Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 849

I am frustrated by an article which states:

In November 2014 the CCG invited the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to conduct a review a review of maternity services in Cumbria and the Morecambe Bay area.[1]

Which really begs the question: "and what were the findings/recommendations of this review?" Is there a template to address this? The original editor might be able to find this information more easily than me.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi ThoughtIdRetired Not sure if there's a specific template for something such as that. Perhaps {{Explain}} might work? You can also try asking for help on the article's talk page or at one of the WikiProjects listed at the article's talk page. The cited source is from 2014, so any review probably would be finished by now (if one was even performed). Perhaps there's something about the outcome of the review published in the same newspaper. I tired searching "Maternity Services Review" on the paper's website and got some hits here that go back to around the same time period; so, maybe there's a follow up article buried somewhere in the paper's online archives. The other alternative might be to remove the sentence altogether if the results of the review cannot be found by anyone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - it's a big subject. The review was completed and is a substantial read. I was hoping to prod the original editor to do some of the work - especially since there are many developments since. Much of my information comes from attending meetings that are open to the public, so someone who gets information from published sources would find it less onerous to edit this article (in that they know where to find citable sources). It looks like the talk page is the best route.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Why the article Khmer New Year Can't proposed the caption a bout my cultures Khmer New Year Kh.wikipedia translate to official English ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknow7 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Made this its own question, as it seemed unrelated to the improve Wikipedia question. David notMD (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The editor who asked this question appears to be yet another sock of user:Phnom Penh Skyline, who has been blocked, and created several other socks in an effort to put original research into the encyclopedia. An SPI has been opened. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it okay to find out information from other websites to put into articles. World of Cyclones (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey World of Cyclones. That largely depends on what what types of information you're trying to include and where you're getting it from. Some website may be useful for some types of information, while other website may not. Maybe if you could be more specific we could be more helpful. GMG^talk 17:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't u provide a cup of tea here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anvi Singh (talk • contribs) 18:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@World of Cyclones: It's always worth stopping for a cuppa and pondering over how reliable any website actually is before you cite it as a source to support statements you add. Is there any editorial control (as there would normally be in a news website)? Or is content able to be posted by any person (like IMdB or even here on Wikipedia, for example!)? Is it someone's personal blog, or perhaps a corporate website or personality trying to promote themselves? Is it a museum, university or government website where content is liable to be rigorously checked first? Is the website directly connected with the subject under discussion, or is it totally independent and seemingly reliable? These can be quite difficult to assess sometimes. There are two pages I would like to give you links to. These are: a) Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and b) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (for discussing issues around particular sources). Hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have -- have -- read the guidance on "notable" by Wikipedia. There remains substantial ambiguity, however. So, I would be grateful for your guidance, please!

Here are the background facts . . . .

This guy was an artist, painting as a widely acknowledged member of the École de Paris (so-called "Paris School of Art"). He was born in Poland in late 1905, arrived in Paris newly wed in 1928, was arrested in 1943 and murdered in 1945 (when he was 39) by the Reich in the Ebensee division of the Mauthausen murder and slave-labor camp (in Austria).

He gets six full pages of entry in the classic book on Jewish artists murdered by the Nazis, Undzere Farpainikte Kinstler [Our Tortured/Tormented Artists), authored and published by Hersh Fenster, printed by Imprimerie Abècé, Paris, 1951 (which is in Yiddish). This is a large format book; pages are 9" x 12" (31 cm x 24 cm). There is no better text, and no book with a deeper dive on the included artists, than this, written by perhaps the foremost contemporary critic, writing in French, in Polish and in Yiddish. The vast majority of the artists, if not all, covered in the book were working in France in the 1930s. There are some pictures included, but the vast majority of the entry is text.

There is a current French Wikipedia page for Mącznik: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Macznik This French page does not also exist in the English language Wikipedia. Plus, I have considerably more data on the artist than exists at the French page, as well as ample citations to provide. I might have proposed to amplify the French page, but I do not speak French. (I do speak German, Yiddish and English.)

His paintings are currently in museums in Paris, Israel and New York. While alive, he had several exhibitions in Paris in the 1930s (and before that in Warsaw). Below you will read about a couple that included his works far more recently.

