Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 649

[1]Rearm21 (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rearm21, welcome to the Teahouse. You can use Template:Cite web and see the documentation there. Your example parameters would be ^[2] (view source to see the code). See more at Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys! I am really perplexed about something. I submitted a page for review and came out as not accepted. I did my research and read wikipedia's rules, reviewed the changes an editor suggested and I thought I was in the right path. The reason I got was lack of notability and the suggestion was: "What would've best convinced is museum collections or at least major reviews". My article is about Ken Light, he is a photojournalist and among other references I used The New York Times or the SFMOMA. I don't understand what notability is if those don't count as relevant sources. Sorry about showing my frustration but I really spent a lot of time doing research and making sure I was respecting Wikipedia's rules.

I thank you in advance for any suggestions.

Best, Saravazq (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Saravazq. From what I can see, the NYT article wasn't completely about him but about his work; however, you have enough other sources that are clearly about him that I'd be inclined to think he's notable. One problem I saw in the draft was that your refs are below external links instead of above them, but that's an easy fix. You can try again and might ask WP:WikiProject Arts or WP:WikiProject Photography if they have any suggestions. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Saravazq -- Less is more, especially for a new article. I think Ken Light is notable. Instead of lists of books and shows, you want to say about him:

• He's good enough that Berkeley made him a full professor in an endowed chair
• Huffington Post says he the greatest since Bourke-White
• He won the Pulitzer in photojournalism, or something

If people want the list of books, they go to Amazon. If the want the list of shows, they go to his website. WP tells about him, the stuff he might not say about himself. Just my two cents. Rhadow (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow White Arabian Filly :Thank you so much guys for your feedback! I changed the order of the External Links, added collection museums, a quote from an art critic that talks about his work, specified a little more about his work at Berkeley and mentioned that he received 2 National Endowment for the Arts. I am going to resubmit it now and see what you guys think. Thank you again.

Best, Saravazq (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The National Endowment for the Arts is an organisation, Saravazq, so it doesn't make sense to state that Ken Light received two of them. Do you mean two National Endowment for the Arts fellowships? If so, the source cited doesn't mention that he received two. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Yes, I meant the fellowship, sorry. The source cited mentions that he received fellowships but doesn't say how many. I should have used this source: https://www.lensculture.com/ken-light. I resubmitted it already, I guess it is too late to change it now?

I didn't receive a notification of your ping, Saravazq, because you did not sign the above post. To answer your question, you can continue to edit the draft while it is in the review queue. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, Cannot delete the text with the size of the picture on top of an illustration Any clue ? Ilona1203 (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)ilona1203

Hi Ilona1203. This is a help page for the English Wikipedia. After examining the wikis you have edited at Special:CentralAuth/Ilona1203, I guess your question is about the French Wikipedia. Please say which page a question is about in the future. fr:Carl Emery uses fr:Modèle:Infobox Sportif. The documentation shows the image parameter only expects the file name and not code for a formatted image. The template then adds its own image code. This is often but not always the case for infoboxes, also at the English Wikipedia. I have fixed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh woaw, thank you PrimeHunter. Just learned something new. Ilona1203 (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)ilona1203

Hi, I created a new page: Robert Ray (artist) and am being advised that: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.

All of the material in the article has been sourced and quotes attributed. When you have a moment, may I please ask for your take as to how this should be revised?

Many thanks! RRay Estate (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@RRay Estate: Hello and welcome. That tag is an indicator to other editors that the article should be reviewed because it seems to have been created by someone associated with the subject. I haven't examined the page in detail to know specifically what should be changed yet, but from your name I gather that you represent Robert Ray's estate. You may need to change your username as a username cannot be that of a group or organization, or otherwise be shared(such as with a colleague or successor to your position). To change your name please visit this page for instructions. If it is true that you represent Mr. Ray's estate, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy before you edit further; generally editors should not directly edit in areas where they have a conflict of interest(though there are indirect ways to do so). If you are employed by the Estate or otherwise paid by them to edit here, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to review and comply with the paid editing policy as well. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. When I log onto Wikipedia, I am taken automatically to what I have always believed to be my one and only Ian.fraser1 page on Wikipedia, i.e. the UserTalk page that is named User Talk:Ian.fraser1. However, once I am logged onto Wikipedia and click on the Ian.fraser1 link that appears in the top navigation bar, I am taken to a page that states the following: Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Ian.fraser1. If in doubt, please verify that "Ian.fraser1" exists.

