Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Requesting help updating Marsy's Law

Hello, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia so I'm reaching out here to see if anyone can help update the entry on Marsy's Law, California's 2008 Crime Victims' Bill of Rights. In 2014, Illinois voters approved a constitutional amendment to strengthen its rights for crime victims. Marsy's Law in Illinois became law in 2015. The Illinois law is modeled after the California law, so it seems like it would be a good fit to include information on Marsy's Law in Illinois in the main Marsy's Law article. I have not made any of the edits because I have a financial conflict of interest and I know it is best not to update the entry myself. (I work at Mac Strategies Group and am posting as part of my work there on behalf of Marsy's Law For All). So far, I have posted my suggested edits on the Marsy's Law Talk page, WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Law and on Talk pages of four editors who seemed interested in the topic, but no-one has assisted. Can someone here can offer any pointers or look at this request? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How do I continue a conversation that I started last week?

Last week I asked how to take the first steps toward organizing an Edit-a-thon. Cullen328 gave me some helpful suggestions (Thank you!). I'm only a part-time worker at the nonprofit where I'm organizing this Edit-a-thon, so I'm only just now getting back to this question. But it says this is an "old" or "closed" conversation, or words to that effect, and that I'm not allowed to "edit" it. Of course, "edit" is the wrong word for what I want to do. What I want to do is "continue" this conversation, by asking Cullen328 (or anybody, really) a new question. Am I allowed to do that? If so, How do I do it? When I find out how to ask a follow-up question, here are the questions I want to ask:

1. ) I'm drafting the content for our Edit-a-thon page in my Sandbox. I have another experimental article in the Sandbox, with a reference at the end of it. This morning I wrote the draft of my Edit-a-thon page, in my sandbox, after the other experimental article. When I did, the reference from my experimental article jumped all the way to the bottom of the Sandbox, under the content for the Edit-a-thon page. I don't want that. How to I tell Mr. Sandbox that the new batch of content I wrote today is an entirely different article? Or an entirely different page?
2. ) What's the difference between an "article" and a "page"?
3. ) Can I start a new "article" or "page" in my sandbox? If I do, is that called starting a new sandbox?
4. ) Am I allowed to have more than one Sandbox?

Grindall Reynolds (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Grindall Reynolds. I've reformatted your questions above to make them easier to read. As you've found, once a question has been archived, you shouldn't edit it, so what you've done here is the best thing.

The answer to most of your other questions is: you can have as many user subpages (or "sandboxes") as you like. You start them by editing User:Grindall Reynolds/name of this subpage. The one named "sandbox" is special only in that there is a link to it from the top of the browser window. You can't usefully create more than one article in the same page, so I wouldn't recommend trying. "Article" and "page" are often used interchangeably (especially by people who don't understand that this is an encyclopaedia, and think that the can create a "page for" somebody or something ;-)). Used more carefully, a "page" includes many things that aren't articles: talk pages, project pages like this one, user pages etc. --ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine.

Grindall Reynolds (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Just great. Now I have an error message that say "User account "GrindallReynolds" is not registered. If you wish to use "GrindallReynolds" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username."

Except GrindallReynolds is already my user name. Bet you ten bucks that if i click the link that says "Wikipedia:Changing username," it will tell me I can't register that username because it's already taken (by me). This is very frustrating, and I really want to give up. Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, if I do give up, then I will never learn how to create a subpage.

And if I never learn how to create a subpage, then I won't be able to move my Edit-a-thon page out of the sandbox and make it a subpage of "Meetup." Or of GLAM Wiki. I still don't know which one would be the right one for an Edit-a-thon about Henry David Thoreau sponsored by a library. Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

[Aside] As one who worked as a graphic designer (print) for decades, it drives me nuts that when I type more than one paragraph in one of these little comment boxes, the first paragraph is indented . . .

and the second one is flush left. Why does it do that? Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:GrindallReynolds is not registered and it is not the username you are using. Your username is User:Grindall Reynolds with a space between the "Grindall" and the "Reynolds". The software is that picky. Those are two separate username. -- GB fan 20:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, GB Fan

Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to put a colon at the beginning of each new paragraph. That is the way the software works. -- GB fan 20:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Grindall Reynolds: The thing with the indentation

works like

this. You can

see it if you look

in the editing window. :)

I have left you some notes on how things work here on your talk page. Please create a new sandbox and experiment with things like this. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 20:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, GB Fan and/or w.carter, who may or may nor be the same person. Do I type a return and THEN type a colon, or do I just type a colon and the software automatically replaces it with a return? If that's the case, how to I tell the software when I really want a colon to appear, I'm not using the colon as secret code for "start a new paragraph?"Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I figured out how to create a subpage (yay!). I copied the whole text of my Edit-a-thon page and pasted it into my brand-new subpage. I had to recreate all the links and formatting, which got stripped away in the copy-and-paste. It was a lot of work, but it was worth it.:Guess what?:It said I had something called an "edit conflict" and "The upper text area contains the page text as it currently exists (without your changes). Your version of the page (with your changes) is shown in the lower text area.":But there isn't an upper text area or a lower text area. There's jus a big text window with nothing at all in it except this:

{{db-rediruser}}

1. REDIRECT User:Grindall Reynolds/subpage

• From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

which Is NOT the 75 lines of type I copied and pasted and just did all the formatting and links to all over again. How do I resolve the edit conflict without starting the whole process a third time?Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoa!!:That wasn't what was in that text box at all! What I saw in the text box was

{{db-rediruser}}

1. REDIRECT User:Grindall Reynolds/subpage

• From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

Now I'm totally confused!Grindall Reynolds (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Grindall Reynolds by posting that code for the "big box" here you accidentally proposed the Teahouse for deletion. I have neutralized that now. w.carter-Talk 20:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It happened again. What Isaw in the text box was:

Open fancy bracket, open fancy bracket, db-rediruser, close fancy bracket, close fancy bracket

1. REDIRECT open plain bracket, open plain bracket, User:Grindall Reynolds/subpage, close plain bracket, close plain bracket

Open fancy bracket, open fancy bracket, R from move, close fancy bracket, close fancy bracketGrindall Reynolds (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The page with the redirect tag is User/GrindallReynolds/subpage. Your content has been moved from there to User:Grindall Reynolds/subpage. You'll see that the first slash should have been a colon, and that (as mentioned earlier) you had omitted the space between "Grindall" and "Reynolds". — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 November 2015‎

I have deleted that page as it is not needed. -- GB fan 21:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, that worked. Thank you for your patience.Grindall Reynolds (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. If you have any more questions please ask. and just for the record we are all different people. -- GB fan 21:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain when I see a page I created has been 'partolled'?

Please explain when I see a page I created has been 'partolled'?InfoDataMonger (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@InfoDataMonger: The patrol log (part of Special:Log) shows whether the page was patrolled (reviewed). See this example: [1] (you can change the "target" parameter). The page in the example was patrolled two times because after the first patrol it was deleted, and then created again. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of the time when a new page is created it is listed on Special:NewPages. Editors then go through the new pages and look for pages that need work, should be deleted, or are good to go. After a new article is looked at the editor may tag the article for cleanup, tag the article for deletion or think the article is good to go. In each case they "patrol" the page so it no longer shows up on the list of new articles. On your new article, Harold Armytage Sanders, Eeekster tagged the article with having to long a lead and also patrolled. -- GB fan 14:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit clash) Hi, InfoDataMonger. Don't panic; this is a good thing. New pages get a quick check by an experienced editor to make sure they don't contain anything that would be unacceptable (defamatory material, child pornography, etc). Being marked as "patrolled" just means that no serious problems were found.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Gajpanth

Hi, everybody. I need help, I need any Indian cultured or Jain cultured people so that they can help me in this new article Gajpanth. If you are helping please reply on talkpage of Gajpanth Thank you, Regards BOTFIGHTER (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@BOTFIGHTER: Hi, and welcome. Teahouse is a place to ask specific questions about editing Wikipedia. If you need experienced users for collaboration, try contacting WP:WikiProject India or WP:WikiProject Jainism. Wikiprojects are pages specifically designed to bring together editors of similar interest and specific knowledge. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Username Change on Urdu Wikipedia

I want to change my user name on Urdu Wiki from Anjana Larka to اجنبی لڑکا but unable to find a place where I can request my username change. I don't want to change my name globally just only on Urdu wiki can someone help me how and where I can request that change? Anjana Larka^{Talk ✉} 05:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anjana Larka The easiest way would be simply to create a new account as اجنبی لڑکا and use that account on Urdu Wikipedia instead of Anjana Larka. A drawback is that your present 13 edits on Urdu Wikipedia would be attributed to Anjana Larka not اجنبی لڑکا. I doubt it is possible to change your username just on Urdu Wikipedia; it would have involve somehow un-unifying your global account. —teb728 t c 06:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anjana Larka: Since the WP:SUL was implemented, users use a single username across all Wikimedia projects. You can rename your global account (M:GRP), but you can't change your username just in Urdu Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You also have the opportunity to change your signature on that project so that it displays anything you want it to show when you sign posts, etc. I don't know if this would be "good enough" for what you want to do, or not, but it is a way to show a particular name on just one Wikipedia project. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  14:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 Thanks I wasn't aware of that rule will consider creating a new account. Anjana Larka^{Talk ✉} 14:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Anjana Larka, you could perhaps consider keeping the same username, but using the Urdu version of it as a signature on ur.wp. To create that signature you'd need to go to this page (I think – I can't really read that language!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Need help with article

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

Hey there, I need help revamping this article. The previous edition made little sense to me.

