Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 701 - Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 701

Archive 695 Archive 699 Archive 700 Archive 701 Archive 702 Archive 703 Archive 705

Help With Rejected Article

Curious why was the living biography / article was declined?

I had references for each data point. However, I did not refer to the same article for multiple data points within the same reference because it seemed excessive. Perhaps that's where I went wrong, or maybe there were other reasons. Thank you. cismithjr44 (Chuck Smith (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC))

Hi,Cismithjr44 I see you have already asked this identical question at the Articles for Creation Help Desk, so it doesn't seem sensible to duplicate answers here. However two things: Please go back and specify at that help desk which rejected article you're actually referring to. They can't answer unless you tell them what you're talking about. And secondly, if it's the one in your sandbox at User:Cismithjr44/sandbox, it has no references, is chock full of irrelevant wikilinks and doesn't establish the notability of the person you're writing about. You might like to try reading Wikipedia:Your first article and then Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for guidance. Regards from the Teahouse, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hi, Chuck Smith. There are so many things it isn't even funny. First, I'd suggest you go read WP:My first article. That will most likely answer most of your questions. Altho you have cited (improperly, but more on that in a minute) your facts, the vast majority of the citations you used are not acceptable. You cannot cite social media, YouTube, or anything in your personal Google space like a document on your Google drive. Photos are not acceptable sources. All sources have to meet our standard of reliability. Also, verifiable facts are not the criteria for inclusion here. Notability is. Generally, notability is shown when there are multiple reliable sources, totally independent of the subject, that have discussed the subject in detail. However, there are some exceptions to the General notability guideline. One is WP:NCOLLATH, and the subject appears to meet that. So the good news is, your son can probably have an article. I'm a dad, and I'd be damn proud if my son had that kind of impressive accomplishments. The bad news is, pretty much, anyone but you should write it. One of our most important policies is WP:NPOV, which requires that our writings be neutral. Another is WP:V, which requires every single fact in an article to be verifiable to a reliable published source. I know I'd find it nearly impossible to write about my son neutrally, and to filter out everything I know from what I've found in sources. See WP:COI for more info. Last thing, every one of your citations was a violation of our external link guidelines WP:EL. I would guess that if you would have done them properly, you would have had a much better chance of your article being approved. Properly done, citations are footnoted automatically and appear in a nice neat list near the end of the article. I'll leave you detailed instructions on your talk page. You are not forbidden from going forward with the article, but you should be discouraged from doing so. If you think you can do it, go for it. Just keep COI in mind, fix the multiple issues with your references and I'd also suggest cutting some of the details on his high school career. Just hit the high points, like awards. School records are not really significant. Best of luck, proud dad. John from Idegon (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

One last thing. Your son's multiple college all-american listings make him most likely notable. The likely reason your article was declined was that, primarily due to the multiple sourcing issues, that very salient fact was buried deep under the junk cluttering the article. Pretty sure the same thing happened with the first response you received here. Get rid of the junk references, format the remaining ones properly, add more reliable sources and cut down the trivial stuff and you should be fine. John from Idegon (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

How to choose a correct template for flora expositions

I translated a page 2018 Taichung World Flora Exposition, but used the wrong template Template:Infobox World's Fair. Which one should I use? I have not found a better one.March happy (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello March happy. Welcome to the Teahouse, and I'm sorry you have had to wait so long for a reply. I suspect some of us (me anyway!) hoped other volunteers here with more experience in this area might respond to you first. So here goes my best shot at an answer for you: It looks like you had three options for event infoboxes when you wrote Draft:2018 Taichung World Flora Exposition. These would have been Template:Infobox World's Fair; Template:Infobox event and Template:Infobox recurring event. I've looked at all three and actually think you've chosen the best one. In fact, it seems to fit the bill perfectly. All I would suggest is that you delete the text in the "class = " field as, by default, the template inserts the words "Unrecognized exposition" for you, simply meaning this particular Expo or Fair is not recognised or operating under by the protocols of the Bureau International des Expositions.
It looks like you're planning to keep this in draft for some time (which I think is a good idea). We have an essay called TOOSOON which talks about the issues of publishing something when it has not yet happened, or is not seen by Wikipedians as notable enough by having being described in third-party, unrelated sources such as newspapers. It might be helpful to put your sole reference description in English - my ancient PC wouldn't display any of the fonts you used, though it doesn't matter that the source itself is in Chinese (though I note the website does have an English version). I do hope this helps and apologies again for the long wait for a reply. (I had not encountered the countdown clock before - so I've learnt something new here, too.) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Loop of redirects

A list contains many links to redirects to the same list. Is it acceptable? I believe that the links should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