I find this message confusing. Should I simply ignore it, or do I need to create a User:Ian.fraser1 page?

Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide. Best regards.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.fraser1: Hello and welcome. Once you post content to it, your user page will be created. The text you saw is there simply because you have not posted any content to the page. FYI you may wish to see the Userpage guidelines. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition to 331dot's reply, you don't have to have a userpage if you don't want to. Some users never create one; others create one as a redirect to their talk page. It's up to you. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's optional to create a user page. Your user page User:Ian.fraser1 has not been created. A red link indicates the page does not exist. User talk:Ian.fraser1 is called your talk page and not your user page. See Wikipedia:User pages for what you can place on your user page if you choose to create it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much 331dot, White Arabian Filly and PrimeHunter. Love your names. I should have been less literal and more creative when creating mine! Thanks to all three of you, I now understand what's what and will stop worrying. Cheers!Ian.fraser1 (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ian, let me add a little "color" to the excellent advice you've received already. Altho a userpage is not required, and there are many very long term editors that do not have one, I'd suggest creating one. The purpose of the userpage is so you can tell the Wikipedia community a little about yourself and your interests on Wikipedia. Many editors use their userpage as a kind of "homepage" here, placing useful links and the like there. My userpage has all sorts of junk on it. When I first started editing, I had quite a bit of time on my hands and creating my userpage gave me a place to hone my skills with the layout mark-up and using templates, a place where no one would care at all if I really bollocks thing up. Kinda like why Microsoft bundled Solitare into the early editions of Windows. It gave you a place to hone your mouse skills without fear of screwing up that important spreadsheet. The other reason is a bit of other editor's behavior here. I am sure you have come to realize that there are editors that patrol recent changes here. Having a "red letter" username kinda makes you stand out and most likely, your edits will get scrutinized a bit closer. That may actually be a good thing, depending on your receptiveness to criticism and your skill levels. So, I would suggest creating a userpage, even if the only thing you do with it is redirect it to your talk page. Just my 2¢. John from Idegon (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your 2¢, John. Much appreciated. I do plan to create a userpage in due course, as soon as I can find the time! Cheers!Ian.fraser1 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please send me to the essay or policy where I can find tags for the following:

• Video used as a primary source
• PAC used as a source
• Organization's own website used as a source
• Dodgy periodical or e-zine used as a source
• An oped from a reputable periodical used as a source of fact

Many thanks Rhadow (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with most of those, Rhadow, and they should not be tagged. A video is fine provided that it was created in a way that makes it a reliable source. An official copy of a news program, for example. An organization's own web site is fine for its views, such as its mission statement. It is also fine for uncontroversial factual statements, such as its size, date of founding, and current officers. See WP:SPS. If by PAC you mean political action committee, this may or may not be OK, depending on the nature of the statement being sourced. "Dodgy" is a judgement call. An oped may or may not be reliable for a factual statement, it depends on the reputation of the author and the publication, and the exact nature of the statement. If a tag is wanted, {{unreliable sources}} would do for most of these, but look at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for many other possibilities. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello DES -- Ok, I'll be more specific.

• An amateur video of an apparently drunk politician ina hallway supporting an article's claim in text that the subject was drunk in a House session.
• An article on a PAC website quoted as fact (small and rabid)
• An article from Breitbart quoted as fact; not confirmed by another source
• Self-reported size of portfolio under management when it is not otherwise publicly available from Bloomberg or Forbes, say.

Look over my shoulder if you want. The judgement part doesn't scare me. I just want to use the tags people recognize. Thanks for {{unreliable sources}} and Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Many thanks Rhadow (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow, your first example of the amateur video of an allegedly drunk politician is an obvious violation of our policy on biographies of living people, and should be removed immediately. It could be a lookalike, or the person could be sick or having a bad reaction to a prescription medication or fooling around. Links to that amateur video and any accusations of drunkenness based on that video should be removed immediately, with talk page warnings against restoring it. Report any attempts to restore that content to the noticeboard WP:BLPN as soon as you see it. When in doubt about the reliability of a source, the proper noticeboard is WP:RSN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow, I agree with Cullen328 above, links to the video should be removed, and the accusation of drunkenness should also be removed, unless it is separately supported by reliable sources. Unless tere are multiple RSs certifing that the video is what it purports to be, and that would be unlikley.