Kolmias (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kolmias, and welcome to the Teahouse. Given that Davide Lazzeretti was reportedly an Italian preacher, you could ask for help from participants in WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Italy. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

And here's a source to get you started. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kolmias! I happen to know a good deal about the life and death of Lazzeretti. I think I should have a good printed source for details of his life, possibly with illustrations, but I'm away from home at the moment and can't check. Meanwhile, there are brief biographical details in this long page; ping me if you need help with the Italian. You were right to remove the rest of it, looks like someone has been trying to self-promote here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm interacting with a new user who may need a kind of welcome that I'm not good at

I'm looking for someone who is good with new editors who seem to think Wikipedia is a place to make friends (WP:NOTFACEBOOK). Trust me when I say I don't think I'm the most qualified person to welcome this new editor or, if it comes to it, to help her realize that Wikipedia doesn't have what she is looking for.

If you are that person, please hop over to this new user's talk page and introduce yourself. Thanks. There is no need to keep me in the loop on this - I have the editor's user page on my watchlist. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I commented there, davidwr, trying to strike a balance between helpfulness and firmness. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look and advise what needs to be edited

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matchpoint_NYC I've created this page and included references which in my opinion are reliable such as NY1 News, businessinsider.com and few other publications. What's needs to be done to avoid deletion? Thank you Stanislavzarubin (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Stanislavzarubin: I left you a comment at Talk:Matchpoint NYC. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright conundrum

Now I've come across an article, Medium shot, which I ran through Earwig's copyvio detector against a web search, and found that a substantial portion of the article's content is identical to this page. The question of course, is who copied from whom; unfortunately archive.org has never made a copy of the definition.net page. That page doesn't specify where it sourced its definition, and certainly doesn't credit Wikipedia; on the contrary, it offers citation formatting for anyone wishing to cite the page, in APA, Chicago or MLA. On the ohter hand, the article history here shows the text in question evolving gradually via changes made by different editors over several years; at no point was the exact text found at definition.net pasted in as a discrete chunk.

If it were unambiguous copyvio, I would nominate Medium shot for speedy deletion (or more likely blow it up and start over), but I'm not sure what the correct course is. If the definitions.net text came from here, they should either attribute it properly or remove it, but I'm not sure I have a strong enough case that they stole it rather than having it stolen from them to contact that site and tell them they've violated Wikipedia's copyleft licensing. Thanks in advance for your advice. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure of who copied from who, just by looking at it. I would be more inclined to think the other site copied from WP, because I've actually seen that done more times than I've seen content from other sites copied onto WP, but we really can't be sure. The last paragraph of the article is very unencyclopedic, too, with the "you" and other tone problems. It may be better to just blow it up and start over with a fresh page, especially because we are not certain what the copyright status is. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, the Wikipedia article is the original one. Looking at an article's page history is useful here. You can see the wording develop early in the page history from its creation in September 2001. The other site copied it sometime after the wording change from "blurry" to "fuzzy" on May 1, 2006. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Can someone review my draft article?

Can someone review my draft article? It's located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Normhowe/Quality_CultureNormhowe (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Normhowe, and welcome to the Teahouse. By review, do you mean you'd like other editors to look at your draft and offer advice, or do you mean you're ready to submit the article at Articles for Creation and need a submit button? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi GrammarFascist, I mean look at my draft and offer advice.Normhowe (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Normhowe, I'll have a look, and perhaps some other Teahouse volunteers will as well. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, GrammarFascist.Normhowe (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

{I fixed your indenting for you — always use one more : than the person you're replying to.)

First things first, Normhowe: I adjusted the formatting of all your references, partly because in a couple of cases you were citing one source multiple times as if it was a new source each time, and partly because there was information missing from or formatting problems with nearly all of the references you had. (Don't feel bad about that; reference formatting is one of the steepest learning curves Wikipedia has. I used the handy fill-in-the-blanks forms accessed via the "Cite" link in the blue bar at the top of the editing window and the "Templates" drop-down menu which appears when the "Cite" link is clicked — this makes reference formatting much easier.) Note how I used <ref name=example>{{citation}}</ref> and then <ref name=example/> to cite one source multiple times. One thing to watch out for with <ref name=... is that each different source's reference has to have a unique name. I used the abbreviation of the publication name in most cases, so the first Harvard Business Review reference is called just HBR. But I couldn't reuse that name when I got to the second Harvard Business Review article, and I instead called that one HBR2.

Moving on to the content of the article, I noticed while doing the references that the sentence "The brutal fact is that about 70% of all change initiatives fail." came directly from the article cited, but you had neglected to put quotation marks around it to show that those were not your words. I fixed that for you, too. You must be very careful not to include text written by anyone else without attributing it as a quotation; that's a copyright violation, and could cause the entire article to be deleted even if it's still a draft. I didn't check to see if there are more instances of unattributed copying, but you should hopefully remember what you wrote and what you merely copied, and you should make getting rid of any other "copyvio" (as Wikipedians call it) your priority in working on the draft.

Once that's taken care of... well, I'll be honest, you have a lot of work ahead of you. Quality Culture may in fact be a subject suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but the draft you have written is definitely not appropriate. One of the main problems is that you have used promotional language, such as referring to Joseph M. Juran as "the famous quality guru" (we don't do that on Wikipedia; we use objective descriptions only, such as 'Management consultant Joseph M. Juran'). There is also an overall tone to the article which is more how-to than descriptive, such as "Employees should be given opportunities to participate in improving the quality of the product." where the WP:NPOV way of phrasing that would be something like 'Quality culture proponents commonly suggest giving employees opportunities to participate in improving the quality of the product.' (but I don't know whether that sentence I just came up with is accurate, and it would need to be cited to a reliable source or sources).

The overall effect of this draft is as if it was written to be a magazine article advocating for quality culture to be implemented in readers' businesses. And there's nothing wrong with that — feel free to submit it to any magazine you like, minus any plagiarism! — but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. That's why Primefac gave you the link to What Wikipedia is not. Maybe you got distracted by all the other "nots" and missed the "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" section. (The "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" section is also relevant, in that your draft is advocating for and promoting the adoption of quality culture; a Wikipedia article about quality culture can only describe it, and perhaps also include judicious mention of the fact that some authoritative figures advocate its use.) I'm afraid much of the draft can't even be salvaged by rewriting, though I think that some of it can. You should feel free to ask whatever questions you have about my analysis. I apologize if I've come across as harsh; my intent is definitely not to scare you off contributing to Wikipedia. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 06:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment below moved to what I believe is the right section by ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks GrammarFascist. Your frankness is both helpful and refreshing.Normhowe (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How to make a page?

Hello, i'm new in wikioedia and i want to make an article, can someone tell me how to make one? Thank you in advance.HolyRidek (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi HolyRidek, and welcome to Wikipedia. Here is a guide to creating your first article: Wikipedia:Your first article. Good luck! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello HolyRidek and welcome to the Teahouse! Creating articles is just one of the ways editors improve Wikipedia. The vast majority of improvements here are edits made to existing articles. At the top of each article you'll see buttons to "edit". There's a lot of work that a keen editor can do; have a look at Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia for some direction and advice.

Personally, I would spend a while (a few weeks) doing this sort of gradual improvement work before attempting to create an article. Creating a new article is quite difficult, and a lot of editors who try that first thing end up getting frustrated and have a bad time of it. However if this is what you definitely want to do, the best advice I can give is the same as onel5969: read Wikipedia:Your first article.

By the way, a fun way to learn the basics of Wikipedia in about an hour is to play The Wikipedia Adventure.

