or Village Pump (technical). regards Nick Moyes (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a couple of points. "non English speaking editors" – this would be a problem since this is the English language Wiki. If you want to include non English speakers you should encourage them to work on their onw language Wikis. Next, where in the world is "CUNY Grad. School of Journalism" or the "MOMA library"? This is an international encyclopaedia and you cannot expect readers to be aware of locally or even nationally important institutions that may be half a world away. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability

Hi there. I'm just wondering if the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper is a reliable source to prove the notability of a topic? If so, I'm assuming three SMH articles about the topic is enough to prove notability? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaMc81 (talk • contribs)

RebeccaMc81: they might be, if they are independent of the subject (not based on interviews or press releases) and have in-depth discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Maproom: Thank you. Much appreciated. I definitely have one that is based on a press release, so I will cut that one from the list. What about if the not-for-profit company (which wants a Wiki page) releases a research report and then the SMH writes an article mentioning the release and discussing what the report means? I'm guessing this would be acceptable as a reliable source for notability purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaMc81 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, RebeccaMc81: that sounds as if it might be a valid source. Please note that Wikipedia has no interest in whether or not the company wants a Wiki page; and that if somebody writes a Wikipedia article about the company, it will not belong to the company, and the company and its associates will have no control whatever over the content of the article (though they will be welcome to make suggestions). --ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding an article for a book already published on online stores

Hi,

I have published a book and it is already available on online stores. I like to add the article for my book on Wikipedia with whole information and references of stores. Can I add article for my book. Which editor should I use for the same.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasbeersingh05 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jasbeersingh05 and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so has articles only on topics that have already been written about in WP:Reliable sources. It might be WP:Too soon for an article on your book unless you can find reviews that have already been published independently. Dbfirs 12:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jasbeersingh05: - Welcome to the Teahouse. First off, we strongly advise against editing in subject where you have a conflict of interest, such as adding an article about a book you wrote. If you wish to do this, you should first read out policy on COI editing. As for the book, we have criteria here for whether a book should have its own article: WP:NBOOK. If you have a quick look at the list of five requirements in the box at the top, would you say that your book meets one or more of these? If so, you could start creating an article via the WP:AFC process. If not, then your book probably isn't ready for an article. Hug^syrup 12:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi (edit conflict)@Dbfirs: and (edit conflict)@Hugsyrup:, Can you please let me know who is authorized to write for my book and bibliography for me as an author. It is required as an author to be authentic. Can you help me with this, so that I can proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasbeersingh05 (talk • contribs)

@Jasbeersingh05:. Any editor without a conflict of interest can write about your book if they a) want to, and b) believe it is notable. I'm afraid I can't say whether anyone will meet both of those conditions! Did you look at WP:NBOOK as I suggested and, if so, which of the five criteria do you believe your book meets? Hug^syrup 13:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jasbeersingh05, if you can point us to the WP:Reliable sources that have published reviews of your book, then I'm sure someone will make a start for you, or you can use WP:Requested articles. Unfortunately, self-published books tend not to get independent reviews unless they are exceptional, and the publication was very recent, so perhaps wait and see? Dbfirs 14:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs:, Can reliable reviews be from goodreads, Review from an famous author already on wikipedia about my book on social media, amazon reviews etc.

@Hugsyrup:, What does the review mean here in this point :

This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews

@Jasbeersingh05: reviews means critical appraisals. It would need to be published in a reliable source. Self-published sources such as goodreads, social media and Amazon are not considered reliable sources. A review in a well-known newspaper would be more suitable. By the way, you don't need to put {{ec}} every time you reply - that is specifically for when there is an edit conflict. Also, you should sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after them. Hug^syrup 14:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup:, Will the review on a news channel Indiablooms help