While what what you describe sounds like it might be a problem, you have not given us a link to follow to see if it actually is a problem.
And welcome, Xx236, to the Teahouse. We try to be friendly and helpful, but we have only limited abilities as mindreaders. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (T) is an example, there are many parts of the list. Xx236 (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
My approach has always been to remove links to redirects that link back to the same page, Xx236. WP:SELFREDIRECT suggests avoiding creating these links in the first place, although of course many are not deliberately created, as is noted there. The only thing that gives me pause is that that sub-section is part of WP:NOTBROKEN, which is about links to redirects that do not need to be fixed - which I find a little confusing. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe that Redirects can indicate possible future articles is valid. I hope however that noone will create hundreds of pages about Nazis.Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
double-(edit conflict) Ow! My head is starting to hurt!
It looks like part of the problem here is that the {{sortname}} template used by that list page, a template which is now deprecated, has the property that it links by default to the name it's given (one of several properties the templat has that are not so conveniently handled by the suggested replacement). There are quite a number of entries on the list who do not have their own article, most are proper redlinks. But some of the entries are to names that once had an article but are now a redirect pointing to their respective part of this list. The footnote associated with that entry is all of the information that en-Wikipedia currently has about them. The decision to create these redirects is mentioned at this entry in the archives of the Military History project. The first one I looked at was the redirect for Karl Thieme. There was once an article for Thieme, but it was replaced with a redirect in March 2017. What was not done at the time the redirect was created was go back to the article Thieme was being redirected to and add the nolink=1 parameter to avoid creating this redirect loop. Notice that this problem may be true for some or all of the insufficiently notable entries that had their articles turned into redirects.
Fixing this is going to require some work. I did the Karl Thieme entry, just to be sure that the right thing happens, but I would not want to undertake a mass correction without consulting with the WikiProject Military History folks and K.e.coffman who were involved in doing the redirects. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 10:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Xx236: We'll create hundreds of pages on notable people if they are notable, if they aren't, we won't. On the specific subject in general: this is a mess that, as I understand it, is at its root a result of a change in consensus with regards to the KCotIC conferring notability and a consequent misunderstanding of that vis-a-vis GNG, hence the mass redirecting and there are ongoing debates flaring up at MILHIST with regards to the issue now and then. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

how doi post a content on wikipedia ?

i want to post an article on wikipedia to aware people about my stuff.

rather i have posted some content, and that was rejected due to some copyright issue. ihave the same content in my website. i want to keep it same, or i can do some kind of changes.

let me know, how i can do it. Thanks Ajit11:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Cavajit (talk)

You can't. Wikipedia is not here to provide free publicity. It is here to offer encyclopedic articles about notable topics. Maproom (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cavajit and welcome to the Teahouse. I wonder if you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is. It reports what independent third-party sources have written about topics. Its purposes do not include making people aware about anyone's stuff. Also, if your website has a copyright notice, then the content should not be copied here because we have no way of knowing who is the owner of the copyright. Can you find any independent reviews other than Glassdoor where Cavisson Systems have been written about in detail. You should summarise what these reviews say. Dbfirs 12:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for changing some articles

I think the point has been made. Let's not forget they came here to apologise. – Joe (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please forgive me I will not do this again.

I am a University English Writing Prof. Today I was teaching about plagiarism and how to evaluate websites for accountability

I changed a date and a proper noun to show my students how easy it is to do so. Also the negative effects it will have.

For what it is worth my students were so shocked and learned a very powerful lesson

Once again my apologies — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Yes, what you did was wrong. What lesson do you think your students learned? Were they shocked that your changes lasted between 1 and 30 minutes? That a person in a position of responsibility would willfully put bad information on Wikipedia? Somewhere in there, there's a lesson, I'm sure. Most of the time when people complain about the "anyone can edit" policy and how it makes Wikipedia "unreliable", it's because of incidents like this one. Unfortunately, that reporting seldom extends to noticing how rapidly bad information gets rejected. Wikipedia does not really hold itself out as a reliable source. It's a compendium of information already published and its advice is always, "here are the sources, you should check what they say before relying on this information." — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I echo what jmcgnh said. What you did was not an accurate representation of Wikipedia's accuracy at all, because (a) a very small subset of readers would deliberately introduce misinformation, (b) this misinformation would have been introduced on a small number of articles, (c) the misinformation usually gets fixed very quickly. Deliberately writing misinformation on Wikipedia to prove that it is unreliable is like littering in a usually very clean and well maintained area, complaining about the tiny amount of time the litter stays on the floor and how this proves the area is dirty and should never be trusted, while completely discounting the fact that the litter was cleaned minutes, even seconds later. In fact, the commonly cited study published in 2005 in Nature shows that Wikipedia is about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica (keep in mind that both the quality and scope of Wikipedia has improved significantly since then). Of course Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should never be cited as a source in any serious academic work, but that doesn't mean it could be a pretty accurate resource. For what its worth, if you had presented the other side of your debate to your students, they might have come to a very different conclusion. Perhaps it might even be good to show your students our responses - they show how anecdotal evidence do not necessarily reflect the truth of the matter, and how listening to only one side of a debate could seriously skew one's perception on an issue. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 05:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to give another perspective... Since you apologize, I am going to assume you see Wikipedia as somewhat positive. Vandalizing Wikipedia, as you have done, comes at a cost and provides a somewhat dubious lesson (as jmcgnh implies, if the edits lasted half an hour, the only lesson here is that "anyone can edit" = "idiots will edit", which only the dimmest student could not have deduced by themselves). A more valuable lesson is learnt by looking at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, listing a real list of really damaging false info that remained for a long time: the more obscure a Wikipedia article, the more care you must take cross-checking the references. I would add also that this lesson is valid for any kind of source - see e.g. Dewey defeats Truman for a famous newspaper example; Wikipedia takes a lot of flak because of "unreliability", but the real question is "compared to what", and while there are specialized sources with better reliability I am aware of no better general encyclopedia (even ignoring cost issues). TigraanClick here to contact me 10:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It looks like this person deliberately engaged in a breaching experiment to test the reaction of editors here. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that spawned the discussion now underway at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RFC for Wikipedia Is Not a Laboratory Version 2. People who use Wikipedia to prove a point by using its editors as unwitting test subjects have to know that the community will not tolerate it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Using primary source for documenting a software feature that was re-implemented across operating systems of increasing notability?