Happy editing! --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not letting me cite

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and was editing an article. I was trying to cite, so I clicked the cite button, but it wouldn't let my add anything in it. I tried a different article and it still was not working. The first one I tried a web address and the second a book. Please help! Thank you in advance.

GimbarratoGimbarrato (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Gimbarrato and welcome to the Teahouse.

Did you try to reload the page and maybe you should try editing in source.

I know it's not the best answer but i'm pretty new to Wikipedia myself.HolyRidek (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Gimbarrato, welcome. If you are clicking the "Cite" link in the pale-blue bar at the top of the editing window, you're missing a couple of steps: you still need to click where it says "Templates" all the way at the left of the second pale-blue bar that clicking the "Cite" link opens (or closes); then you need to select either "cite web", "cite news", "cite book" or "cite journal" from the drop-down menu. That should open up the appropriate form with fields for you to fill in.

(If you're using VisualEditor, however, I'm afraid I can't help you, because I disabled it for myself years ago and no longer remember how it even works.)

If you followed the steps I outlined and the form is not appearing, please tell us what browser you're using and what type of device (desktop/laptop computer, tablet, phone, or other) so we can better help you troubleshoot. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Gimbarrato, there is even a video showing how to do this, on YouTube here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How to cite a source in VisualEditor

Gimbarrato is using WP:VisualEditor. Adding source should be easy – literally three clicks (as shown in this animated gif). Gimbarrato, could you please tell me what web browser and operating system you're using? Do you have NoScript or other extensions installed? What's the URL/web address you were trying to use? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Changing a title

How do I change a title to an article by deleting a word? The article is Corkin Frederick Cherubini which I want to change to Corkin Cherubini. Midolly Midolly (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Midolly, and welcome to the Teahouse. To move a page, you click on the "Page" drop-down menu in the top right, and then "Move page". However, to do this your accounts needs to be autoconfirmed. This will happen after you have made ten edits. That said, Draft:Corkin Frederick Cherubini is a draft article so I wouldn't worry too much about the title. It's more important to get the content up to standard. Corkin Cherubini sounds like an important and interesting character, and is mentioned in a number of other Wikipedia articles, but you need to sort the referencing out. Rather than simply listing sources at the end of the article, you need to use footnote citations. See Help:Referencing for beginners for instructions on how to do this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Footnote citations" (using <ref> tags) are never required. The sourcing style in the draft is a legitimate form of WP:Inline citation. However, manual numbering is also incredibly difficult to maintain, because you have to re-number every time someone adds a new one or re-arranges the existing contents. For your own convenience, I strongly recommend switching to WP:PAREN (parenthetical comments like "Smith 2010", which are very popular in academic papers) or <ref> tags (little blue clickable numbers, which are very popular on Wikipdia). Either of these will be much easier to maintain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

English translation of an already-existing French wiki page

Hi, I'm writing my first article here, a bio of a French writer. I hope I can explain properly, as there are two ways I can do this:

1. translate the already-existing French wiki page into English. (I know French, I don't need a translator.) (There is no English page yet.)

2. write a new bio in English (original content) but use the links, references, etc. from the existing French wiki page.

I would like to know the best way to go about this as, the page I want to add is an English page of an already-existing French wiki page. So is it better for me to translate it myself or write a new article? And also, which editor or formatting template do I need for this, since there is already a French page. I just want to get it right the first time, before I make it 'live'. Thank you very much for your help!! alphaville3467 Alphaville3467 (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Alphaville3467: welcome to the Teahouse!

The page: Wikipedia:Translation has some information for this process, particularly ensuring proper attribution if you go the "directly translate the French version" route.

"What is the best way" really depends upon the specifics. English Wikipedia in general has a fairly high standard for sourcing . I have seen some French articles that are really well sourced, and some that are terrible. What types of sources in English are available? Assuming you are fairly familiar with the artist, as you look at the existing French, does it seem to appropriately represent the topic and provide good "bones" to work with, or would you be better off with something else (maybe the French is chronological but you think organizing by Fiction / Non Fiction / Poetry would provide a more coherent picture)? Also consider your writing style - is closely following a model going to provide you with familiarity and give you a confidence of "Yes, I know where I am going!" or is it going to feel like a straight-jacket? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your fast response, TRPoD. I did read that wiki translation section, but it's a bit confusing to me because of the experience another editor had with translating this page. It was barely begun, when another editor deleted it, and it looks like every attempt made to even get an English page started was deleted before it could be completed. This is why I want to be very careful with how I approach it, because I would like to be able to work on it and fix it as I go along and not have the same experience. The process seems unnecessarily confusing, over and beyond the difficulties in translating a page from one language to another. Before it goes live, can I have the time I need to work on it and get it right and of course get feedback from others? I understand that there are many reasons an article might get flagged for deletion but my question is, why does this happen while you are actually in the process of editing it? Before you even send it out there?

My first choice here would be to just translate the existing French page, which is well-sourced and written well. I was only considering writing an original bio because it seemed like that way would pose fewer problems. But it takes longer, and I would be very happy to just translate the French one.

I am also a new editor and I did read all the sections and FAQS. But...I'm here in the tea room first because these are issues that aren't addressed in there, and I don't want to spend hours working on something, only to have the same experience. I just want to be able to get this page up.

It's all a work in progress, everything that we add to wiki. I'd be very happy if my first experience is a good one, because I would like very much to add more in the future. --alphaville3467Alphaville3467 (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alphaville3467. If you work on your English language draft either in your individual sandbox page or in draft space (as opposed to the main encyclopedia space), it is highly unlikely that there would be any attempt to delete it. Only if it was libel or an overt copyright violation would anyone try to delete it, or if you abandoned it for six months or more. If the French writer is notable, and if the article is properly referenced before submission, it will be accepted. I recommend that you use the Articles for Creation process, which includes a review by an experienced editor before the article goes "live". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

(e/c x2) Hey Alphaville3467! I think option 2 should be done here. It's perfectly fine to do a direct translation, so long as you comply with copyright attribution to the source French article. However, assuming this is about fr:Gabriel Delmas, that source article is full of highly-promotional evaluative material, stated in Wikipedia's voice, much of which translated perfectly would have no place here. So, where normally I would say absolutely, translate it and then describe some detail on the process of translation to you, here I think – if at all – you should begin mostly from scratch because the bulk of the prose is not acceptable.

I say "if at all" because it's not clear to me based on the sources cited there that the subject is notable: some there are blogs—user generated that would not meet our reliable sources standard; a few contain no content on this artist and the link to the archive is dead (at least for me); some are primary sources that are not independent of the subject. I am not saying he is not notable, but it would be a shame to spend your time on a topic that is likely to not be acceptable at all, so gather and evaluate your sources first. Are there sufficient reliable, secondary, independent sources (in any language) focusing on this subject in detail to sustain an article? If so, I suggest:

• Starting this in the draft space through the articles for creation (AfC) process. Alternatives, if you're not going to use AfC, are to still create it in the draft namespace, e.g., at Draft:Gabriel Delmas or at a subpage in your user space, e.g., at User:Alphaville3467/Gabriel Delmas and work on it there until you think it's ready to "go live" by a move to the mainspace. You can also submit it for review through AfC at that time by placing at the top {{subst:submit}};
• Regardless of where you start it, if you ultimately copy French content over to be later translated at your leisure, or you translate it directly, you will need to comply with copyright. Do this by providing attribution in an edit summary, such as: Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Gabriel Delmas]]; see its history for attribution. This should be supplemented by placing the filled-out {{Translated page}} template on the talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Alphaville3467 and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you start with the article in a space that is called your "sandbox". Yours is located here: User:Alphaville3467/sandbox. Just click on the red link and start writing something. This is your own space where you can develop the article in peace and quiet. If you want some help, you can also invite other editors here to come and take a look and suggest things. I'm one of those who can help you that way. I translate a lot of articles myself and I have also helped other editors who have started with a translation and then expanded and re-written the article more in their own style. I'm also one of the editors who help newcomers find their way around the WP. Here are some more things you should know before you start with the article:

• WPs in different languages have very different rules and standards. Articles and facts that are good to publish on one WP are not automatically OK for other WPs.

• If you translate texts from one WP you must also "bring along" the references for that text. If the text in the original language is unreferenced, you must find references yourself to support the text you have translated. Some WPs allow references in a foreign language, other prefer not to have them. They are totally ok to use here at the English WP. A translators role on the WP is very different from translators in other places. When you translate a piece of text to a WP, you become responsible for that text in the same way as if you have written it yourself, you can't blame the first editor who wrote it if anything is wrong in it.