https://www.indiablooms.com/life-details/LIT/4605/book-review-jasbeer-singh-s-poetic-thoughts-on-the-emotions-of-life.html Jasbeersingh05 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jasbeersingh05: - It seems to be an independent news site (which is good) although I've never heard of it before which might be because it's not well-known, or may just be my ignorance of Indian news sources. In addition, the review is very brief and cursory, so that's a negative point. In my view, it wouldn't be nearly good enough on its own, but if it was in conjunction with some other good sources, this would potentially help establish notability. Other editors who have more insight into whether India Blooms is reliable or not might be able to add more info. Hug^syrup 15:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Jasbeersingh05, please stop trying to use Wikipedia to publicise your book, which is plainly what you are doing. Promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. Once several people, unconnected with you or your publisher, have independently chosen to publish some substantial material about your book, and been published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, then an article can be written, based almost entirely on what those independent writers have said about the book. Until then, even if you manage to collect several brief reviews, they will not contain enough information to write an article from. Once there is such an article, it will not belong to you, and you will have no control over its content. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Note that both Notion Press ("India's Fastest Growing Self-publishing company"), who less than a month ago published the paperback available on Amazon for Rs. 120 (~ US$1.69) and Xpress Publishing, the publisher shown on the picture of the back cover in the India Blooms review, appear to be vanity press outfits. My understanding is that this can make establishing notability difficult. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Help with WP tools

Hi all. Perhaps someone can help me out. 2-3 months ago, several of the tools I use in my gnomish activities stopped working. It has to do with signing in to WP on that tool, and the OATH script. I keep getting the message: "There was a script error --> --> A problem occurred in a Python script. /home/dispenser/public_html/cgi-bin/tracebacks/connect_OAuthException_120_SjBvb1.html contains the description of this error." Anyone know I can fix this? Thanks in advance.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Sorry you're having trouble. Try asking at WP:VPT, that's where technical issues get discussed. RudolfRed (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed - will do that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Writing a Company Wikipedia Page

Hi, I really need help with creating a company Wikipedia page. The company is notable, and has an abundance of credible sources that have written about it since its inception in the mid 1990's. Is there an editor that I would be able to work with to go through the process of creating the company's Wikipedia page? I also need to disclose that I work for the company, and have been asked to create this page. My proposed draft will be as neutral as possible and provide credible sources. Please let me know how I can move forward with this process. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holly0312 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Holly0312: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being open about your circumstances. You will need to make some formal declarations, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on how to do that. That said, I would advise you to be very careful in how you proceed. Wikipedia articles(not just "page") summarize what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(more specifically, that of a notable company). Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, on in enhancing search results for the company(a common reason that companies want "Wikipedia pages"); we're all here to add to this collection of human knowledge for the benefit of humanity as a whole. In order for you to be successful in writing even a draft about your company, you would essentially need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on the content of independent sources. Please understand that independent sources does not include press releases, routine business announcements, staff interviews, or other primary sources. Most people in your position cannot write in such a manner. However, if you feel that you can, you should read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial first; you may then create a draft using Articles for Creation. Alternatively, you can make a request at Requested Articles that someone else write an article, though that process is severely backlogged. Feel free to show this message to your superiors.

Also please understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; anything about your company, good or bad, can go in article as long as it appears in an independent source. Your company cannot exclusively dictate what appears there, lock it to the text it might prefer, or prevent others from editing it. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Holly0312. The first thing I think you'll need to realize is that Wikipedia articles are not written for subjects, but rather about subjects. This might seem to be a trivial distinction to make, but when someone wants to create an Wikipedia article for a subject, they may mistakenly assuming that the subject will have some sort of editorial control over the article or just like they do over their official website. Moreover, when a company requests/instructs/pays someone to create a Wikipedia article for them, the company may be under the impression that the article will be just another part of its online presence that it will be able to use as it pleases. Neither of these things are true per Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; so, it's important that not only you realize this, but that also the company realizes this.

The next thing you'll need to do is carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, but it does highly discourage and expects such editors to comply with the guidelines the Wikipedia Community has established over the years to help such editors avoid problems. Although following these guidelines isn't mandatory, the community for the most part treats them as such and is going to expect you adhere to them. There's much less room to maneuver, however, when it comes to a financial conflict-of-interest, which you almost certainly would be considered to have. Editors being paid or otherwise compensated to edit or create content on Wikipedia are required to formally declare their relationship to whomever's paying them to edit this content per the Wikimedia Foundtation's Terms of Use and a failure to do so can lead to the account being blocked.