He gets six full pages of entry in the Italian book, Montparnasse Déporté: Artisti Europei da Parigi al Lager [Montparnasse Deported: European Arists from Paris to Camp (death camp)], published under the auspices of the Musée du Montparnasse, the City of Turin, the Region of Piedmont and the Jewish Community of Turin; published by Elede editrice, 2007. I acknowledge that in this book, five of the six pages are large images of the artist's paintings. The book is a documentation of a then-recent exhibition of paintings of Montparnasse artists, including those five by Mącznik, that toured Paris and Turin with highly positive reviews (see http://www.teknemedia.net/print.html?newsId=19732 , and http://1995-2015.undo.net/it/mostra/46902 ).

He gets two full pages of entry in the French book, Peintres Juifs À Paris: École de Paris, by Nadine Nieszawer et al, Éditions Denoël, Paris, 2000.

He gets two pages in the book, Spiritual Resistance: Art from Concentration Camps, 1940-1945, about an exhibition in New York in 1978. The book was published 1981. One full page is a drawing by Mącznik.

He gets one full page of entry in a special edition (edition #4, February 1960) of Publication de L'Association des Artistes, Peintres et Sculpteurs Juifs de France (Publication of the Association of Jewish Artists, Painters, and Sculptors of France), called Nos Artistes: Morts Victimes du Nazisme (Our Artists: Dead Victims of Nazism)(in French).

He gets one-half page of entry in Artistes Juifs de l"École de Paris: 1905-1939, by Nadine Nieszawer and several others (all with the family name Princ), published by Somogy Éditions d'Art, Paris, 2015.

He gets a paragraph or so in multiple other publications.

No one has ever written a book solely on the topic of Mącznik, likely simply because he died so young, as did so many others of that era.

Here is a link to the entry for him at the Museum of Jewish Art and History, in Paris: https://www.mahj.org/en/decouvrir-collections-betsalel/jacob-macznik-55198

Most of his work was not Jewish art, but rather European art, and mostly French in nature. Some was indeed of Jewish themes (as was the case with Chagall, for instance). A folio of Mącznik's drawings of synagogues (mostly done prior to their destruction) exists (just two exist, to my knowledge, one at the Jewish Museum in New York, and the other in private hands in Boston (and I have seen it there)). It was issued in somewhat book format. The first part was typical book, but it was published so as to include a pocket of multiple, large drawings toward the back, all originals done multiple times by Mącznik, once for each such folio. The preface was contributed by Anatole de Monzie, a truly major figure in France at the time, who by then had been Finance Minister of France, Minister of Education and Fine Arts, Minister of Education, and Minister of Public Works.

So, what do you folks think? Does Mącznik rise to the level of consideration as "notable" by Wikipedia standards, or does he not?

Thank you very much for your help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moncznik (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Moncznik. Before I address your question, can I please remind you to sign your posts on pages like this (but not posts in actual article text) with four tildes (i.e ~ repeated four times) so that the system automatically adds your user signature and the time & date)? It helps everyone to keep track of the conversations.

As to Jacob Mącznik's notability: as you may already have gathered from reading WP:Notable and related materials, this rests largely on how well documented he is in published reliable sources that are independent of himself or his direct associates. To support notability, such material needs to extend over at least a couple of paragraphs in two or more of the sources concerned (rather than passing mentions or inclusions in lists), but it seems likely to me that most of the sources you describe above would amply meet and indeed exceed all the criteria.

Note that such sources do not have to be in English, although English-language sources are preferred when available largely because more editors on this English-language Wikipedia will be able to assess them.

Articles in non-English Wikipedias cannot themselves be used as sources for corroborating notability (just like other articles in this Wikipedia, because Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source), but the sources used by such articles may themselves be useful.