When documenting a software feature that has been re-implemented on a series of operating systems over decades is it alright to use primary sources to document the older implementations? I think that notability increased over time as the later operating systems with the feature were have been used by more people. Thanks Phedrence (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Phedrence Welcome to our Teahouse. My take on this is that nothing human-made ever starts out in life as 'notable'. Assuming you can meet our general notability guidelines, as explained in this essay on software notability, I'd say it is OK to refer to primary sources for early incarnations. But go easy - we're an encyclopaedia, not a catalogue of features. There are far too many computing articles around here with inordinately long and unnecessary lists of features and updates. To be frank, we're not interested in seeing all these. When in doubt, the subject's Talk Page is often the best place to discuss any worries/aspirations you may have for future editing. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

My article didn't get approved

Hi :) I'm new to Wiki but wanted to add an article but was rejected due to notability but I believe it is very notable hence why I wanted to publish the article first. Can someone help me please.

Thank you so much I'm lost. Marteey (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marteey. You need to demonstrate notability by citing significant coverage of the company in independent, reliable sources. Your draft only cites two sources—neither of which are independent or reliable—so it is a long way from doing that. Not every company is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. – Joe (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

User prefers no image on his wikipedia page

I left a message on the user's talk page after he reverted my edit. He confirmed via email that LHK is indeed Lodge Kerrigan and that he "prefers not to post an image"

What is the policy around these kind of requests? sikander (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Siqbal: Per WP:OWN, nobody has any right of ownership or editorial control over an article, not even the subject of the article. He can discuss with other editors to find WP:CONSENSUS about an image, but he cannot insist that the page remain at a version that he prefers. Per WP:AUTOPROB, he can follow the dispute resolution process by first engaging other editors on the talk page. If he's still not satisfied, then WP:BLPN would be the next logical step. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Siqbal, him sending you an email in no way is satisfactory for Wikipedia to accept that he is actually who he says he is. See WP:ORTS if you wish to let him know how to do it properly. Also, he would need to know about WP:COI. John from Idegon (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's target audience

I thought the target audience for Wikipedia was anyone who could use a search engine. I have run into an editor that thinks a specific article should use data in metric units because that is the "industry standard" for the discipline that article is in. The article is about a specific rocket engine which is an "aerospace" topic.User-duck (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC) What is the "target audience"?User-duck (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The relevant policy is stated here. Metric units should be used. Maproom (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Maproom Metric units are the primary unit. And the reference resolves some of my ton vs. tonne questions.
But my question was not answered: "What is the "target audience"?User-duck (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
My own opinion only: anyone in the world who can read English. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
To which I would add, the vast majority of whom use the metric system. However, articles that obviously apply primarily to the United States will still state units of measure with English measurements primary. In most cases tho, a conversion template should be applied to all measurements so both types show. John from Idegon (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

minimum standard for inline citations.

Hi Teahouse,

I need to make sure my article has the minimum standard for inline citations. Would someone be able to show or share an example with me so I'll be able to action? Appreciate any help sent my way

Cheers, JPimbo

JPimbo (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi JPimbo. The minimum standard for inline citations is that any statement that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" is directly supported by an inline citations. However, Wikipedians' expectations for referencing have become stricter over time and there is now no reason why anyone should be contributing new content that is not directly supported by a reference. Looking at your draft, Draft:Michael Spencer Jones, the problem is obvious: you have no inline citations at all. There is a list of references at the end, but it is hard for readers to verify which statement comes from which reference. As it is a short article it should not be too hard for you to add inline citations to each statement, and that will greatly increase the chance your draft will be accepted. If you don't know how, see referencing for beginners. Lesley J. Gordon would be an example of a biography about the same length of yours that is referenced in this way. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, JPimbo! Welcome to Teahouse. I'd add to the above that, especially with biographies, although you don't have to cite every single statement, everything in the article must come from reliable sources. Everything. Nothing you know, have observed or deduced, or have been told can be included. It all has to come from reliable published sources. John from Idegon (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Formatting References