Finally, whether this company should have an article written about depends on whether it meets the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If it can be shown to have received the "significant coverage" in multiple independent reliable sources as explained in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, then an article can probably be written; if not, then an article shouldn't be written. If you feel it does, are willing to comply with the conflict-of-interest/paid-contribution guidelines and policies, and want to create the article yourself, then you can start by creating a draft. When you think the draft is ready to go, you can submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. Another option would be for you to request that another editor (i.e. someone without a conflict of interest) create the article by asking for help at Wikipedia:Requested articles; if the article is as Wikipedia notable as you seem to think it is, perhaps someone else will decide to do it. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies to see if a member of that Wikipedia project would be willing to help. Creating a Wikipedia article is technically a fairly simple thing to do, but creating a Wikipedia article which is not going to end up deleted is quite hard. It's not impossible for an new editor or even a paid editor to do, but those things do make it just that much harder. You can find suggestions on how to write/format an article in Wikipedia:Your first article, but paid editing is viewed quite suspiciously by many members of the community and many are simply not interested in helping someone else be compensated for doing something that can/should be really be done for free; in other words, some people like to help others do their homework and others simply will not under any circumstances. So, the best thing for the company might be to try and let someone else to write a Wikipedia article about it even though that might not necessarily be the best thing for you. In the end though what matters is really what's best for Wikipedia, not the company, not you and not any other editor. So, if you can show that having an article about the company makes Wikipedia "better", one will likely be written by someone. It might not be written today or tomorrow, but eventually someone will likely write one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Replacing an image

I would like to replace an image on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Perry. Rev. Troy Perry does not like the photo of him under "Activism" and wants to replace it with a photo he provided. How can I verify that it is an image he has provided with his caption? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnboswell (talk • contribs) 21:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnboswell: He will need to release the photo under a license that allows for reuse for any purpose. If he is willing to do that, then see WP:DONATEIMAGE for the process. Also, photos for articles are based on consensus of editors, so you won't have any control over if that image is chosen for the article or not. RudolfRed (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Need independent editors to share views

Hi,

I am a connected contributor working on the page of Lori Greiner. I have made all declarations and am suggesting changes via talk page. There are certain tags on the page assigned by editor - Ronz. I have worked on the page to address those issues including completing citations with clear citation style and providing reliable references. I want independent editors to please check the page, talk page and help me remove those tags. Thanking in advance.

FamJoshua1 (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@FamJoshua1: I went through and made some changes to the article, and removed the hatnotes. Since you are a connected contributor, please continue to request future edits on the talk page for future edits, or the article will be hatnoted again for COI editing. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

How can i contact someone who edited my edit?

Hello, someone called Diannaa removed an edit I put into

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

citing that I violated copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:119.224.2.210&diff=cur

As I did not save that edit to my harddrive I now have no history of it.

How can I contact Diannaa in order to retrieve that edit?

I've tried every which way, without success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.2.210 (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations are removed from all the Wikipedia history, because they would still be violations if they remained there. Your best option is to retrieve what you copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20110603071351/http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/plus/eriosom.html, http://www.terrain.net.nz/friends-of-te-henui-group/moths/moth-green-garden-looper-moth-chrysodeixis-eriosoma.html and copy it to your hard drive. You can contact Diannaa at her user Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@119.224.2.210: You can go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chrysodeixis_eriosoma&diff=909055083&oldid=900913708 Oldperson (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @119.224.2.210: Diannaa, an experienced administrator/sysop with 10 years and 260,000+ edits saw your edit, and deleted it with the edit summary: remove copyright content copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20110603071351/http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/plus/eriosom.html, http://www.terrain.net.nz/friends-of-te-henui-group/moths/moth-green-garden-looper-moth-chrysodeixis-eriosoma.html. She then left a long message on your talk page at User talk:119.224.2.210#Wikipedia and copyright, explaining the problem in great detail. Basically, your edit was to insert text that was copied (or very closely paraphrased) from the pages she cited. You can contact her either by editing that section on your talk page, beginning it with {{Ping|Diannaa}} (preferred), or leaving her a message as a new section on her talk page at User talk:Diannaa. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about Infobox recurring event

Hi Tea friends!