Remember also that a source which is insufficient to support the notability of the subject may nevertheless be used as a citation for one or several facts about him. Hope this helps; doubtless others may wish to comment further. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.125 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Other websites are starting to creep forward and if wiki doesn't take action we will no longer be the best website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePersonWithNoUsername (talk • contribs) 16:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Your seventh edit since creating a Wikipedia account earlier today and you want to phrase that as 'we'? On a more general note, Teahouse more of a place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello ThePersonWithNoUsername and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you're concerned about what you may consider the stodgy appearance of the Wikipedia website, there are other websites or even browser plugins that take Wikipedia's content and reformat it into styles that may be more appealing to other readers. I'm an advocate for separating content from presentation. Having hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors experimenting with different presentation styles seems to me to be a good thing (if only the search engines were a little better at recognizing the common origin). Will we be able to agree on one best presentation style? I doubt it. But such agreement is not required. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's one such example:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia seems to be working from my location without VPN? Can any one confirm this? has there been any recent change which could explain this? It was being blocked for some time. Edaham (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Edaham. I'm Rebestalic.

I'm not a host here, but I would like to remind you that this is the English Wikipedia; questions about the Chinese Wikipedia aren't really relevant. By the way, I think that you sound a little like you want to vandalize; vandalism is not welcome in any language of Wikipedia.

Thank you,

Rebestalic (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rebestalic: What makes you think this user wants to vandalize? Have you viewed their user page? 331dot (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that the front page when typing Wikipedia.org defaults to search the cn version by default. This gives Chinese people who don’t check the language option before they search that Wikipedia is inaccessible in China. I have long thought that the default option for Chinese browsers in the PRC should be English, therefore giving Chinese people a chance of retrieving anything at all. After having given one or two lectures in China regarding En Wikipedia use, I’ve discovered that at least 50 percent of people are under the impression that it’s totally blocked. I have been telling these people that only the Chinese version is blocked. Am I now wrong in thus explaining. @Rebestalic:... not sure where to begin with that. I’m a relatively experienced user and therefore won’t take offense, but this is the teahouse. There’s lots of new and potentially fragile users asking questions here. You need to exercise exemplary understanding, assume good faith and act constructively whatever the editors level of experience might be. In summary: just no. Edaham (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I apologize.

Rebestalic (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rebestalic here.

The quality of the article "Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft" is currently ranked as "unknown". I would like to know what class it is. Do I need to nominate the article for assessment, or do I do something else?

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Convenience link: Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft John from Idegon (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Rebestalic, except for GA and FA classification, which have formal review processes, anyone can review an article. However, reviewing standards are set by the WikiProjects that follow the article, and this article has not been assigned to any projects. And I'm clueless as to what project would be appropriate. Not the most helpful answer I suppose, but it does give you a starting point (finding the appropriate project). John from Idegon (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added a link of my website article which has the same topic article but mean as custard just removed that article link without reading any of my article and its frustrating. If I'm unable to add related topic URL and also i have added one line that their types of system software but still mean as custard removed my all edits. I can't even add little bit information. if possible solve it or else I have to use another alternative of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuvmajumder (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Shuvmajumder. Mean as custard put a message on your user talk page explaining why they removed the link, including wikilinks to the pages which discuss the policy on external links in articles. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by one user's opinion on what should be in there. You were entitled to add the link, if you thought that this improved Wikipedia; but Mean as custard was entitled to revert your addition if they thought it was not an improvement. Your next action (according to the recommendations in WP:BOLD) is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, and try to reach an consensus with Mean as custard and any other editors who join in. Reapplying your edit, as you did, is called edit warring, and is not allowed, irrespective of the merits of your edit.

I agree with Mean as custard that the article you linked to does not meet any of the criteria in WP:EL, and so would not support reinstating the link. But if you think it should be in, it is up to you to convince us, in a discussion on a talk page, that it does meet the policy on external links, and is an improvement to the Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Shuvmajumder: I, too, would agree with Mean as custard and ColinFine that the article link you added to the page called Offshore custom software development was really not good enough for use on Wikipedia (though it was not, as Colin suggests, added as an external link, but as a reference to actually support the article in its lead sentence. You say that you wrote the blog post yourself, and certainly its date of publication yesterday coincides with the creation of your user account here. We do require users not to add personal blog posts to Wikipedia, but to cite only what we call "reliable sources" (i.e. those written by authoritative websites, media sources, or in published books or journals for example).