• You must put a template on the articles talk page about the translation. These templates should contain information about what article version the text is collected from and which version on the other WP that it is inserted to. See Template:Translated page, and here it is used on one talk page translated to the English WP. It is the small box with two flags. This is so that the editors that originally wrote the text get credited. There are similar templates/boxes on the WPs in other languages.

You are very welcome to ask for help at my talk page during your work. À bientôt, w.carter-Talk 19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As you can see from the answers above, there are several ways to do this. Feel free to choose the one that is most suitable for you. w.carter-Talk 19:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Alphaville3467. After reading the article about Gabriel Delmas on the French Wikipedia with the assistance of Google Translate, I have to agree with Fuhghettaboutit. That is a very poor article by English Wikipedia standards. The two biggest problems are the overall promotional tone that infuses the article, in violation of the neutral point of view, and the poor quality references. I recommend that you start from scratch, and build your article entirely by summarizing, in neutral language, what the highest quality reliable sources say about him. Quality is much more important than quantity when establishing notability and beginning a good biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And on an unrelated note, it appears that there might be a 19th century printer Gabriel Delmas that might merit an article [2] if you are just looking for something to do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Are Legion of Honor members automatically notable? [3]? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Le Stylo Rouge Du Destin: This might give you some clue about the Legion of Honor. w.carter-Talk 00:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your responses, this was very helpful. I'm going to write the article from scratch, as this is the best solution. That will be the easy part, as the artist has a huge body of work that is well-known in France. More difficult will be tracking down articles/sources in English, so I'm glad I can use French sources. But it's good to know I can get feedback and help, as I am going to need it. A lot of it. I don't expect the issue to be one of 'notability' as all of the subject's work has been published and he is widely exhibited, not just in France. But finding reviews and sources that meet the English WP criteria, I do hope this is not the insurmountable issue. But I suppose I'll soon find out. Thanks very much, everyone, and a very special thanks to w. carter for offering to help me. I appreciate it! Alphaville3467 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Unusual Notability factors - how to evaluate.

When I saw the article Free Spins Bonus, I thought it looked like advertising and its only references were promotional. So I checked Google News, and finding only PR releases and similar, I tagged the article for CSD. The author, Scoli77, replied that the term is well known and widely used in the gaming industry with 22,200 Google searches per month and growing (1000% from 2007 till now). There seem to be numerous sites that list the "Free Spins Bonuses" that are available at different casinos, without discussing them in details, and some casino publicity talks around it without mentioning the term specifically. It might be enough to give credence to the claim, but I am not sure how to evaluate it. If anybody can contribute to the discussion, please do so at Talk:Free Spins Bonus#Contested deletion.Gronk Oz (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and if sources do not specifically discuss the term/phrase and provide a social context, we do not include it. WP:DICDEF / WP:NEO etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, TRPoD, but I'm not sure that the dictionary is the best analogy here. Wikipedia has articles about butterflies, but we are not acting as a dictionary to define the word "butterfly" - this is a similar situation. The article is about the thing itself, rather than the words we use to name it. Nevertheless, I take your point about the need for sources that specifically discuss the subject and provide a social context. In the end, an Admin will decide, but I would like to use this opportunity to develop a better understanding of the issues.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Gronk Oz:, While we generally provide a definition for all of our entries, when all we can provide is a definition, that is when WP:DICDEF comes in. And in this instance we dont even have any sources stating "Free Spins Bonus is a xxxxx"; there are barely even any reliable sources using the term let alone defining or placing it in context. If we had something from say Ad Age talking about how "Free Spins Bonus" became a standard marketing tool for online casinos" and a study of how effective they are in promotion, then we might be able to have a short encyclopedia article about the topic - although it would still probably be better as a redirect to Online casinos and then include the content under a marketing subsection. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Outcome: Admin Jayron32 declined the CSD, because the subject falls outside the categories of A7. May still get AfD. TRPoD - I see you took the pruning shears to it; thanks for that.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Question moved from talk page

Hello, I can't submit my questions to the teahouse because despite signing the ask question link is still dead.The questions I want to ask are is it true there are 25million pages on wiki including all languages?and is an autobiography a reliable source?Thanks84.92.84.254 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I don't know why you can't post to the Teahouse directly. In answer to your questions:

• At the bottom of meta:List of Wikipedias you can see that there are currently 36 907 975 articles in all the language Wikipedias put together (and 141 603 046 pages including talk pages, project pages etc).
• An autobiography may be a reliable source, if it is published by a reputable publisher; but it is not an independent source, so it cannot contribute to notability, and it may be cited to support only limited information (uncontroversial factual data): see WP:PRIMARY. --ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks87.127.113.154 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on WP:NLIST

The guidelines seem to indicate that the same notability standards apply to lists of people as to articles themselves. In other words, if an individual doesn't have their own bio page, they shouldn't be on lists of e.g. "Notable alumni" or "Notable residents". Is it appropriate to simply remove all such list items without a linked article? I'm looking at California Academy of Mathematics and Science in particular. Thanks, Qzd (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've often wondered about this too. I've tended to remove people who don't have articles if they appear to lack notability, but of course there can be notable people who aren't yet the subject of articles. If notability is established through references in the list, does the lack of an article matter? If anything, a red link to a clearly notable subject might encourage someone to create an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

At California Academy of Mathematics and Science#Notable alumni, the issue with most of the entries is a lack of references, so notability is not established and they should probably be removed. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The existing references are not great either. As much as I think professorship should convey notability (it seems like every professional athlete has an article), I don't think that's the case for WP entries. However, I've kept them in the list for now. Qzd (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Being an (assistant) professor isn't enough in and of itself to meet the notability criteria, no. Take a look at WP:PROF for guidance on this, Qzd. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Also see WP:LISTPEOPLE. It is certainly wrong to remove people simply because they don't have an article. The question (at most) is whether they meet the criteria to have an article. The requirements for references are much more substantial. Unfortunately the guidance is rather incoherent and should not be read too literally. Thincat (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The answer is "it depends". Every page gets to make its own 'rules' about which names should be included. The most common approach to alumni at a large/old/famous school is to pick the most famous people, all of whom already have articles, and then to have a separate list of all the notable alumni, which includes hundreds (or even a couple thousand) of people, all of whom probably could qualify for an article (=lots of red links). For smaller/newer/less famous schools, it's common to include whatever you can source. Until the list has more than 10 or 20 people in it, there's not much need to worry about anything beyond WP:BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ISBN confusion

The article on John Robert Greene includes a list of his works, including the book "The Presidency of George Bush" (2000) with ISBN=978-0-7006-0993-2. This agrees with the Google Books entry here. But (you knew there would be a "but" didn't you) when I use the resulting link to search on that ISBN at Google Books it gives a different book here, namely "On Feminist Ethics and Politics" by Claudia Card. Yet the cover page is of the Bush book. Is there something strange going on, or am I just too stupid to live in the 21st century... Gronk Oz (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Gronk Oz. This ISBN search produces the Greene biography of Bush. Maybe it has something to do with the dashes or hyphens in the ISBN number in the article. I always use a string of 13 digits without punctuation. Then again, something else may be going on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Cullen - I should have mentioned that I removed the dashes. I was trying to clean up the referencing in that article. I see now that when I follow that Google Books link all the way down to its conclusion, it gives a different ISBN (978-0-70060-968-0) for the Card book. So perhaps the fault lies in Google Books; I will see if there is some way to report it to them. Thanks for the help.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Multilingual page linking

I was editing my page, and I wanted to add a link to a Dutch Wiki page, but as I typed it in, it said that the page did not yet exist. I know I could just add the link via Google search, but I think it's more convenient if I could find it in the page-links. Could anyone help me solve this issue.