I have written the article I have read Referencing for beginners, but I realised the problem is with formatting references properly, but it is beyond me - I am too old and have a hard time figuring it out. Would anyone else please format it as it should be. Thank you Alexsokolov (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Alexsokolov welcome to our teahouse. As one old guy to another - you have my sympathy! I think I'd been editing for over 6 months here before I realised I didn't have to add references by hand. It doesn't matter which of the two editing tools you use here, because both have a drop down window labelled "Cite" where you simply add the relevant details of your reference wherever you have placed your cursor (i.e. the end of the sentence containing the fact you want to support.) I choose to use use the editing tool which shows you all the codes and symbols (wikimarkup), and once I hit the "Cite" button, the line beneath it changes to offer a drop down box labelled "template". From that, I simply select the most appropriate template to insert a reference from either a book, website, or a scientific journal. You then get offered a range of fields into which you add author, publisher, date, ISBN number etc. You even get to a chance to preview it before inserting into the page.
Shown above is a shot of the other editor (called Visual Editor), and you can clearly see the "cite" button. Clicking that will get you a pop-up window where you can choose to manually add the date for author, title, publisher etc. But, wonderfully, if you have an ISBN number of a book, or a url of a website, you can simply paste that in at the "automatic" tab and the tool will do its best to add the reference for you. I'll pop over to your sandbox draft and add an example reference for you, too. (I should add that I am finding it hard to immediately appreciate how Armalinsky meets our notability guidelines. Basing the article on sources that write about him and his work (whether banned or not) is more useful than a long list of works he's published. (For details, see WP:GNG and WP:NBIO), and you could focus on this a bit more, too, before submitting it. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello Alexsokolov and welcome to the Teahouse.
I took a stab earlier at making your sandbox look a little more like a Wikipedia article, but you've definitely done the references in a way that will take a while to fix. I've been known to occasionally provide this service, but I'm not making any promises. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, Alexsokolov. Well that was interesting research! . . . there's clearly a very interesting article to be drawn out about Armalinsky. I can see you may have trouble sourcing some Russian references which were obviously apoplectic about his writings (you are allowed to include non-English ones, too). I've taken the liberty of not only adding an example references but, as a result of its content, a worthwhile additional sentence to the lead of your sandbox article, as follows: He caused scandal and outrage within Russian literary circles, following publication in 1986 of a pornographically-toned diary, ostensibly by Alexander Pushkin. This led to him being described as "The Pushkin pornographer" I'd suggest you cut out the trivial publications, just leaving in the main ones. His notability will rest on the evidence of outrage his publications have caused in Russian circles, not how many works he has published. This should be the main focus of the article, in my opinion. BTW: The two pages of Gregg's review of his Pushkin book can be found online here and here. Your edit history shows you to be a very new user, so it's not surprising you are struggling a bit here. We always advise new editors to learn in stages by making small improvements to other articles first. Then read: Wikipedia:Your first article Regards, Nick Moyes (talk)

Thank you Nick so much for your care and needed editing. Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsokolov (talkcontribs) 15:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Hi Nick, Please review my editing - no red flags. I have submitted the article for approval. Are u the one who will do it? How much time the approval process takes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsokolov (talkcontribs) 19:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

edits - undo

i want to add to an article but other editors come in and undo and not talk on page of the article. on there link. In reading this page there is to many in fighting going. (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello 50... and welcome to the teahouse. The previous edits from this IP were on October 17, 2017. Could you please give some examples of the edits in question. MarnetteD|Talk 21:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Issue with references/notability

Hello! Very new to Wiki and I recently submitted an article for an actor, Kevin Duda, but upon submitting the article for review, it was declined because the "references do not adequately show the subject's notability." Here is the draft page -

I'm not too sure how to fix this page, any thoughts on how I should go about getting it approved? Thanks!!!

- Sam

Scornbrooks (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Scornbrooks, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to help us improve Wikipedia. You can see what the problem is by reviewing WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. What we need is two or three places where people unconnected with Duda have chosen to write in depth about him, and been published in reliable places. I haven't looked at all your references, but not one of them looks to me like an example of that: they are all not-independent (Wikipedia basically doesn't care what Duda says about himself or what his friends or associates say about him), not-reliable (for most purposes IMDB is not regarded as reliable because much of it is contributed by anonymous people), or do not say anything substantial about him. What you need to find is some articles or reviews that have at least a few paragraphs about Duda (not just about things he has been in), and published in reliable places like major newspapers or books from reputable publishers. If you can find some, then forget everything you know, and write an article based on what those sources say. If you can't, give up, because he is currently not notable. --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I am having two formatting problems at Embudo, New Mexico

1. I would like to make the pictures in the gallery larger and 2. I would like to move the Table of Contents and the Gallery up into the large blank space next to the map of New Mexico. Can you help me, how can this be done? Feel free to just do it if that is easier. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Carptrash. You need to remove the {{-}} from the bottom of the lead section. It's a template specifically for forcing the subsequent text to "clear" any floating boxes (e.g. an info box), so I'm puzzled as to why someone put it there in the first place. – Joe (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, that did the trick. Now how can I make the gallery images larger so that they also fill up blank space? Carptrash (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Carptrash. In almost all cases, it is best to display images in the default size, and that is especially true for image galleries. How images display is highly dependent on the device that the reader uses. For example, I am using an Android smart phone to look at that article. When my phone is held vertically in portrait mode, there is a lot of white space and the images display on two lines. When I rotate my phone 90 degrees to horizontal landscape mode, there is far less white space, and the images display on a single line. You might be able to optimize the display on your device, at the cost of degrading the display on other devices. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Shorcuts for WikiProject pages and templates?