I also have to admit to being bemused by the article, as I can find nothing online to suggest that this is actually a separate topic that is notable enough in its own right to be appropriate for Wikipedia. (rather in the sense that 'foreign travel' would seem an unlikely topic for an encyclopaedia, even though we know it exists - someone will probably now shoot me down on that, of course!) Perhaps if you could focus on adding one or more such reliable source to demonstrate that the topic title actually exists in its own right, and is separate from the equally weirdly-named Offshore software R&D that might stave off my feeling that it should be removed from this encyclopaedia, or at least be turned into a redirect, especially bearing in mind that we also have two other pages, one of which is a redirect from IT Outsourcing and another completely different page being a redirect from IT outsourcing. It all seems rather a mess of topic-promotion to me which only serves to confuse the reader. At least, it does me. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

How do you get written articles on the knowledge panel?? AkwesiSark (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi AkwesiSark, welcome to the Teahouse. If you refer to Google's Knowledge Graph then it's controlled by Google and their algorithms are often secret. See also Template:HD/GKG, a stock answer to people who report errors. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reviewing my wikipedia article! I saw that there was a comment regarding to my lack of resource and I would love to get help with it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatarHD123 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources (not "Resources") means that the draft, which was declined, had no citations/references that provided the information. Secondly, the reviewer doubted that the subject meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. Also, the article appears to be autobiographical, which is frowned against. Wikipedia is not a social media site where people can create their own profiles. Rather, it is an encyclopedia where the topics all have multiple articles already published about them. David notMD (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I've been trying to add new nominations to an artists list of awards. I cannot figure out how to add a row and place the new noms. I also don't understand how to color a box in a table. For example "Wins" are green and "Nominations" are red. If you can give me some step by step help as a new user it would be wonderful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeaanthony (talk • contribs) 03:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Lukeaanthony. Welcome to the Teahouse. For a brand new editor like yourself, editing tables is likely to be quite a challenge. (it took me ages to understand the basics!) The easy way around it is to post what information you want changing on the articles talk page (along with a reference to support it, of course) and hope that it will be acted upon by another editor. That said, you can find a lot of detailed help on tables at Help:Tables, and links to related pages. I would always advise either testing a brand new table (or copying an existing one that you wish to edit) into your sandbox and experimenting with it there first. We do have some things we call 'templates' which help you do certain tasks or make certain changes more easily. In this case, we have {{Table cell templates}}, though that page might looks pretty scary to you, too. You might probably find this introductory page to Table the simplest place to start. I'm sorry I haven't given you a nice and simple answer to your question, but I hope you might find this a useful start. If you're still stuck, do come back, but remember to link to the page and clarify which table you want to change, and please sign every talk page post with four keyboard tilde characters (like this:~~~~). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lukeaanthony. I see you use VisualEditor. Most table help is for the source editor and some things are not possible to do in VisualEditor. See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Opening VisualEditor for a way to switch editor. In the source editor you can often copy and adapt existing code. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a copyvio in this article. Copyvio from https://allthatsinteresting.com/mummy-juanita-lady-of-ampato and a bunch of other websites...Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Article dates to 2004, with a large part being an early-done translation from Spanish Wikipedia. When did copyright get into article, and is there not enough non-copyright to salvage it? David notMD (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Earwigs Copyvio. Huge Violation. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible that the All That Is Interesting site (dated 2017) copied FROM Wikipedia? I have had that happen to articles I have worked on. David notMD (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This Website too Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 22:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello thegooduser and welcome back to the Teahouse.

You may have been too hasty in nominating this page for deletion. I agree, this does not seem like a copyright violation by a Wikipedia editor. Instead it is a violation by the All That Is Interesting site to have copied WP material without attribution. When you find reverse copies like this, it sometimes makes sense to leave a note on the talk page to advise other editors of the copy direction. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Should I untag the page then? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 22:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: (edit conflict)Yes, but the second website article you linked to above was a wordpress blog posted in 19 July 2013. The copyvios you've flagged up appear to have already been in the article way, way before that. I'd suggest you remove your CSD template and reconsider it further. You can always add it back in again if you feel you were right. (You might also like to read the single comment on that page left by a blog reader, which is quite enlightening) It is a common trap to fall in to, and it's happened to me. On one particularly embarrassing occasion here at the Teahouse I accused a new user of blatant copyright infringement. I was totally in the wrong and had to apologise profusely! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't read the blog.... The pictures scare me and give me nightmares. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 22:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL! There must be a lesson there somewhere...don't edit things that give you bad dreams, maybe? Cheers. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added a {{Backwards copy}} template to the talk page of the article including the two links that Thegooduser found and mentioned here. It's still possible that there is yet some older source that our article and these other websites have copied from. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I've started my first draft on Wikipedia. I tried to get more comfortable with editing first in general, but now I have attempted to create a draft for an article. Anyways, I have two questions:

1. One of my sources is the film/film cover itself that the article is covering. While I have referenced other sources to verify most of the information within the article, I should probably cite the film/film cover if possible. I wrote more about that issue on the draft's talk page. 2. It's currently a draft. While I have no issues with the process itself, how should I submit it for article review? Is it ready for submission or does someone here have a suggestion on something I should attempt to do before I submit it?

Clovermoss (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Clovermoss. Your draft has serious problems with its sources. The Barnes & Noble website sells the DVD so is not an independent source. The other references are to IMDb which is not generally considered a reliable source, especially for establishing notability. Please read Citing IMDb. We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. You need to add better sources. The draft in question is Draft:Dora Saves The Crystal Kingdom (DVD). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response! I'll look into your link and try to find better sources. Is there any way to cite the cover of the DVD itself, or would I be better off trying to find a better source anyways because it would be a primary one? Clovermoss (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Also, just to clarify - citing IMDb and Barnes and Noble were my attempts at trying to verify the information I got from the primary source (the DVD film/film cover that I was unsure of how to cite, if at all). It probably be a good idea to find better sources anyways, though. Clovermoss (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Your most important task at this point is to establish that this DVD is notable, and that requires references to significant coverage of the DVD in reliable, independent sources. Only after you accomplish that goal should you give any thought to citing primary sources, Clovermoss. It is easy to clean up an article about a clearly notable topic. It is impossible to create an acceptable article about a topic that is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

OK! Thank you! I'll try to work on the notability issue, because (at least) my current understanding is that unless an article is notable, it isn't an article, correct?

Also... I have another question that's unrelated to this draft and I'd appreciate some input on that too, if possible. I've been editing off and on the past month, and yesterday one of my edits were reverted. I didn't have a problem with the reversion itself, but I was kind of confused about why it was reverted. I left a message at the talk page of the user that reverted my edit yesterday, but so far I haven't received a response. Do you have any suggestions on what I did wrong and might have been a "productive" edit in that case? Clovermoss (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess that you are asking about these edits, Clovermoss. I am by no means knowledgeable about the Marvel Universe and have little interest in it. But your edit is unreferenced and may possibly be introducing your own personal interpretation. Please read No original research which is a core content policy. I do not know why the other editor did not respond sooner but I have been off Wikipedia most of the day because I was attending my granddaughter's first birthday, a trip that involved 200 miles of driving. Please remember that we are all volunteers and have other things going on in our lives. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I realize that people have lives outside of Wikipedia, I didn't mean to be rude or anything. Thank you for adding your input, I really do appreciate it. Clovermoss (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I have done some research on the notability of the subject I drafted an article on. My conclusion is that the subject of my draft is not notable enough for its own article. I think this because even though Dora The Explorer is a notable topic, this specific DVD set is not notable enough for its own standalone article. Also, there are several other DVD sets like this one that I were able to find mentioned in a list on Wikipedia, but that list article seemed to have sourcing and notability issues itself, suggesting that an article on one of the list would also likely have notability and sourcing issues. Also, nothing about Dora Saves The Crystal Kingdom stands out that much from every other DVD set on that list. I can't find any sales figures, but it's unlikely that it sold more than any other Dora The Explorer DVD set. It wasn't the start of some successful project or spinoff. The only potential aspect of notability would be a video game that adapts its premise from it... but it doesn't seem like that decision was made because the DVD was popular, and if it was I am unable to reference and cite a trustworthy source for that information. So... what should I do? My understanding is that articles that aren't notable enough to be articles would be deleted, correct? So do I label that somehow? Should I transfer this information to the talk page of the draft page if it's just going to get deleted? Clovermoss (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the content could be transferred to a list article, but when you are finished with the draft, tag it for deletion according to the instructions at WP:G7, Clovermoss. An administrator will delete it for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! I really do appreciate all the help. I've been going through that community portal thing and trying to learn more of the policies and stuff, but there's a lot to go through and I appreciate the effort that goes into answering all of my questions. Clovermoss (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so I've added the template, and I think I did it correctly. Am I supposed to submit it for the article review process or just leave it like that? Also, I've tried to summarize some of the stuff about decisions and whatnot on the draft's talkpage... I wasn't sure if it would be helpful or not but I wanted to be safe instead of sorry. If you have any feedback on that or anything else, please let me know. I'm trying to do all of this as correctly as I can. I did mention you briefly on the draft's talk page (that you brought up the issue of notability). Is that a good or bad thing? Is it something I should avoid? I'm sorry for all the questions, by the way. Thank you for volunteering your time to try and help me. Clovermoss (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You have tagged the draft properly, Clovermoss. I will leave it to another uninvolved administrator to delete it, since I have already expressed my opinions about it. Your comments on the draft talk page were fine, but not really necessary in this case. Deletion is the pretty straightforward outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Clovermoss. If you want to have the draft deleted, then adding {{db-g7}} will accomplish that and you don't really need to do anything else. An administrator will eventually get to it. I don't think there was anything wrong with your talk page posts, but the talk page will be deleted as well when the article is deleted per WP:G8 unless there's some specific reason for keeping it that benefits Wikipedia and might be helpful to have for future reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both Marchjuly and Cullen328. Also, future reference, how should I determine when I should write on a draft/article's talk page? Again, thank you for all of your help. Clovermoss (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no right or wrong time so to speak, but it rather depends upon what you're posting. As long as you not treating the talk page as sort of an online forum for general discussion about the subject matter but are instead discussing ways to improve the article/draft in a Wikipedia sense, posting should be fine. For example, if you want to talk about ways to improve the page of a actor or explain the reasoning behind an edit you made to the article, then that's OK for the talk page. However, if you want to talk about how great or how bad the actor was in particular role or how great or horrible person they are in real life, then that's not really OK. You can find out more about talk pages at H:TALK.