Thank you in advance. Arkhampsyco 03:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuakooij1992 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arkhampsyco. You should find the technique you want explained at Help:Interwiki linking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Joshuakooij1992: Hello! Please note that your signature must have a link to your user page or user talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Joshuakooij1992: The easiest way to get a valid signature and still display Arkhampsyco is to enter Arkhampsyco in the Signature field at Special:Preferences but not have a checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup." PrimeHunter (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright license issue

Hello. Currently, there is an unresolved problem with the licensing of Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic flags, and logos. A fellow editor, MrPenguin20, had his Somalia Battalion flag nominated for deletion over the "self|cc-by-sa-4.0" license. I tried preventing it from getting deleted by placing the "PD-textlogo" in its place, only to still have it deleted regardless. This was probably the 4th deletion out of 6 nominated flags and logos of all editors in the past year and a half. The problem here is that we need appropriate Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic licenses for the sake of identifying flags and logos of various factions. "PD-UA-exempt" doesn't apply since they are not a part of Ukraine. Also, I couldn't find any copyright laws on the DPR's website regarding this [4]. I would really appreciate anybody who can help us solve this year long issue. SkoraPobeda (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

(moved to top of page by GrammarFascist in hopes of eliciting more helpful responses)

Hello, SkoraPobeda, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry no one has answered your question yet; probably it's because none of the Teahouse volunteers who have seen the question knew any applicable answers. I know I don't know anything about how copyright applies to national and sub-national flags. I would think there's probably a fair-use exception to be made for low-resolution copies, but that's just my educated guess. Good luck getting a more definitive answer... —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Try asking the question at WP:MCQ, which is the Wikipedia desk for people with copyright questions.Jayron32 02:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There is an essay, WP:Copyright on emblems, which may be useful. If the breakaway People's Republics in question have published official blazons, which are formulas for creating a flag or coat of arms, then a graphic artist could create a free version of each flag by following the formula. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Also worth checking out is WP:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. An active member of that project may be able to help. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I will check out the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology first. SkoraPobeda (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Consistent Unwanted "Editing"

I invite you to look at my entry (John Robert Greene). Someone continues to put in a category ("Living Persons") which I do not wish to have in my entry, which I have repeatedly said in the edit comments (after I have undone his or her edit) that I do not want. I am convinced they are just playing around with this edit of my entry. My last comment to them was that I was going to report them for vandalism. Is this all that I can do? Much thanks for your help.Scrivener13 (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but per WP:OWN you don't get to decide what goes in as it isn't "your" entry, even if you are the subject. Action would only be taken if the entry was problematic, a category linking you to some kind of wrong doing, for example. In this case the category suggests you are a living person, which, unless you're contacting us from beyond the grave, seems accurate and unproblematic. It is a maintenance category used on all such entries and its inclusion means that the article falls under our WP:BLP policy, making it less, not more, likely that people can "play around" with it. Valenciano (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you John Robert Greene? If so, and if you are posting here, you appear to be a living person. Read the article ownership policy. You do not get to control "your entry". Before reporting someone for vandalism, in adding a valid category, also read the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

According to this edit summary, Scrivener13 is Greene, which makes it all the more confusing that he is claiming not to be alive. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Before jumping to a conclusion, can I ask what is the reason for this request? Is there some reason why it is not appropriate to classify John Robert Greene as a living person?--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't guess why Scrivener13 wants the "living persons" category removed. But I will explain why the category is being added, and the consequences. All Wikipedia articles which are about living persons should be in this category, so it is being added to John Robert Greene by editors who believe he is still alive. This is important to Wikipedia for legal reasons. If someone adds some defamatory sentences, sourced to a dubious publication, to an article about a dead person, there will be no legal consequences. But if they do that to an article about a living person, there is a danger of Wikipedia being sued; so the standards of sourcing, and relevance, that must be met before adding negative content to an article about a living person are higher. Maproom (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Rafic Nakib

I and other reviewers declined Draft:Rafic Nakib. User:PoppyJr78 posted the following to my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=692875215&oldid=692869693

I would appreciate feedback from other experienced editors. The basic problem that I have is not with the notability of the journalist but with the tone of the article, which appears to be written to praise him. He probably deserves praising, but not in the voice of Wikipedia. Do other editors have any comments or advice or encouragement (such as to say that the article is getting better, which it is)? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

As to the original poster's statement that he will be writing pages about this individual in French and in Arabic, I assume that he means for the French Wikipedia and the Arabic Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi I removed The adjective "devoted" from the death paragrah. and frankly I don't see any praise tone left in the artilce. When I am neutrally admitting that his wealthy successful friend appointed him as GM, you call that a praise! iam just saying things as they happened. The "pen against guns" paragraph is full of facts and that's why he was unique and his courage in the face of dangers must be recognised. Also it's written in a very modest tone while saying what he notably did!PoppyJr78 (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I find the title "pen against guns" itself is a bit promotional, especially when it begins by saying that he "became an active defender of the freedom of speech". Our aim is not to praise his bravery, but to provide information. If the reader then concludes that he was a great man, that is up to them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, thanks for your care and editing. The title of the paragraph "pen against guns" was a mere describtion of the events as they happened when Gunmen used force against a media organisation( which means automatically an attack on freedom of speech)! However I am open to your suggestions. Give me another title with a mroe neutral tone! even if the title looks very neutral to me because it describes exactly the content of the paragraph which is full of many indpendent reliable sources talking about the attacks. I don't mind removing the line "active defender of the freedom of speech" if we keep the title of the paragraph as it is. What do you think? PoppyJr78 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Hi everybody. I changed both the paragraph title "pen agianst guns" and the line "became defender of freedom of speech". I think now the tone of the article is 100% neutral. I hope you will approve it as soon as possible because i want to focus on wariting the arabic and the french versions and adding a couple of photos to the 3 articles.Thanks in advance. PoppyJr78 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Format of dates

Could someone with more know how in this matter please explain what are the acceptable date styles. If European is expressed as "DAY MONTH YEAR" without punctuation is US expressed without DAY "MONTH YEAR" Explanation: "on 1 January 2016" -- that is acceptable and as far as I know the only correct way to express it. And of course if there is no day it would seem simple enough to accept "MONTH YEAR" without punctuation. Now, US: "On January 1, 2016,/." is the only acceptable way but in those instances where no DAY is indicated such as "On January ,/." is it necessary to have a comma between the "MONTH YEAR" since a comma following the YEAR looks a bit cumbersome.

Is it necessary to include a comma when a date stands alone in the following style: "January 2016" such as in the "UPDATE" field of the coding? Thank you.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Srednuas Lenoroc. There is a handy table of acceptable date formats at MOS:DATEFORMAT. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that in either US or UK English a comma is needed in Month Year. Nthep (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Tagging problem

I came across Eye Institute, low vision and blind rehabilitation "Josefina C. Bignone", an article in need of attention. As I started to fix some of the issues it had been tagged for, I noticed that most of the article seems to be a translation of this page that is used as a ref. I'm not fluent in Spanish so I can't see if it is an exact translation, but it seems pretty close to me. Should this be tagged as a copyvio even if the words aren't in the same language? Not quite sure how to do this. Any advice would be appreciated. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 21:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted, W.carter! That's a tricky one. I ran the source page through Google translate and got something that was similar but acceptably different from our page. However, I see that the page is translated from es.wp, and that the page there has been deleted as a copyvio. Translated copyvio is still copyvio. My opinion: this isn't close enough to justify nomination for speedy deletion as G12; it's complicated, so your best bet is to blank it and list it at WP:CP (add {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}} at the head of the page, save, then follow the two easy steps on the resulting template). Ping me if you need help with that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and advice. Looking at it now, I see that the eminent Lfstevens (much obliged) has completely re-written the article in zero time and thereby eliminating the need for any tagging. I'll save your answer for the next time I run into something like this. Best, w.carter-Talk 23:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we have notability here, so I have opened an AfD discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry, at the moment I was only looking at the copyvio problem, hadn't got to the notability yet. w.carter-Talk 10:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC Bot Won't Quit

I signed up for the RFC bot because I thought it would be fun but quickly realized it wasn't for me. However it still keeps sending me messages every other day despite me removing my name from the list. How can I make it stop? Aparslet (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aparslet. I've added "{{bots|deny=Legobot}}" to your user talk page. This should take care of the issue. Maybe it's some type of cache issue for the bot (just a guess). It might be good to drop a note at User talk:Legobot mentioning the problem so the human overlord is made aware. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Aparslet (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

I need help from someone with interest in animation. There is an edit war between me and 82.38.157.176 at List of highest-grossing animated films and List of highest-grossing openings for animated films. The problem is The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water. I say it's a traditional animated movie with some live-action scenes and he/she says it's an animated/live-action hybrid movie. I tried to discuss the problem with him/her in topic Spongebob movies at talkpage of List of highest-grossing animated films but he/she just gave me useless links. I just want a healthy discussion, please help me. Paleocemoski 17:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page, Talk:The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water. Read the dispute resolution policy, which says to start with discussion on the article talk page. The dispute resolution policy then offers several forms to use if discussion does not resolve the issue. In this particular case, if discussion does not work and edit-warring continues, request semi-protection of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