Pretty much the only thing a "small and rabid" PACs site can be cited for its its own views, or the statements of its own members. I would remove the cite, and tag the statement of fact with {{cn}} if I thought it plausible that a source would be forthcoming, or simply remove it as having no reliable source if not, or if it is a negative or controversial statement in a BLP. I would triet Brietbart in exactly the same way.

However, i would treat the self-reported portfolio size as a valid use of an SPS, unless there was some specific reason to thiunk the source likely to engage in distortion, or a history of dishonesty from the source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel -- The guy was drunk. On camera he described his address and admitted to drinking. The amateur video was taken by a baiting student journalist. It's just ugly. There is one copy on YouTube and another embedded in a Blaze article. I blanked the section. I wish someone would PROD the whole article, as the editor's two other articles have been. Rhadow (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow If you think that the article should be deleted, and that such deletion would be uncontroversial, you are as much entitled to PROD it as any other editor in good standing. It doesn't take an admin or a 'experienced editor" to PROD an article. In this case, however, I would advise against it. As an elected member of a state (sub-national) legislature, the person is pretty much inherently notable, so a PROD would not be uncontroversial. See WP:NPOL, which reads that Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. are normally notable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone help review the article Draft:Camillus Anthony Ejikemeuwa Mbaka and possibly De-orphan it?Nwachinazo (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Nwachinazo and welcome to the Teahouse.

You should have an idea of what other articles on Wikipedia would benefit from a link to your article, but those links cannot be added while it is still in Draft: space.

The review process is backlogged. I consider it somewhat impolite to ask here at the Teahouse to jump the queue. If you have specific questions about how to edit your draft, this is the right place. You can continue to improve your article while you are waiting for the review. I can tell you that a few of the most common reasons for a draft being declined are: 1) promotional or non-neutral language in describing the subject, 2) failure to provide sufficient independent, reliably sources that establish the notability (as Wikipedia defines is) of the subject, and 3) failing to provide sources for substantive statements made about the subject. You should aim to have at least one citation per paragraph (outside the lead, which can simply summarize material from the body). If you find you have written anything that cannot be tied to a source, it's best to leave it out. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

jmcgnh wrote "The review process is backlogged. I consider it somewhat impolite to ask here at the Teahouse to jump the queue." Nwachinazo has been editing for only about two months here and may not have known about the backlog till they read your reply. Remember, please don't bite the newbies and assume good faith.
--Thnidu (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You should aim to have at least one citation per paragraph

Which Wikipedia policies and guidelines state?While I accept all other statements above, the above I quoted is a matter of opinion rather than policy/guideline I know of. Anyway, you can educate me more! Nwachinazo (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

All of my comments were in the spirit of advice. To have a stretch of sentences without a citation most likely means that you have unsourced material or are pulling too much from a single source. There may be exceptions, such as plot summaries, which is why I used the words "should aim" rather than anything stronger. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have edited the article of The Winston School in the past. I attend this school, and as it is only a school of a couple hundred students, I am not sure if I have violated Wikipedia:COI. However, this subject is not well-known enough to be thoroughly buffed up by fellow Wikipedians without having an inside source. I do not intend to let my experience influence my edits, but I want to make sure that I am following all policies as much as possible. Highresheadphones (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Inside sources (if unpublished) are of no use to Wikipedia. What are needed are published reliable sources independent of the subject. Proposed changes can be outlined on the article talk page, supported by references to such published sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Highresheadphones and David Biddulph: See Wikipedia:Schools # Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). The latter says

In addition to the general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG) and Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) (WP:NGEO) also apply to school articles.

--Thnidu (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Bfilipa9 joined about 30 minutes ago, and when I looked had only made one edit, improperly inserting themself into August 29#Births. The change was immediately reverted by EricEnfermero.

Their user page User: Bfilipa9 has not yet been created. The standard template message at that location is doubled:

No user page for Bfilipa9
This page should be created and edited by Bfilipa9
Create a page called User:Bfilipa9

No user page for Bfilipa9
This page should be created and edited by Bfilipa9
Create a page called User:Bfilipa9