FWIW, I think what Cullen328 meant by "not necessary" was that since you were the creator and only major contributor to the draft, tagging it with "db-g7" bascially assures that it will be deleted. If, however, another editor came a long annd felt that there was still hope for it someday becoming an article, then they could' use the draft's talk page to explain there reasons why along with their desire to continue working on it.-- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The Editor Wikipedia Dear Sir, Please let me know why the draft Abanindra Maitra is not enlisted as an article for Wikipedia. I do not know much about the rules of Wikipedia.Kindly help me. Thanking you. Nilima Sen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima sen (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nilima sen. Welcome to our friendly Teahouse. Creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks for any new editor to perform, and I waited some time before I dared try. It would probably have been easier for you to have started out by making small edits and improvements to other articles before rushing to make one of your own. As a result, Draft:Abanindra Maitra has been rejected multiple times, and the explanations have been left on that page for you. Those explanations contain hyperlinks to important pages you should at the very least 'skim read' through. Before you even do that, why not try The Wikipedia Adventure which is an interactive tour to help you proactively understand how things work here. Then have a read of Wikipedia: Your First Aticle. I don't mean to be rude, but if you look at live encyclopaedia pages here and compare them to your draft, you'll notice what a mess yours currently is. There are no proper references laid out, not much sign of this person meeting our Notability criteria, or  the notability criteria for musicians either. Notability is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. if other independent people haven't written about a subject, there is simply is no place for an articles here, even if the person has a fancy website and lots of follows on social media. This encyclopaedia reflects what society observes is important, not what one person or another just happens to think is worthwhile. If you can work on your draft to show that, and then work on laying out the content like other pages, you might stand a far better chance.  Does this help? Regards from the UK? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Mr Nick Moyes Dear Sir, Thanks for the reply.I went through the Wikipedia Adventure, Wikipedia first article. It will take some time to prepare the draft Abanindra Maitra. Thanking you. Nilima Sen. 20.10.2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima sen (talk • contribs) 04:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nilima sen: You're very welcome. Don't forget next time you post on a talk page to add your signature. This is very easily done by typing four keyboard tilde charcaters (like this: ~~~~) right at the end. Your name and timestamp then get added automatically. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thanks for the reply. Nilima Sen.(Nilima sen (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC))

Hello experienced Wikipedia editors, I have recently been working on an article for a popular dessert 'Turtle pie.' I have received help from a couple other editors, but I have another question: Is it ever acceptable to use corporate websites?