How can I request semi-protection for the article? Paleocemoski 17:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You can request page protection at WP:RPP. Datbubblegumdoe^talk_contribs 17:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't request semi-protection pro-actively. Try discussion on the article talk page first. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I already posted a new section on the talkpage. Paleocemoski 18:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Paleocemoski, I think the most important question you need to ask yourself is "does it really matter?" Some things are truly important and worth debating in detail until consensus is reached; others are … well ... not really important, so that your time and energies could possibly be better spent on something else. The various avenues for seeking consensus when there's disagreement are all there for a good reason, but every one of them involves the expenditure of time and effort by other volunteer editors, who might also have more interesting things they'd like to do. So it's not just wise but also a courtesy to other editors to choose your battles carefully, and simply walk away from the ones that aren't worth fighting. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Paleocemoski, you have been given some excellent advice above and I would like to add to it. You admit above that you have been engaged in an edit war. Please be aware that edit warring is a blockable offense. There is no excuse for an edit war, and you should never, ever edit war. Multiple reversions are acceptable only when dealing with libel, overt copyright violations and the like. Trivial disagreements about listing or categorizing animated films are no justication for breaking the rule against edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right Cullen328, I am going to solve this without an endless edit war and thanks for reminding me the result of an edit war, you saved me from making a big mistake. Paleocemoski 19:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of overloading you with well-meaning advice, you should also bear in mind that it's not about editors' personal opinions on the matter. It's about what the sources say. If the sources differ, then the article could say so. It's not Wikipedia's place to choose a winner in that argument, nor to do the original research to decide the matter.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Written Article

Hello. I am very green at this. I hope I explain it properly. I added a narrative to the article "Seventh Avenue,Newark." I thought I saved it but it disappeared. When I go back to the article it is not there. Is It lost or being reviewed? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Earl Scott (talk • contribs) 16:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael Earl Scott
According to the history of Seventh Avenue, Newark it has not been edited since 14:17, 25 August 2015 - so it appears that you did not save your edit - many new editors click the "Show preview" button instead of the "Save page" button - so they see their edit and can check it is correct, but it has not been saved - Arjayay (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, your contribution history at Special:Contributions/Michael Earl Scott only includes one edit, which is the question you have posted here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying a confusing article

I think I need the help of somebody with a background in Indian culture. The article Kakade Group Of Institutes has me scratching my head, and the editor who wrote it is not responding. The article does not mention the Kakade Group Of Institutes at all, and instead it appears to be a biography - although it is not clear whose (not clear to me, anyway). Many of the words in the article are not meaningful to me, and it is not in good English - so much so that I can't even tell what is people's names and what isn't. Would anybody care to help?Gronk Oz (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The obvious solution is proposed deletion. But would it be a proposed deletion of a biography of a living person? It's hard to tell. The article's last sentence states that the person is dead. Maproom (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Theroadislong has already tagged it for CSD.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This was a blatant copyright violation and so I have deleted on that overriding basis.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Formatting around tables

Tables remain my bane on Wikipedia. I've found a couple of articles which contain tables that are breaking the formatting of the page, but can't figure out how to fix them myself.

First there's Pear, where the table in the Production section is protruding into the following section (Storage) which has flowed around it to the right rather than appearing below the Production section. I know I could "kludge" the situation by adding a bunch of line breaks, but that wouldn't be the optimal approach for readers using different browser configurations, screen resolutions etc. Is there some more elegant code that could be used to force the Storage section to stay below the Production section?

Next up is Edible mushroom where, curiously, the problem table (listing the chemical composition of different forms of Vitamin D) is superimposed over the references, and appears to the left of the image captioned "The photochemistry of Vitamin D biosynthesis" rather than below it. I don't even know where to begin with this one; I took a look at the wikimarkup and couldn't see anything that looked likely to be the culprit.

Thanks in advance to providers of table wizardry. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi GrammarFascist. I have used {{clear}} in Pear [5] and floatright from Help:Table#Floating table in Edible mushroom.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter! (And thanks for linking to the diffs so I could learn from what you did.) {{clear}} has done just the trick in Pear.

In Edible mushroom, the table in question is now positioned correctly at the right margin thanks to your edit. However, at least for me and my standard browser configuration, the text of the references was still going behind the table, although the table was no longer transparent. After some experimenting, I discovered the culprit (though I'm still not sure why it was causing the problem): something about using the 30em parameter in {{Reflist}} was apparently what was making the table superimpose over the references. Since the references were not displaying in two columns in any case (presumably because the tables and image from sections higher up were impinging on the References section), the only visible result is that the display problem has been fixed.

If anyone knows why the superimposition happened, that would be good to know for future reference. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 10:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: I made a slight tweak in Edible mushroom by inclosing all of the troublesome boxes and pics in a float code, since the refs were becoming entangled with the boxes and pics in a "finger joint" way on my browser. Hope it works on your's too. Code:

<div style="float:right;"> (whatever you need to keep to one side) </div>

Using that, it does not matter if you use the normal {{Reflist}} or {{Reflist|30em}} (In fact on my browser it does look ever neater with the 30em, but I have not included that again, try it and see what you think.) And to answer your question about the why of it all: If you don't define which space belongs to which text the different templates will compete for the space available with messy consequences. w.carter-Talk 11:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have superimposed references in Firefox in any of the versions. I haven't examined other browsers. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have them on Explorer either, but the interlocking "finger joining" between refs and boxes + pics was messy enough for me. w.carter-Talk 12:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks so much, Cart! Your fix is nice and elegant, as code should be. I think that the references look fine either with or without 30em after your edit, so if you feel strongly about it by all means put it back in; I'll take the HTML comment about it out (or you're welcome to). Since neither of you were seeing the superimposition I was, I took a couple of screenshots so you can see what I was talking about: File:Screenshot of superimposed table in past revisions of the Edible mushroom article.png I was only seeing the superimposition in Firefox 32.0.3, not in 40.0.3 (on my spouse's computer) or Internet Explorer 11.0.10, but I think if I was seeing it, probably at least some other users were as well, so it's better that we fixed the issue. Thanks again to you both, Cart and PrimeHunter! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

— Re screenshot: Gaahhh! O_o w.carter-Talk 14:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

People, whatever you've done there is not a success. What's that stripe of white down the centre-right of the lower part of the page for, with the "Vitamin D" section, the See-also and all the refs bunched into a narrow column on the left? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: I've added "width" to the float code to eliminate most of the white column. Is that better? w.carter-Talk 21:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

How do I communicate with my teahouse host?

My teahouse host welcomed me. How do I send a message back to him? Priceobserver (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Priceobserver and welcome to the Teahouse! You can send I_JethroBT a message by writing on his talk page: User_talk:I_JethroBT just like he did on yours. He's a great editor and I'm sure he'll be happy to talk to you about getting involved with Wikipedia. Here at the Teahouse itself all of us hosts share the helping duties, so if you post a question here it may be me, I_JethroBT, or any of the dozens of hosts who answers. Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

When I'm on his talk page, do I click on "new section?" Priceobserver (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Aksolotl/sandbox

Can another experienced editor please look at this and advise? It appears that it was last edited in February 2015, except that today it was submitted to Articles for Creation. My question has to do partly with the note: "Please don't delete any of this. I'm writnig a Wikipedia article as an academic assignment and this User Space contains my draft work." Should I delete that note and move the sandbox into draft space as a draft article and review the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Another editor declined it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

February to November is a long timeframe for an academic assignment. The "please don't delete" note was there in February. My guess would be that the editor returned to Wikipedia, saw their old assignment and thought they might as well submit it to AfC. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. If it had been in draft space rather than in a sandbox, it would have been speedied as an abandoned draft. There is no such rule about sandboxes, or about user space in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

References many different pages of the same website

I've been searching and I can't find an answer to what I think is a decently simple citation question. I saw that the article List of Soviet manned space missions has absolutely no references at all on the information in its tables, and that the pages it Wikilinked to didn't have much the information in those tables cited either. I found a website which contained information about most of the subjects of this list, but spread across many pages. Is it right to create an individual citation for each page, as I've done with the first six? Also, should each table's cell contain the in-text citation (Which I've seen in some tables) or just the 'Notes' cells (Which I've seen in other tables). Thank you. UnitTwo (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello UnitTwo, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you do need to cite each page individually, in order to ensure that the material can be easily verified. As for the placement of the citations, I'm not sure that there is a policy or consensus on how this should be done in tables. Others might correct me, but the way you've done it looks fine to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

What is a valid source?