I work on WP:WikiProject Cannabis and currently you have to type out fully {{WikiProject Cannabis}} to get the template onto an article's Talk page. I've seen some other WikiProjects have shorter codes; what would I have to do to make "WP420" produce the same talk page template, and to have WP:WP420 direct to WikiProject Cannabis (just a Redirect or something more)? And what template would I put on WPCannabis to show that it has a shortcut term? Thanks for any advice on how to make typing the Project a shorter blurb. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Advice on shortcuts is at WP:Shortcut. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to write a page about Liz Hannah, the screenwriter for the Post.

My reviewer told me I need at least three high-quality sources to establish notability. Would interviews be considered those? DrChicken24 (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)DrChicken24

Hi DrChicken24. Welcome to the Teahouse. I left a note on your talk page to say I'd replied. Others may follow up, too. I think you should certainly include interviews, especially if the interviewing body or journalist is itself a respectable news/media body. Ignore anything self-made or amateurish. (I see there are some extra links on the German and Dutch versions of the page about Hannah you might wish to check out. However, our guidelines on meeting the notability threshold for people do require independent secondary sources who have written/spoken about that subject, not words from the subject themselves. You might like to read this short essay on the subject of interviews, too.
As an example of the problem of interviews, many years ago I was invited to do an hour-long Desert Island Discs-style interview on a radio station. Even if I were notable enough to have an article here (and I'm not!), that interview was all in my own words. It was me about me. I could have bigged myself up in it and told lies about myself to make me look important. It would be wrong for someone to use that interview to write Wikipedia content about me as none of it was independent of the subject. None of the bad stuff that I might have wanted hidden away would have come out either, of course. It might, however, have served as very good supporting evidence to prove what my musical tastes were at the time. Hope this helps, and good luck developing your article. Do remember that every statement about a living person must be supported by a citation, or it could be immediately removed. See this helpful policy for more information on that: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, DrChicken24. I was easily able to find this article in the Hollywood Reporter and I suspect that you can find several more if you do some careful searching. The film she wrote is getting a lot of media attention now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

FredericK William Burton (Move to Frederic William Burton)

Hi! I am a spanish contributor. We have detected that the correct name of the artist Frederick William Burton is without the K Frederic William Burton. It's predominant and it's the official name in National Gallery Web. You can see it here.[1] There is now a redirection, and I don't have so much time. Please ¿someone could move the article?, and we will can link to spanish version. The error is propagated to all versions (french, netherlands). Thanks.--Maximo88 (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I've moved at commons and some of the foreign pages. It wouldn't let me move the one in the Italian Wikipedia, but I hope I've made a move request. I've also added the Spanish version to Wikidata. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Maximo88. It appears that the error goes back at least to the 1911 edition of the Encyclopædia Brittanica, now in the public domain. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Image deleted

Why would this image have been deleted? There seems to easy way to contest it either. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted. You caught it in the middle of being reduced in size. The image was shrunk to be compliant with WP:NFCC, and in doing so, an old non-compliant version was deleted. The image itself is still there, and is still being used in the article in question. It was just modified a bit, and the old version removed from the history. --Jayron32 06:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Seems to me that the original description was perfectly clear and that whatever else was being done to it was simply make-work. The message left by whoever did this felt really insulting, and we need fewer insults in Wikipedia. At least the canned message could have demonstrated some appreciation for the work that had been done by the person who submitted it (me). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is particularly sensitive about the use of copyright images, and allows only low-resolution WP:Fair use versions where no copyright-free alternative is available. No insult was intended, just compliance with copyright restrictions. Dbfirs 08:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


If an article language is English can links in different language be suitable for verification reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apetrov09703 (talkcontribs) 07:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Apetrov09703: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources do not need to be in English as long as they are independent reliable sources and are verifiable. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Did You Know response for Egg Allergy