I'm not really getting 'information' from them, I just put them there to SHOW that they sell this product. I said in the article 'The pie gained popularity when frozen food brands such as Marie Calendar's and Edward's started selling frozen, pre-made turtle pies.' I included sources to the pages here and here. Onece again, I'm not getting any information from them, just using it as a way to show they sell the product.

Thanks, --Wyatt850 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Wyatt850 and welcome back to the Teahouse.

Sites whose primary purpose is to sell a product are generally avoided as references. The general guidance for this is at WP:REFSPAM. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wyatt850, the claim is that the pies gained popularity when those companies started selling them. Referencing the company pages might show that they do sell them, but it proves nothing about their popularity increasing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Took out the "gained popularity." Article still needs references to published content about what turtle pies are. David notMD (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Wyatt850. I will answer the question in your section heading. Corporate websites can be used for mundane uncontroversial corporate facts, once the notability of the corporation is established by references to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Examples where corporate websites would be acceptable sources are the name of the current CEO and the city where the corporation is headquartered. But a corporate website is worthless for establishing the notability of a product like a pie. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I recently was welcoming new users and I realized that IP user accounts were more than users who opened an account with their username. As I was welcoming them , some were being blocked and others I guess they may not use the account. What can be the cause of not opening an account with a username to an extent that IP users are becoming more than username Users? , Spurb ^(talk) 06:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

IP users account for about a half of users and represent approximately one third of activity on Wikipedia. Wikipedia guidelines regarding civility and assuming good faith do not make special dispensation for IP users, who should be treated with the same respect as other users. Some have been contributing for a very long time and have a great deal of experience contributing to articles. Those with experience won't mind if you send them a welcome message, but may have their own reasons for not creating an account, which is their decision. In practice, profiling an IP user is sometimes more difficult as it is easier to attribute edits and behavior to a registered account, however this does not mean that one should assume that IP users are here to vandalize the site. A huge majority of helpful Wiki-Gnome edits I see on my watchlist were made by unregistered users. Edaham (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi I'm relatively new too the Wiki Project and Ive been having fun starting out just adding citations. My citations are pretty good sources but I was hoping to get some advice on formats for good citations with the authors name, date, and publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssufer (talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ssufer: Are they books/journals or websites? And are you asking about the format of how they're cited? DA1 (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ssufer, welcome to the Teahouse. It's brillant that you want to help out by adding good references to articles. There is certainly more you can do to improve their content, and this is extremely easy to do. Both of our editing tools contain drop-down templates via the 'Cite' button in their toolbars. Using either source editor or Visual Editor nyou should be manually adding journal name, author, date, page numbers, ISBN/DOI numbers, date accessed etc. And if you think you might want to use a reference more than once, you can even give it a name (ref name) which allows you to call it again and again without having to re-enter it each time.

One wonderful tip (which can make life even easier) is only found in Visual Editor: when you call the cite button there, the drop-down template that appears has an 'Automatic' tab which allows you to paste in an ISBN number, DOI number, of even a Google books reference. It automatically looks up and fills in most of the details for you, if it can, but is then worth checking for minor errors/ommissions. It's not very good at page numbers or getting every field totally correct, but it's so much quicker. When I started, I did all this by hand. Until I discovered these tips, I manually entered every references, which took forever Does this help? Do come back with any further questions. (The last reference you entered here today (diff) should actually end up looking like this when entered simply by pasting in the DOI number withon Visual Editor before any tweaking at all.^[1] Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sir/madam,

I (74) have created the above article from ID : Rangakuvara. This I keep for editing English articles. Radhatanaya is used for Kannada articles.(I have contributed 900+ articles in kannada language.