This is in the mobile view on my smartphone,

Samsung S-6 Verizon SM-G920V

Android version 7.0

Nougat Baseband v. G920VVRS4DQE1 kernel version 3.10.61

--Thnidu (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. From my laptop, the standard message looks different ("Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name...") and is not doubled. Note that I would have left a note on the user talk page but apparently I got distracted. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@EricEnfermero: Indeed! Now I see that, too. --Thnidu (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What are characteristics of encyclopediac style of writing? Sinner (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Sinner. It's a bit subjective, and you'll get different answers from different users here. I think of encyclopedic writing as being clear, concise, and dispassionate. It imparts what is known about a given subject, and also summarizes major published opinions about the subject, always impartially and without giving excessive attention to any one opinion or appearing to either promote or deprecate the subject. That's not a comprehensive answer, but it's a start. A good way to see what the Wikipedia community at large thinks constitutes encyclopedic writing is to read some of Wikipedia's featured articles, which have all undergone considerable scrutiny by experienced editors and are often considered to epitomize encyclopedic writing at its best. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add a bit more! What should be done exactly? Sinner (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

What should be done about what? You need to be specific in your questions if you want specific answers. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Nazim Hussain Pak. Read Wikipedia:Writing better articles. It is long but is a very good explanation of what an encyclopedia article should be. See the section WP:TONE for what makes encyclopedia writing different from other writing. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It has never remained a problem with me Rivertorch, still I am not roaming in this thread, here I am very specific in my question, my other way of discussion is currently first thread in Teahouse, Not to be rude... But if you have a question about use of what, then wikipedia is not a language tutorial, learning language is private affair of users, it is not duty of wikipedia to teach languages. Sinner (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You are not being specific. And for your second part, what are you talking about? Alex Shih^Talk 03:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih, title of thread clearly shows what I'm talking about, it is not questionable. I'm asking about style of writing, so I'm really specific in my question. I asked what should be done exactly to get an encyclopediac style of writing? Sinner (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't that vary with the subject of the article? Just because your question is specific doesn't mean that it can be succinctly answered. As examples of good writing we can look to publications such as National Geographic (magazine) The New Yorker or The Economist. Bus stop (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. National Geographic seems an odd example. But even magazines that are renowned for excellence in writing, such as The New Yorker, have styles that are quite inappropriate for an encyclopedia. In any case, Sinner, you really weren't specific. There are multiple elements involved in writing for various contexts, and it's too complex a topic to summarize neatly here at the Teahouse (or anywhere else, for that matter). It's something you'll likely pick up over time. The more Wikipedia articles you read, the more intuitive it will become for you. That's why I suggested looking at Featured Articles. Also, as I suggested above, there is some subjectivity—not everyone will agree what encyclopedic style is or should be. For instance, I have long believed that Wikipedia's house style lends itself to writing that is somewhat lacking in richness and color; in the interest of being easily understood by the greatest number of readers, we often wind up with unnecessarily drab prose. This isn't a terrible thing—going to the other extreme would be far worse—but it's something I keep in mind. There is room for some individuality of style at Wikipedia. When it gets out of hand, someone generally comes along and tones it down, so it's fine. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I actually favor dry, drab, and formulaic writing in the encyclopedia, especially in the lead. One private reason is that it will make it easier for near-future robots to digest the contents of WP and, in the long run, it may be they, and not people, who do most of the reading. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the question "What is encyclopedic writing?" is a good question because I hear too often the argument that such and such is "more encyclopedic" than something else. It annoys me when that argument is used without further explanation because "encyclopedic" can be difficult to define. Bus stop (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello (again)!

1. I created an entry about Georg Herold. He is a German artist. I could expand/improve the "Exhibition" section but doing so I'm worried about possible copyright-infringing issues. I could use a table but most certainly some parts of it would be almost identical with the cited bio source (Can't rename galleries, museums et cetera). Or should I better remove that section?

2. Should I place the {{New unreviewed article}} or should I keep the current one ({{Userspace draft}})?

3. The same applies to Won Ju Lim. Is there any special tag I should place or should I leave it as it is?

Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Robertgombos, what sort of information do you want to add? There's no copyright on facts so if you want to include, for instance, the name of the gallery, the dates and the name of the exhibition, that would be fine. You'd only get into copyvio territory if you quoted chunks of text from the exhibition's catalogue or something else that was published by the gallery. Incidentally, exhibitions at major galleries are more notable in Wikipedia terms. This isn't the place for a huge list of everywhere the artist has ever exhibited anything. As for the tags, I see you now have the 'new unreviewed article' template, which seems OK. You certainly don't want the 'userspace draft' template because the article isn't in Userspace now, it's in Article space. Neiltonks (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Neiltonks, I understand now. Will improve that section and cite every exhibition using the gallery's bio file. Robertgombos (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Please review my draft Draft:Jane Chun and give me some feedback on what to amend. Yuritan0308 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Yuritan0308. Looking at the source in the draft:

1. Doesn't seem to be functioning,
2. Doesn't appear to mention the subject of the article
3. Doesn't appear to mention the subject of the article
4. Doesn't seem to be functioning.