On December 5th my first-ever Did You Know was on the main page for Egg allergy, an article I had raised to GA status. What I found puzzling was that rather than the one-day spike in views seen for other DYKs, mine has had echos: background rate around 150/day, 3,761 on 12/5, 2,476 on 12/7 and 2,480 on 12/13. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting your first WP:DYK on the main page, David notMD. I remember my first DYK being more complicated than actually creating my first article!. Initially, I assumed that your spike would be related to a popular topic coming to attention in the media for some reason (TV documentary etc). But we would expect to see spikes in interest before your DYK appeared, too, and in related topics - and that's not the case as you can see on this chart showing hits to Egg allergy, Egg and Allergy. I then realised the three traffic spikes are actually very close together (hadn't read your post properly), so I'm sure they relate to the article's first appearance on Wikipedia, then one or two other websites linking to a few days later out of interest. It is a topic of general interest, unlike many others that appear on Did You Know. Unfortunately referral data on individual pages is not available to us, though it would be immensely useful if we could have it. I do have a question about that page, though: Isn't the image of the fried egg on Commons shown upside down (image rotation, not egg rotation!). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
In answer to the question, the egg image was there when I first started amending the article, as were other images on the articles for other common food allergies (milk...). I have a second DYK pending - approved, not yet in Prep or Queue - for Vitamin C raised to GA, and have recently nominated Milk allergy for GA consideration, so will see if either of those demonstrate echos. David notMD (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but can you see what I'm suggesting, or is it my eyes? Anyway, after a search of the DYK Archives, looking for topics that some people might find inteesting, I did find one similarly unusual peak in visitor numbers on this List of songs recorded by Steps. Must have looked at 40 or more 'normal' charts to find this one, though. (I must get a life!) Nick Moyes (talk)
Eggs can be "over easy," but that is not the same as an upside down image. An Upside-down cake is exactly that, but rotating the image 180 degrees would not make it an upside up cake. David notMD (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose international airport

Since Kolkata is a Bengali city, it's name in Bengali language should also be displayed just like Chhatrapati Shivaji international airport. I request you to show the real native name. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:2086:36F1:0:0:2472:B0A4 (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done Done, IP user. Please check I've got it right, as I don't speak Bengali. (In future, the article's talk page Talk:Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport would be a more appropriate place to ask. --ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

references appear in two places

Hi, I am working on my first Wikipedia and have truly enjoyed the process. If someone can kindly look at the page, in "Read" mode, 3 references (1,2,3) appear in the "Education" section and the rest are in the Reference section at the bottom where I want them to be. When I click on "Edit", they appear at the bottom as the 1,2,3. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong? The sandbox page is: Thank you for your consideration Barryraphael (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Barryraphael, I have fixed the problem by removing a <references /> tag from the "Education" section. Maproom (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Maproom! Greatly appreciated! Barryraphael (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't IMDb a reliable source

Just wondering, I haven't made any references for IMBd. DrChicken24 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)DrChicken24

Hello DCV24 and welcome to the teahouse. The reason is that it is WP:USERGENERATED. Please see WP:RS/IMDB. MarnetteD|Talk 21:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@DrChicken24: A Wiki editor once asked me to look into a puzzling set of IMDb entries. There were three of them, none obviously related to each other or to the guy that editor wanted to ID.
It took me the best part of an hour of multilingual searching (and I can't read any variety of Chinese) to convince myself that two of those three IMDb entries were about the same person, and that I could tie that editor's query to one of them. It could have been someone else with the same name.
& that is why I think IMDb is not WP:RS. Not only is it usergenerated, it's full of mistakes. Narky Blert (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this post Narky Blert. Getting them to fix those mistakes can be like like pulling teeth. I spent 4 years trying to get them ti fix an error in an actor's credits. It is still wrong to this day. Unlike WikiP you can't even contact someone to get an explanation of why they wont fix things. MarnetteD|Talk 03:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
For years, I have monitored a Wikipedia article about a con man who is now in prison. This person had some trivial acting roles many years ago. He has consistently manipulated his own IMDb page to falsely portray himself as a significant Hollywood figure as part of his campaign to convince actual Hollywood stars to support his efforts to get paroled. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Cities with most skyscrapers

Do you really think a city like Mumbai only has 37 skyscrapers. I don't believe in the list of skyscraper centre. That site shows imperial 3 proposed height is only 355m while it is actually 400m. And in fact buildings like world one have already been constructed more than 400m but it is not included in the list. Even your Wikipedia's list of tallest buildings in Mumbai contains 116 skyscrapers, Navi Mumbai shows 4 skyscrapers, excluding world one. That's why I calculated it was 120 skyscrapers plus world one plus at least one another skyscraper under construction because Mumbai is most developing city in the world. And this results Mumbai to be on 6th position. Kindly update your list. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:2086:36F1:0:0:2472:B0A4 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi anonymous IP. Thanks for your comments, though they are most effective if you make them on the Talk Page of the article you are concerned about, and not here. It sounds like you know a lot about the subject and have an interest in seeing that topic covered well. So, that's great. This is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit (providing their improvements make sense and refer back to reliable sources), so do feel free to improve that page yourself. We're all volunteers here, and your additonal help can only make this place better and more accurate. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Article of Creation Help