I had made changes to the list on best selling singles, and one of the sources I used was a forum. On the forum however was a copied article from mediatraffic, a very reliable source, but the original article has since been removed. Is the forum still a valid source? Josepheugene418 (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Josepheugene418, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can read some general advice on what is considered a reliable source at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Forums aren't regarded as such as they contain user-generated content and are generally not subject to editorial control. It may be that the material on the forum was copied from a reliable source, but can we be sure that it was copied accurately? Have you tried using an internet archive service such as https://archive.org/ to see if you can gain access to the original source? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Josephenugene418: Hey Joseph. It's common enough for websites to suddenly become inaccessible. I agree with Cordless Larry here; when I run unto this problem, I try to pull up the original content from the website using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, which archives old versions of various websites. Although it might seem unlikely, a forum post may be inaccurate because it is not subject to any kind of editorial control or oversight. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Josepheugene418. I noticed that with this edit, you added another Wikipedia article as a source. You shouldn't do that, as Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source for material Wikipedia articles (you can imagine that chaos that would cause). If the material is sourced in the original article, then I suggest just using that source as a reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry Thank you for the cite. I am working on finding the exact address so that I can type it into the website you gave me.

Also thanks for the warning, i'm changing it right now. Josepheugene418 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

My personal page Fred Nwaozor, which I recently created, was deleted/declined by your editors. Please what actually prompted the deletion, and how can I maintain a reliable page on Wikipedia? Thanks. Fred Nwaozor (writer/activist)

My personal page Fred Nwaozor, which I recently created, was deleted/declined by your editors. Please what prompted the unexpected deletion,and how can I maintain a reliable page on Wikipedia? Thanks. Fred Nwaozor (writer/activist) Docfred84 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The messages on your user talk page contain numerous relevant wikilinks, and the deletion logs for Fred Doc Nwaozor and for Fred Nwaozor also have links. If you were trying to write an article about yourself, the reasons for not trying to do that are shown at WP:autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please also note, Docfred84, that there is no such thing as a "personal page" on Wikipedia, other than your user page. Articles are not owned by anyone, and any editor is free to edit them. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

See the messages on your talk page, User talk:Docfred84. Read the autobiography policy, which states that the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged, and the conflict of interest policy. You ask, "how can I maintain a reliable page on Wikipedia?" You are not entitled to maintain an article about yourself on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles are based on notability of the article subject. The second and third deletions of the article should not have been unexpected, since you had already been told what the problem was. You may maintain a user page giving some information about yourself provided that you do not use it as a substitute for an article and do not use it for promotional purposes, but the deletion messages indicate that the deleting administrators thought that your article was promotional. As you have been cautioned, any further attempts to insert an article may risk your account being blocked and the title salted, that is, blacklisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Actress

I am not aware of this actress's biography. Can anyone check the revision history. The Ip is making positive contribution in a way that he is getting reverted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lilyan_Tashman&action=history The Avengers 17:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I've checked the IP's edits. The IP edits that are being reverted appear to be vandalism. I will be requesting semi-protection of the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Chos3n

I reviewed, and moved to draft space, Draft:Chos3n, and declined it, as not meeting musical notability guidelines. I also noted that there appeared to be a conflict of interest because the subject of the article and the author of the article were the same. The draft has subsequently been resubmitted twice and declined twice. I received a message on my talk page from User: We are Chos3n, saying: Hi can you help we need a page up http://www.mtv.co.uk/taxonomy/term/4657

I don't entirely understand. Is the editor saying that they need help getting the draft page approved, or are they asking about an unrelated web site? I think that the answer as to getting the draft page approved is that, unfortunately, the group may not be notable, and in any case the group is discouraged from trying to get "their own" article approved. Can anyone else advise either me or them?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that the same user has subsequently created Chos3n (band) as well. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

So they have gotten tired of using AFC and have gone directly to article space. I have proposed the article for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The same editor has also created Nu Gospel, with the justification that this is how the band Chos3n describes their music. I will AfD that too.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Need to create an article for a new app my company is developing.

How do I go about doing this? Do I need additional permission of some sort? I'm not sure what the point of my personal page is and what I'm supposed to do with it. Can someone help me? I find the navigation and advice very long and confusing!Elfietan5 (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Elfietan5. You can create that but not on Wikipedia. Article topics need to be written about first, substantively, in reliable, secondary sources completely unconnected with the company in order for a Wikipedia article to be warranted, which would require both a demonstration of notability and that the information content was verifiable. Wikipedia is never properly the place to announce some new thing, not already written about elsewhere by the world, because of the type of reference an encyclopedia is. Very, very occasionally, some massive company's app in development might have received such attention from the world in order to sustain an article, but that would be very rare. You doing so, your "need" and desire to get word out about this app is also an entirely inappropriate use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion – something many people attempt to do in good faith and don't realize is a problem but nevertheless is the case. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, welcome to Wikipedia, Elfietan5; you are in the right place to ask questions about how to get started here – and yes, we know that unfortunately it can be confusing for newcomers. I hope you will soon find your way around and like it enough to want to stay.

Unfortunately your initial aim in coming here is a project very unlikely to succeed. Wikipedia is not for promotion of any kind, and any attempt to promote your app here is likely to be met with strong resistance. I'm sorry, but this just is not the place for you to do this. I won't give you a long list of long pages to read, with all the numerous reasons why this isn't going to work, as I think you've found enough to read already. However, please do be aware that you should not make any edit here that promotes TEFL Express or its products in any way. We have more than five million articles, and many of them need attention or expansion; perhaps you could make a start on one of those? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Elfietan5. In answer to your third question: your user page, if you choose to create it, is for anything you wish to share about you as a Wikipedia editor. A small amount of biographical information unrelated to Wikipedia is usually allowed, but not anything promotional, or anything that looks as if it is trying to be an article. Also, if you do decide to work on any articles about your company or its products (which you are discouraged from, but not forbidden), you should declare your conflict of interest on your user page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

talk page

what is a talk page and what's its importance I didn't understood

BOTFIGHTER BOTFIGHTER (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It's a place to discuss improvements to Wikipedia pages, see Help:Using talk pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, each registered user also has their own User Talk page for discussions with other editors. Yours is at User talk:BOTFIGHTER; I just left a short message there for you.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks BOTFIGHTER for your question; and David Biddulph, Gronk Oz for the answers. While I do have limited internet access right now, I do plan to include these answers into a new tip for the Tip of the day, and at the Tips library at the Tips for contributors on getting started section. Cheers! JoeHebda (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Finding articles by the date they were first created

All articles have their full history displayed under the "View history"-button and the time of creation can be found from there. There is also Special:AllPages on which the list of all existing articles can be found and there is a variety of lists about pages with some specific property. Is there some way to find or list all currently existing articles created on some specific date, say 4. May 2012, or a list of all articles by the time they were first created? TheSpecial:AllPages lists them in alphabetical order. Voltteri (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Voltteri I this can be done with a database dump. See here. How you would translate the ability to do this into action is less straightforward. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Special:NewPages goes back 30 days. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

What shall I do after delete discussion and the draft is to "keep"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hongchi_Xiao&redirect=no Shall I wait for the picture issue to be resolved or submit now? Is there anything else that I can do to improve the draft? jdxzhu 17:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdxzhu (talk • contribs)

Hello, Jdxzhu, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have looked over the draft and made some edits to it, in particular removing some unnecessary detail and some promotional-tone wording. I also corrected some of your reference formatting; you should be able to follow the examples I did to correct the rest of the references. (In particular watch out for switching the work = and title = fields, and note that references should follow directly after a word, punctuation or another reference without any spaces in between: example,<ref>{{citation}}</ref><ref>{{citation}}</ref> next word, not example, <ref>{{citation}}</ref> <ref>{{citation}}</ref> next word. On the other hand I may have gotten some of the Chinese authors' first and last names confused, so please check those. Also note that the language = field is required when the trans-title = field is used, and whichever specific Chinese language — e.g. Mandarin Chinese or Cantonese — is used in a source should be listed in the language = field; I wasn't sure which one was correct, so I just listed them as Chinese.) It looks to me like you've done well at including criticism of Xiao to balance the article. I think the draft will be ready to be re-submitted after just a little more cleanup. Feel free to return to the Teahouse if you require any further assistance. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jdxzhu: As the close of the deletion stated: "The result of the discussion was Keep. Note (mostly to user:Jdxzhu) that this means keep the draft. It bears no indication to whether it should be moved to article space, or not; nor to the draft not being eventually deleted later on"

What that means is that the current version is not so irredeemably promotional that it should be immediately deleted. It now proceeds under the normal process - you keep attempting to 1) demonstrate that there are third party sources that discuss the subject in depth and 2) that you can write the content in a non advertisorial manner that is neutral, detached and presents both positive and negative points of the subject. If you continue to submit without without making significant progress in addressing the concerns, you can expect fewer and fewer reviewers to waste their time even checking on it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your help. I will find time to work on the draft later. Your detailed instructions are greatly appreciated! jdxzhu 21:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdxzhu (talk • contribs)

@Jdxzhu: Are you by training or trade in the marketing business? Professional marketers in general have a terrible time writing for Wikipedia because our WP:NPOV policy is in contravention of everything they have learned to do for their job. One thing that you might consider is stepping away from that draft for a while and visiting some of the articles in Category:All articles with a promotional tone and seeing if you can spot and fix the problems. It may give you a new perspective for the draft you are writing and help convince people that you are here to improve the encyclopedia and not just pimp Hongchi_Xiao . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom for your suggestion and trust. I have no background knowledge in training or trade in the marketing business. If you don't mind giving me a link or two of the paragraph with promotional tone, I'd be happy to help editing. I do think that the draft is in pretty good shape now. It only needs a few cleaning ups like GrammarFascist has pointed out. I appreciate your idea and help. jdxzhu 02:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Jdxzhu (talk • contribs)

Reliable Sources

Hi all,

A few days ago GrammarFascist so nicely found some articles for me.