In order to establish that the subject meets our standards for notability, you need to show that she has received in depth coverage in reliable sources. This means sources about her specifically, and not sources about the band she was a part of, but which do not mention her as an individual at all. TimothyJosephWood 16:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no reference even indicated for her signing by a label. Further, searching the label, I find (from the US) no evidence that it even exists. It is very doubtful you have the makings of an article with this subject. John from Idegon (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It exists, but you're probably going to need to read Korean in order to tell much about it. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I will seek for Korean friend to help on the Korean source.

Yuritan0308 (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I´d like to wikilink to a specific episode in an article like Saturday Night Live (season 41), can it be done? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes – see template:Anchor. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One way to do it is to add an {{anchor}} or {{visible anchor}} to your target spot in the target article. It doesn't look like the individual episodes in the tables have automatic anchors, like section headers do. Don't get carried away with this technique, though. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That looks more complicated than I´d hoped, but thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The used {{Episode list/sublist}} does make anchors for each episode, e.g. Saturday Night Live (season 41)#ep790. A way to search for anchors (anywhere and not just Wikipedia) is to view the html source with your browser and look for code like id="...", e.g. id="ep790". If you suspect a specific place has an anchor then you may also be able to see it by right-clicking the place and selecting something browser-dependant like "Inspect Element" in Firefox. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I looked at the HTML source and did not find the anchors. That's because I was looking for <a> tags and didn't realize that id attributes within <th> elements would serve the same purpose. You have to know what to look for. And I learn something new every day. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

And that was the simple solution I wanted. Thanks again! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sir, Hope you are in good health and spirits. I am a first time uploader to Wikipedia. Recently, I tried to upload some of my research to Wikipedia, but couldn't do so, since it couldn't be saved in the correct format as we normally see a Wikipedia page when we open a page to search something. A person named Dammitkevin tried to repeatedly warn me that I am trying to add some promotional material, which was definitely not the case. I was trying to upload my research, which was not getting uploaded in the correct format, hence I was changing it repeatedly, and also getting simultaneous repeated warnings by Dammitkevin. I look forward for your kind help in this regard, and do certainly look forward to hear from you.

Regards, Drvineetvk (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Drvineetvk: Hello. Wikipedia is not for uploading one's personal original research. Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject states about itself or its own conclusions, but what other, third parties say about it. It would be a conflict of interest for you to directly write about your own research. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Drvineetvk and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that your first attempts at editing Wikipedia have been under a mistaken impression of how Wikipedia works. User:Dammitkevin has been doing exactly what most experienced WP editors would do: revert edits that do not conform to Wikipeidia's policies and guidelines. In particular, it appears you may be at risk of violating our conflict of interest policy by trying to add a reference to your own work to that article.

What you are allowed to do, under these circumstances, is make an edit request on the talk page of the article in question, explaining the new content you would like to see added. Independent editors may choose to add your content or discuss with you what can or won't be added. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is definitely not "an open forum" as you described it on a talk page. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit (with the emphasis on encyclopaedia). If you are looking for an open forum where you can publish WP:Original research, then you will need to look elsewhere. Wikipedia publishes only what has already been reported in WP:Reliable sources. Sorry to disappoint. Dbfirs 12:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem, basically i don't know what the consensus is for Listed Buildings, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suydam House, where apparantly NRLP buildings may be notable simply for having a listing. This would allow approximately 400,000 new articles plus as similar lists are not currently included. see this external link: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/listed-buildings/ which states there are 500k historic buildings listed in the UK. (i predict some will already have articles or be duplicates.) I have no idea how to get a decision on this so a policy or something that covers it would be great. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey A Guy into Books. I'm not aware of a specific written policy or guideline on the issue, but that's not always necessary to establish consensus. The most basic form of consensus is a sort of "consensus in practice", where if, for example, basically all articles on theses subjects survive AfD because they are listed, then this becomes a kind of precedent. Although this has to be founded in the end on some solid reasoning, and not purely circular (these usually survive AfD, therefore this should survive AfD, therefore these usually survive AfD).

At the end of the day however, our general notability guideline is ultimately the arbiter of whether articles should be kept, and whether more specific notability guidelines are themselves valid, and if no more specific guideline exists, the standard defaults to GNG.