Thank you for sending me a message. I could use some help editing my Article. I am a beginner. I need to submit it with an appropriate format. Are you able to help me or point me in the right direction? Thank you! Happy Holidays!Alexismeshi (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Alexismeshi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I have three comments. First, it's difficult for anyone to know how to help you with your article when you haven't told us where it is or what it's about. Second, if you're a beginner, it may be a mistake aiming to create an article when you have little experience of the many challenges that will involve; there are much easier tasks you could choose. Third, the biggest difficulty with creating an article is not likely to be the formatting, but finding and citing the references neede to establish that the subject is notable (click on that blue word to find what it means here). Maproom (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Alexismeshi: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may wish to read Your First Article to learn what is being looked for. I would gently caution you that successfully creating a Wikipedia article is one of the hardest things to do here. It is good that you are seeking assistance in doing so. You should probably visit Articles for Creation where you can submit a draft for review by other editors before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia; this will let you get feedback and work out any issues there may be. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Submit draft for review (from Sandbox)

I just clicked on "Submit draft for review" for the first Wikipedia page I have submitted. A dialog box came up. I scrolled to the bottom of the page, and when I scrolled back to the top, the dialog box disappeared. The "submit draft for review" link is still on my Sandbox page. Should I click on it again or just trust that I submitted it by clicking on it the first time? Thank you for your consideration! Barryraphael (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Barryraphael. Something must have gone wrong when you tried to submit the draft for review, because it has not been submitted. I suggest trying again. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Although before you do submit it, I would suggest making sure that everything in the article is supported by references. The education section in particular seems to be lacking them. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you help me learn how to edit a wiki page?

My submission was declined and I received a message saying Teahouse provided assistance to unexperienced editors like myself Sunshine233 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sunshine233: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking over your submission, it was declined because it does not have any independent reliable sources that indicate how the subject is notable as Wikipedia defines it. It has no sources at all, actually. All content on Wikipedia must be supported with independent sources, that is, sources not written by or associated with the subject. These independent sources must have in depth coverage of the subject and not be just a brief mention. Please read about reliable sources at WP:RS and notability at WP:N. You may also find it helpful to read Your First Article which will help you learn what is being looked for.
Lastly, you may also find it helpful to, before continuing to edit your draft, to take some time and edit existing articles that interest you to learn the ropes of Wikipedia editing. Successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do here; it helps to have a little experience under your belt before attempting it. Just a thought. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Sunshine233 and welcome to the Teahouse. As I expect you realise now, you must not copy text from a copyright website. You may summarise it in your own words. You might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners, and you need to find independent WP:Reliable sources where the subject has been written about in detail. An organisation's own website is not independent, though it may be used for certain basic facts. Dbfirs 22:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


Is there a top-level guideline as to how to format DEFAULTSORT sortkeys? If there is, I haven't found it.

I know that e.g. apostrophes, internal capitals, and diacritics should be removed; for reasons which make perfect sense.

I have recently come across stuff like (imagined example) "History of the World" (titlecase, horrible, but I can live with it, just); with the sortkey "History Of The World"; when IMAO it should be "History of the world", to help our readers find things. If there is no guideline, well IMO there damwel should be one. Where would be a good place to open a discussion? Narky Blert (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Narky Blert. Category sorting has improved a lot. It has become case insensitive and ignores diacritics. Most of our old DEFAULTSORT are no longer needed, apart from sorting people by surname. says:
'wgCategoryCollation' => [
	'enwiki' => 'uca-default-u-kn', // T136150
This refers to mw:Manual:$wgCategoryCollation and phab:T136150. Apostrophes are not ignored, and WP:SORTKEY says: "Hyphens, apostrophes and periods/full stops are the only punctuation marks that should be kept in sort values. The only exception is the apostrophe in names beginning with O', which should be removed. For example, Eugene O'Neill is sorted {{DEFAULTSORT:Oneill, Eugene}}. All other punctuation marks should be removed."
See also WP:NAMESORT for people. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)nsmr
@PrimeHunter: TY. I routinely add sortkeys to such things as O'Neill -> Oneill, and to "Surname, Given name", and to article titles with diacritics (you never know, and it can't hurt; there are rare diacritics such as the Hungarian double acute accent, and there's a whole pile of things in e.g. the Vietnamese alphabet). My concern was only with mixed use of initial capitals in article titles without diacritics. If the category sort is case-insensitive, there is no problem. (Except when an editor has added a sortkey which bears no relation to the title of the article, and you have to puzzle out what to do about it. grrr.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Which druft?

Hi! I want to ask a question:which druft has been declined for the most times?

Omega68537(talk)Omega68537 13:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Omega68537, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think we keep statistics of that. At any rate, drafts that are certain to never become articles are outright deleted instead of declined over and over again. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on a template

Hello I posted at Template_talk:Infobox_language#UNESCO_status, and I would appreciate it if someone would make the requested change to that template. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit Removal