The Michigan Daily, which is a university paper but may be one of the few of those which counts as a reliable source; I encourage other Teahouse volunteers to share their opinions about that. The Michigan Daily - Nov 11, 1996 and The Michigan Daily - Nov 19, 1998 are the articles in question.

I'm not sure about this source, either: Virginia Medical Monthly – 1990 It's published by The Medical Society of Virginia, but I can't tell how much fact-checking or editorial control are in place.

I wanted to know if anybody else has thoughts on if they are reliable sources? And if so what other college Newspapers would be considered reliable? Major college newspapers?

Thank you all for your input! And thanks again GrammerFascist for finding these!

Aagreeny4 (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if you're getting two issues confused here, Aagreeny4. College newspapers are usually considered reliable sources for verifying facts, but they are not particular well regarded when it comes to establishing notability. I'm sure that these sources are perfectly reliable on the topics they are reporting, but whether they establish its notability is not so clear. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Would the two from the Michigan count for his notability because they state information about him and his work, in addition to others opinions about him? Or do the opinions not count toward notability? Aagreeny4 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, the article concerned is Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green, as discussed below. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Aagreeny4. In my opinion, the Michigan Daily sources are weak for establishing notability. In effect, they are fairly brief and formulaic descriptions in a student newspaper of a speaker appearing on campus. They do not offer extensive biographical details about the person, and in my opinion, they do not rise to the level of significant coverage. As for the Virginia Medical Monthly source, the snippet I can see is so brief that I can express no opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Having done some searching, I've found many mentions of Mike Green - mainly in events listings - but a lack of in-depth coverage. Has a newspaper or magazine ever published a detailed article about your father, Aagreeny4? That would definitely help in establishing notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The only newspapers would be college newspapers. There are some from a couple local newspapers in New Jersey. He does have notable mentions in the Chronicle of Higher Education and Scholastic coach which I have in my article. There are some other articles in "Athletic Management" but I am having trouble finding that source since it would be an older issue. I know he was also listed among the outstanding young men of America, and I am thing to find and article about that and his work, I think they either have a book or release that would describe his work. Aagreeny4 (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If you provide information about the local New Jersey newspaper articles, Aagreeny4 — newspaper name, article title, author if given, page number, and date published — we can evaluate whether those sources would help establish notability. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

These are the two I have Avedissian, Eric. “Cape May resident counsels students on dangers of drug and alcohol abuse”. Cape May Star and Wave. 13 March 1997. Print.

     Explains his background and his work. It describes his message and the job that he does, while listing a few schools he speaks to. States his sobriety and the message or content in his speech. Emphasizes how his approach to the message is different than others. Provides detail and some quotes from his speeches. 

Kelly, Shannon. “Wall parents get a look at “one nighters””. The Herald. 11 Dec. 1997. Print

      From Wall township in NJ, explains the speech his gave to the students at the local high school. States his work across the country, names his business and his background. Explains quotes and the message from the speech. Explains how he got into the business.  Tells how he travles the country with this message. 

I have a few others but I don't have complete source information.

     "Anyone given drink...Can cost you everything" by Ned Hartwick- but I don't know the papers name.
      "Drug farce eclipsed by SADD asembly" by Aidan Finley- I don't know if this in the name of the paper or just the section, the paper is only of the article about Greeny and doesn't have the whole paper but I can tell it says Opinion on the very top. and its from Haverford PA. 

I also have one from the Oklahoma Daily, but I don't know if that is a school paper or which it is.

Thank you for helping. Aagreeny4 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone advise Aagreeny4 on this? Cullen328? GrammarFascist? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cordless Larry, thanks for following up. I posted about the Michigan Daily question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard but haven't had any responses there yet. I also checked Google's newspaper archives for the additional articles Aagreeny4 listed above, but unfortunately they don't seem to be included there. I haven't used other newspaper archives (I believe they all require subscription, though I know at least some make memberships available to Wikipedia editors) but it's possible one or more of the articles I couldn't find is archived elsewhere online.

Note, Aagreeny4, that searches will fail if the title is not entered exactly as found on the article; I tried both "Anyone given drink...Can cost you everything" and "Any one given drink...Can cost you everything" in case you had mistranscribed that title, but still found nothing.

Thanks for digging up these sources, Aagreeny4. Technically sources aren't required to be online, but since there are questions about your father's notability (in the Wikipedia sense), other editors would prefer to see at least a couple of sources they can verify themselves. If consensus at the noticeboard is in favor of The Michigan Daily, of course, those articles would probably take care of notability on their own... except that sources from multiple publications would also be preferable, as having all evidence of notability cited to a single newspaper, even multiple articles from that paper, tends to be less convincing. DES, have you been able to get a copy of the Chronicle of Higher Education article yet? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GrammarFascist. I hadn't realised that you had already raised this at the RS noticeboard, but thanks for doing that. I have attempted to find these sources on Nexis, and managed to find one about Green that includes the quote "Any one given night, any one given drink can cost you everything". It's from a local newspaper called The Ledger and discusses a talk that he gave at Florida Southern College. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this would work or it is possible, but I have copies of the articles. If there is somewhere to upload them to I could put a link to them but I don't know where I could upload them to. Just and idea. Aagreeny4 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for searching for those articles! Aagreeny4 (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The articles are likely subject to copyright, so you wouldn't be able to upload them to Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, consensus at the noticeboard seems to be that The Michigan Daily can't be used to establish Mike Green's notability (the rationale given, which makes sense to me, is that college newspapers cover every campus speaker, so their coverage doesn't necessarily mean the subject is notable), so we are left with trying to verify mainstream newspaper coverage and scholastic coverage. Cordless Larry, I believe you can't link to sources found on LexisNexis, but perhaps you could put a comment on the draft's talk page summarizing the extent of the coverage (and perhaps also cite any information substantiated by that article in the draft?) to make it easier for other editors to AGF about that source? Similarly, if DES finds that the Chronicle of Higher Education goes towards notability, he could leave a comment to that effect on the draft's talk page.

That would still leave us one short, as three sources establishing notability is usually considered the minimum. I don't know where archives of past issues of Scholastic Coach would be found; probably at some university libraries, but I don't have access to any of those. (I did find this result at Google Books, but it only establishes that the article exists and mentions Green; the preview available doesn't make it possible to determine whether the coverage is substantial.) I also found this article in the Toledo Blade... while the Blade is indisputably a reliable source, I'm not sure this brief article would be considered more than a mere mention. It also has a writing style which implies it may have been an unedited press release. (This Reading Eagle article is definitely a mere mention.) I'm also still not sure it would be worth trying to pursue the Virginia Medical source, which seems to be a newsletter published by the Medical Society of Virginia; probably not a sufficiently-reliable source for establishing notability, though the preview Google provides does suggest coverage might be substantial.

@Robert McClenon and SwisterTwister: You're both admirably thorough in ensuring that drafts are really ready for article space before they're approved. Could you offer your opinion as AfC reviewers as to whether established editors with access to the Chronicle of Higher Education article and the article accessible via LexisNexis vouching for those sources on the draft's talk page would be sufficient for you to consider those sources to help establish Mike Green's notability? Your opinion on the usefulness of the sources in the above paragraph would also be appreciated. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The article in The Ledger is a write-up of a talk that Green gave at Florida Southern College in January 1999. It starts with some quotes from the talk, briefly describes Green's background and public speaking experience and then quotes the college president on why he invited him to give the talk. There are then some more quotes from the talk, followed by a few student reactions. All in all, a fairly standard local newspaper treatment of an event. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)