As to the sheer number of articles, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and we're not the least bit pressed for space. The project can (and likely will eventually) easily accommodate several million more articles than we have today. So the establishment or interpretation of a policy shouldn't be grounded mainly or mostly on the sheer number of articles that would be created, but rather on whether there are sufficient reliable sources available to be able to write those article to an encyclopedic level of quality. TimothyJosephWood 13:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, A Guy into Books. I cannot speak to the practice anywhere else, but getting a structure listed on the NRHP requires very extensive documentation. The requirement of this extensive documentation, which is either available online or by request to the Department of Interior (getting the entire database online is a work in progress), creates the presumption of sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Having worked on one, I can tell you from experience, there is more than enough sourcing available in the application documentation to pass GNG easily. John from Idegon (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aguyintobooks: another thing to consider is that the AFD discussion you have linked to is about the US National Register of Historic Places and it's standard of information required before a property is listed is pretty different from the England's National Heritage List for England (and its Welsh, Irish and Scottish equivalents) so being on NHLE may not have a similar level of evidence on it. In those situations as Timothyjosephwood says the WP:general notability guidelines need to be your guide and you should base any article on the sources you can find. I'd hate to try and defend an article on any of the 3,415 milestones on NHLE solely on the basis that being listed makes them notable. Nthep (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I will just comment on Nthep's comment regarding the standard of information for listing being different on the NRHP and NHLE, in general to be listed on the NHLE the property has to be nominated for listing by an interest group. then detailed property history and reasons the building is of historic value are considered by Historic England. Normally surveys will be carried out and the listing discussion in local government meetings.

any changes to the building then must be fully documented and inspected at every major stage in addition to normal building controls.

The main difference is Historic England will normally only publish a summary of the listing on their website, and i doubt they would appreciate a ton of FOI requests to get the original data.

I don't actually know how buildings get listed on the NRHP, but i presume it is similar. the other issue is that Historic England and its predecessors made several bulk inclusions of older buildings (country houses, castles and the like) simply because their long term survival was considered to make them relevant for protection.

so really the question is that as Historic England thinks these buildings are relevant, does that make them notable? or is a second factor required for notability. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, that a structure is listed is an indicator that it is likely to be notable but, imo, is not sufficient on its own. As I said there are over 3,000 milestones that are on NHLE, most are because they are old but that alone isn't grounds for saying they meet the notability criteria and are worthy of a stand alone Wikipedia article. Discovering their history and any other significance is what would be needed to establish notability. Nthep (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• The only principle you need to consider when deciding whether or not to write a stand-alone article about some topic is "Is there enough reliable independent source material from which one could gather information to write a reasonable length article". If the answer is yes, write the article. If the answer is no, don't write the article. See WP:GNG, WP:42, etc. Every other discussion on this matter is unnecessary distraction and obfuscates the simple guidance of "Find source material first, and if there's enough, write the article, if there isn't, don't write the article". --Jayron32 13:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This is an issue I have come across a few times and wondering what are the specific policies and guidelines are that are attached to this. Especially if its a BLP page.

Are there requirements to include or not include regarding the listing and or mentioning of accolades and/or rewards? Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Xcuref1endx. As long as the material is well sourced, it seems like the issue would be striking a balance between notability, due weight, and promotionalism:

• First, awards can contribute to notability and are often a large part of why certain individuals have an article at all to begin with, so they can be important for an encyclopedic understanding.
• Second, article content should generally reflect the relative weight given in coverage of them in reliable sources. So, if winning an award comprises half or more of the coverage of the person, it should probably be included, and perhaps even discussed in a good deal of depth. However, if an award is exceedingly minor, it should probably be covered briefly, or not at all if it is not covered in the sources, and doesn't contribute to an encyclopedic understanding for the reader (see also WP:TRIVIA).
• Finally, neither awards nor other things like a writer's publication history should be presented in a way that appears to overtly promote the subject, either through the length of the coverage in the article, or the tone of that coverage.

Like many things, it can be a very subjective editorial decision. At the end of the day, follow the sources, and use those sources in a way that is informative to the reader. As long as were doing that it usually works out fine, even if it isn't totally uniform across all articles. TimothyJosephWood 20:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• This person has been deleting content and incorrectly citing policies and guidelines, such as WP:TRIVIA as a justification. It is extremely unhelpful to offer the advice that WP:TRIVIA is in any way relevant to this question of whether or not to include awards or any other content. The problem is, editors don't read these magic talismans of alphabet soup policies they throw around. It got so bad that at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, they had to add a whole section called "What this guideline is not". It says "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." Yet still it goes unread.