I made an edit to a page. The original material wasn’t very good and after seeing the film and looking at Plot on Wikipedia I decided to add my own plot summary. I’ve just looked at the page again and my edit has been replaced by some kind of bot which seems to have replaced my edit with the previous information. How does Wikipedia determine the best edit of information? Could a situation arise where (A) makes an edit then (B) disapproves and edits (A)’s work, which then leads to (A) editing (B)’s work and so on ad infinitum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauferal (talkcontribs) 21:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Beauferal - welcome to our Teahouse. The plot details that you made to Mommy (2014 film) was not undone by a bot - that was a subsequent, minor edit. Another more human user, Ribbet32, reverted your edit, leaving a brief edit summary suggesting that he/she thought the plot expansion was not appropriate. I can't tell you why - but often enthusiasts for a film or book can tend to over-expand a page with plot summaries that are unnecessarily detailed, or poorly-written. (I should say that you did not breach our guidelines on plot length, which says "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." It started at 285 words, and you brought it to 608 words. I also think that, given a few small puctuation tweaks, both plot summary versions seemed quite acceptable, though neither made me we want to go and watch the film!)
Regarding the scenario of two editors reverting each other again and again - now, that can get one or both into real trouble. We call it edit-warring, and swiftly re-reverting an edit can result in them being blocked. If you read the edit warring link, you'll see we have a strict policy on this, called the three-revert rule. So what to do? If you disagree with an edit or a revert, the best thing to do is discuss it on that editor's talk page, politely seeking an explanation and simply explaining what improvements you'd like to make. Remember that you both want the same outcome: an improved article of interest to readers that's factually correct and not laced with opinions. Storming in saying, "what the ****hell did you do that for?" is the wrong way for anyone to going about gaining agreement. So, if editors do have concerns, we ask and expect them to discuss and reach some form of consensus. Of course, you can seek consensus on the article's talk page if you prefer, which lets other editors express their opinions, too. There's also nothing wrong in putting your proposed text on the article's talk page and seeking consensus from editors before posting it. I hope this helps to make things clear. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @Nick Moyes: for your analysis. I didn't realize the plot was that under the 400-word mark. I was getting used to guarding against major plot expansions from clowns who wanted paragraphs about one minute of the ending, including how abrupt it was, but that we see the hallway and Born to Die is playing. @Beauferal: your edit has been reincorporated, but please keep in mind WP:PLOTSUM and WP:NOR. Analysis and interpretation without references ("his internal unexpressed passions", "more interested in familiar happy party orientated music") Ribbet32 (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, thanks you to both of you, Ribbet32 and Beauferal. It sounds like you're arriving at a good balance of contributions. Nick Moyes (talk)

Thank you both for your explanations and advice. Very helpful and I’ll do some reading before editing anything else. Merry Christmas!

Beauferal (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Beauferal. Just to let you know that I have reverted this addition you made to Lovely, Still, because it appeared to be your own personal opinion on the film, rather than part of a summary of the plot. Please see WP:NPOV for some guidance on this broad topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

About perfecting my article RaZoRWrAiTh

How can my amazing article "RaZoRWrAiTh make it permanently to Wikipedia?Of how great it is and how much faith I have in it( And I know personally it's that godly and people would love to read and learn about it in full force!)It's a story and name to be remembered forever!

RaZoRWrAiTh (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@RaZoRWrAiTh: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have a few comments. Please note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged per policy at WP:AUTO, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. Your language above and in the article is favorable and promotional. Wikipedia is not social media for you to promote yourself or to advance your music career. I would also note that if "Currently he's seeking to land a major label record deal" is accurate, it is likely too soon for an article about you here.
The draft does not indicate with independent reliable sources(sources not associated with you in any way) how you meet the notability guidelines for musicians described at WP:BAND. Please review them to see if you meet at least one of them. If you do not, it will not be possible for their to be an article about you here at this time. If you do meet at least one of them, it is strongly advised that you allow others to write about you. The only way your draft would be accepted is if you forget everything you know about yourself and write the draft based only on what independent reliable sources write about you, without using promotional language. This is usually difficult for most people to do about themselves. I am sorry if this information disappoints you, but your draft is not acceptable in its current form and I think it is unlikely it can be made so from what I see now. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand Q......Q......

RaZoRWrAiTh (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Pa'O people

This article seems to have been vandalized.

  • Years ago, the infobox |group= field:
    • ပအိုဝ့်လူမျိုး google translates (GT) to "Pa-O people"
  • The current version:
    • Pa'O people(ပအိုဝ်ႏစွိုးခွိုꩻ) GT to "Pa"
    • Burmese: ပအိုဝ်းလူမျိုး GT to "အိုဝ်ႏ စွိုး polluted ꩻ"

"polluted"? something does not seem correct. I don't know enough to correct this, if so needed. Is there someone who can validate/fix this or get the attention of someone who can? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about this either, Jim1138. But I would caution against relying on Google Translate. Particularly for isolated phrases, it can turn up completely, ludicrously, wrong answers, because it works on statistical analysis instead of (or as well as) dictionary lookup. This (from LanguageLog) is a particularly ludicrous example. I have no idea if it has happened here, but if for example there is an online hate campaign against the Pa'O, it's perfectly possible that GT could have logged the translation of a phrase with their name as something vile. --ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This: ပအိုဝ်းလူမျိုး is exactly the title of the corresponding article in Burmese Wikipedia: my:ပအိုဝ်းလူမျိုး, so I suppose it's correct, whatever GT may say about it... --CiaPan (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
    Oh, forgot to ping: Jim1138. --CiaPan (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
    Must have mismatched something... --CiaPan (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)