I'd like to ask about infoboxes applying to certain pages. The R U OK? page is about an organisation in Australia that facilitates the R U OK? Day [sic]. While the page is about the brand, the content is largely about the actual day, as that is their actual headlining campaign.

My two-pronged query is that, could "Infobox recurring event" apply to an organisational page? And if not, is there a precedent for page move proposals for event-based organisations? (to move R U OK? organisational page to R U OK?Day event page).

Sorry about this being a bit messy, and thank you for your time and advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

how to upload a scanned photo of my grand father in wikipedia

hello I am trying to add the name of my grand father Manuel Joseph in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Pier under Architecture, Since he was the chief engineer on this project. But i am unable to upload his image because it says it is a scanned image. What can i do?

ajeet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajeet071084 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ajeet071084, before even contemplating doing that for that purpose, there would need to be a reliably cited statement in that Wikipedia article that Manuel Joseph was the chief engineer. Right now there is nothing of that sort, and I am unable to find anything via a Google search. We can't just go on your hearsay; in addition, photographs of the architects or engineers involved are rarely included in Wikipedia articles on structures. Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajeet071084 (talk • contribs)

Ajeet071084, do not add your claim into the article without adding a confirming reliable-source citation. You just did that [1] and I have reverted you. If you cannot find a reliable independent citation which explicitly confirms the information, do not add it to a Wikipedia article. Also, please do not remove discussions, even if you opened the discussion. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Why can’t the real person be apart of developing there own Page?

Why can’t the real person be apart of developing there own Wikipedia Page? They would seem to be very important to ensuring that even our sources are accurate. On many occasions I have been in very important meetings with Heads of State, but only to see a completely different statement or action reported by “trusted sources.” There has got to be another way to help famous people or worthy people do their own pages and then we validate those pages. I think our audience would appreciate it coming directly from the source or the horses mouth. I am sure many people do their own with a unique user name....Just asking...

Why can’t the real person be apart of developing there own Wikipedia Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth Country33 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Earth Country33 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. For the answer to your question, you may want to read about conflict of interest and the autobiography policy. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, and has no interest in what the subject wants to say about themselves. In addition, people naturally write favorably about themselves, and Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view. That said, the subject is welcome to make suggestions as edit requests on the article talk page. If there is incorrect information, we want to know what it is, whether it is from the subject or not. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you are talking about are personal homepages. Anyone is free to create a web site that contains just what they want people to know. However, since people usually have a tendency to exaggerate their virtues and hide their flaws, just believing them is not a valid strategy to write a neutral encyclopedia. Regards So Why 11:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Real people often have their own websites, and sometimes Wikipedia takes information from there, but it is not regarded as a WP:Reliable source because some real people put there what they would like to be true. The real person has a WP:Conflict of interest if they edit Wikipedia, and we prefer that they point out any errors on the talk page of the article. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on independent sources, not what the subject would like to say about themselves. Dbfirs 11:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

OK...Understood...Thank you.

Athlete info page

How can I create a professional athlete information page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victrixmortali (talk • contribs)

@Victrixmortali: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "information pages", it has articles that are not for merely providing information. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state with significant coverage about articles subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. In the case of athletes, many sports have their own notability criteria for athletes of that sport to merit articles. For example, American football players must meet the guidelines written at this link to merit an article(having appeared in a regular season game). The page WP:NSPORT lists the criteria for many sports' athletes.

Keep in mind that successfully writing a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. You will be much more successful if you spend time editing existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is being looked for in articles. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. If you still want to write a new article, I would suggest reading Your First Article, the notability criteria for the relevant sport(as I note above), and then using Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review, so you get feedback on it before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I know one athlete who Is Asian youth champion. Could anyone create a page on him? It would be a great help if someone does as I'm new to this and not aware about the template and stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victrixmortali (talk • contribs) 12:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Victrixmortali Please put follow up questions in the same section, instead of creating a new section. (click 'edit' in the section header). You can request that an article (not just "page") be created at Requested Articles, but the backlog there is severe, and it may not get done quickly, if at all. As there are no deadlines for Wikipedia, you are welcome to take as much time as you need to learn about using Wikipedia and practice editing so you can create such an article yourself. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)