  All of the answers to the question here are found at WP:CONPOL. And if you get tired of reading boring rules, go read some Featured Articles. They provide exactly the kinds of examples we should imitate. Featured Article biographies are filled with mention of awards the subject has received, and they prefer to cite the WP:PRIMARY source for them.

  Since the agenda here is deletion, I suggest a careful reading of WP:CONPOL, and then come back and ask questions about which parts you don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Bratland (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, if editors won't read policy they're linked to, then linking them to policy isn't the core problem. TimothyJosephWood 00:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to be specific, I am deleting the mention of a womens media center award in the article in question, which is only cited by the press release of the award ceremony, and a amateur youtube video shot of the award ceremony. I looked for references to her and the award outside of it and find nothing. So not only do I find the inclusion of it to be trivial, using a quote from the subject in the article from her speech at the award ceremony seems to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"Seems to be inappropriate" and calling it "trivial" is another way of saying WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Nothing in WP:CONPOL supports your behavior. If this were negative or controversial information, then the WP:BLP policy would err on the side of caution and exclude it. The quote is there because it illustrates who the article subject is, their manner of speaking, and their agenda. People read Lindy West, or any encyclopedia article, to find basic information about the subject. The Women's Media Center is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, which is sufficient reason to consider an award from them significant.

You have grounds for further discussion, which you have not attempted to do at all, but no grounds for this aggressive, sloppy deletion, and edit warring.

Timothy, your statement "However, if an award is exceedingly minor, it should probably be covered briefly, or not at all if it is not covered in the sources, and doesn't contribute to an encyclopedic understanding for the reader (see also WP:TRIVIA)." is false. Sorry, but WP:TRIVIA isn't relevant, especially to your "not at all if it is not covered in the sources" assertion. WP:UNDUE is relevant. At best, you could argue for devoting less space to this award, but there has been no justification for removing all mention of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks an awful lot like the two of you have a good ole fashioned content dispute, which is part of the editorial subjectivity I mentioned in my first reply, and is a reason to start the steps in the dispute resolution process, of which the Teahouse isn't one. TimothyJosephWood 00:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm only asking you to stop mentioning WP:TRIVIA when someone asks a question about whether or not to delete content. Would you, please? The relevant policies are at content policy. The MOS Trivia guideline is style advice. --Dennis Bratland (talk)

@Dennis Bratland and Timothyjosephwood: Xcuref1endx wrote

Just to be specific, I am deleting the mention of a womens media center award in the article in question, which is only cited by the press release of the award ceremony, and a amateur youtube video shot of the award ceremony. I looked for references to her and the award outside of it and find nothing. So not only do I find the inclusion of it to be trivial, using a quote from the subject in the article from her speech at the award ceremony seems to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

Any way you slice it, that means that the subject's receipt of this womens media center award is non-notable and should not be included in the article. Xcuref1endx has done exactly the right thing with regard to it and certainly should not be reproached for so doing so. --Thnidu (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable? Non-notable??? Are you putting me on?

Notability has no bearing on article content. Or, as Wikipedia:Notability says, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". It has an entire section, right at the top, entitled "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Independent sources are a requirement to have an article on a subject. Independent sources are not a requirement for every fact within an article. This is such a common mistake that they put this section right at the top of WP:Notability. It has a whole paragraph spelling this out, and tells you to go to -- wait for it -- Content policies to address these questions.

I mentioned various Featured Articles, say Gary Cooper or Bradley Cooper, you name it, that list awards such as Oscars. There are no independent sources cited for the Coopers' Oscars, only the Academy Awards itself.

Even if that were not the case, Xcuref1endx is not being totally honest with you, and nobody here has bothered to look for themselves. In fact, this little award that is being made such a huge issue, was "notable" [sic] enough to be mentioned by the BBC, Metro News Canada, Jezebel, and The Seattle Times. Even if non-primary sources were a requirement to mention a person got an award, that requirement has easily been met. You could almost, but not quite, justify writing a complete, separate article about Lindy West's Social Media Award.

I would expect most editors have better things to do than worry about whether a bio of a NYT columnist mentions they once got an award presented by Jane Fonda, but if any editor does want to take up the issue, I think you have a responsibility to read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to google it. See WP:Competence is required.

Xcuref1endx's behavior is borderline disruptive and certainly a failure of due diligence, and I could say the same of those who have tried ot outdo him in misquoting policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Lol about the being dishonest. More than half the sites Dennis Bratland mention only include a photo of her at the award ceremony and not actually include anything on the award in the article. So...theres that for dishonesty. Either way, I created a RFC in the talk page, so we can take this out of the teahouse. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dennis Bratland is quite correct. I often see "Notability" listed as a reason to include or omit particular content from an articel. This is simply wrong. Notability is a reason to have or not have an article. Some content helps demonstrate notability. But once a topic has been determined to be notable, any relevant sourced content can be included, unless it fails WP:UNDUE or some other 'content policy, such as WP:TABLOID. Now it is true that long lists of relatively minor awards may fail UNDUE, particularly when there are major awards in the list. If a person has won the Nobel Prize, we need not list that person's 10th-grade (secondary school) 3rd-place finish in a science fair. If a journalist has won a Pulitzer, an award for work on his or her college newspaper may not be worth including. And if the list of awards overwhelms the article, it should probably be trimmed. But the situation discussed above soes not seem to be of this sort. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC) @Dennis Bratland: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: (I'm replying to you because Dennis Bratland seems to have forgotten WP:CIV.) Yup, I goofed on the relevance of WP: notability. But Xcuref1endx searched for refs for that award and found only two:

I am deleting the mention of a womens media center award in the article in question, which is only cited by the press release of the award ceremony, and a amateur youtube video shot of the award ceremony. I looked for references to her and the award outside of it and find nothing.

The first is primary and the second is unreliable. — I had something like this reply, minus the first sentence, written up a number of hours ago, but my smartphone overheated, my browser crashed, and I lost the text. --Thnidu (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ther is now an RfC on the article talk page, Thnidu. IMO that is now the place to discuss the specific case, and I wqill respond there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I'm sorry, I really shouldn't edit while half-asleep. --Thnidu (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not popping up in Google Search for some reason. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

New articles are blocked from Google's indexing web crawlers until either 90 days after creation, or after review by the New Pages Patrol, whichever comes sooner. Since this article was only created on 31 July, 3 days ago, it will have to wait for one or the other.

Please bear in mind that the NPP reviewing, like everything else on Wikipedia, is done entirely by (too few) unpaid volunteers, so they'll get to it if and when they can: I myself know of no way to request an expedited review, although there may be one, beyond this discussion itself prompting someone to review the article (which I myself lack the expertise to do).

[For others' convenience, I have wikilinked the page in your post's title.] {The poster formerly known as 87,81.230.955} 90.202.208.125 (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I resubmitted my article for review almost 4 weeks ago, when I initially resubmitted, the wait time was approximately a week (ish if I remember correctly) the wait time is not 3 weeks plus, is my article a priority? I understand that the site is run by very helpful volunteers who very kindly take the time to review articles, but it is becoming somewhat frustrating not being able to do anything to speed up the process. I am also reluctant to keep editing incase I edit it too much and it gets rejected again. Any advice? EleanorLC (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

An article I submitted took nearly three and a half weeks to be approved. I understand the anxiety involved in waiting for a final decision, but I'd say to just continue to be patient. If you're making edits to the article that add to its WP:Notability or to clean up copyedit/contents, it can only help the cause. Best of luck. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 15:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@EleanorLC: I'll take a look at your submission. Alex Shih^Talk 15:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@EleanorLC: Reviews are done by volunteers, when and if they have time to do it. Sometimes that means things take some time, but it will eventually happen. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In my preferences under the "beta" tab there is a feature called "New filters for edit review". In the description for this question there is a link to ORES. When visiting this page I am told that the page has moved and that the page linking to it should be updated or that an admin should be notified. My problem is that I'm not sure how to do either these things, I don't know where I could edit this description and I don't know how to notify an admin. I have found this page, which is about this beta feature, but doesn't contain the text used in the preferences. And I have found this page, which contains the text used in the preferences, but I am not sure how to edit it. Does anyone here know how we can get this fixed? Thanks in advance! Jchmrt (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jchmrt, welcome to the Teahouse. It displays an imported message at MediaWiki:Eri-rcfilters-beta-description-ores. Administrators could create a local version here but a central fix is better so I have reported it at mw:Talk:ORES#flow-topic-tvk9b22720efm00i. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey PrimeHunter, thanks for the quick response and solution! Jchmrt (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)