Since I'm a senior citizen, and can not read and understand elaborate rules or conditions, please help me in a few lines. Like "Yes" or "No" format. thanks. --Radhatanaya (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Radhatanaya. Welcome to the Teahouse. Firstly: If I understand you correctly, you have two different user accounts which you use for editing two different language wikipedias. You should only ever use one account across all language wikipedias. The article Meera Chandrasekhar has been edited by both of your accounts - and this must not happen. My advice is to decide which account you will cease using from now on and then add a link to both userpages which clearly states the relationship of the one account with the other. Using two accounts leads to editors being blocked, I'm afraid. See WP:MULTIACCOUNT for more on this important rule.

• Secondly, the most important thing to do on the article Meera Chandrasekhar is to add references to support each of the 'factual statements' so that others can check and see that they are not made up. Did she really win all those awards? Probably. So please give a link which proves that.
• The first paragraph makes no sense to me: Meera Chandrasekhar (ಡಾ. ಮೀರಾ ಚಂದ್ರಶೇಖರ್), is a Curators’ Teaching of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Missouri, United States. If you mean Professor, please state that.
• We do have a policy of excluding Indic scripts from lead paragraphs and Infoboxes. So please remove these. (See WP:NOINDICSCRIPT if you need proof.)
• Some links to what might be supportive references have been put into 'External Links'. This is wrong. Please follow the format used in other articles here - and presumably on your home language wiki, too, by including them in the text. Information about living people which is not supported by references is likely to be deleted.

I'm sorry I cannot give "yes"/"no" answers as you have not asked simple questions that command that type of reply. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

What to do if new Wikipedia page is not showing in Google search.?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:36C2:8E59:1561:CADC:3E0A:CA18 (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi anonymous IP. The short answer is to wait. Newly-created pages go through a process of 'new page review' before Google is permitted to index them. This stops spammers and vandals damaging Wikipedia and its reputation with inappropriate content. This process can take minutes, but often takes much longer. There are currently 3,500 such pages awaiting volunteer input in this way, going back to early September. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Which page is it? Some new pages are draft pages and user pages which will not be indexed. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Such as when a History page is backlogged with a tedious amount of minor edits, and which leave no edit summary, making it extremely difficult to compare or verify edits. This could easily be abused to slip in incorrect statements or vandalism, or remove details that may have been important.

I've noticed certain users tend to have a pattern for this editing style. I cannot figure out why they won't just use the Show Preview button and then Publish once they have a substantial amount of content, instead of adding or subtracting a few words at a time and doing it over and over to the point where the History page is completely flooded. It's very frustrating because after a certain threshold, verification becomes near impossible without putting in tedious amount of effort just to compare changes. DA1 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi DA1. I think it might be possible to use WP:BLAME to find who made a particular change to an article, but I've never used it myself so I'm not quite sure if it would be helpful in this case.

As for a policy regarding a tedious amount of minor edits, I think that might be WP:DE; however, whether this is "disruptive" probably depending upon who you ask. In addition, although an edit summary is helpful and editors are encouraged to use them, it's not necessarily required per policy (at least I'm not aware of it being required).

If another editor is inappropriately marking their edits as minor when they shouldn't per WP:MINOR then you could politely ask them to not to do so either by posting {{uw-minor}} or a more personal message on their user talk; there might be something they set by mistake which marks all of their edits as minor, or they might not realize the differences in a Wikipedia sense. If they don't respond and continue on as before, then you can try to get an admin to help you at WP:ANI. Though blocking someone for this if their edits are otherwise policy compliant might be seen as a bit extreme. While I can see these types of edits can be annoying and it can be a pain to try and find the one bad edit in a bunch of other good edits, I don't think it's would be a good idea to try eliminate these types of "small" edits as long as they comply with relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: By "minor" I meant it in the literal sense, not the "mark" that is used to indicate such. Some users flood the history page with tiny edits instead of using Show preview, and it becomes impossible to navigate or compare edits, especially when they leave no ES to go off of.

I've used that Blame function, I think from experience my results are mixed. Sometimes things come up, sometimes they don't. But that's not really my issue. When you're dealing with a situation where the entire article is being presumably reworked (by a single user), looking up a word or phrase from memory and seeing who added or removed it isn't useful, what's useful is seeing what's been changed that I don't know or can't see from memory. DA1 (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@DA1: You should be able to use the selection buttons on the page history to compare a whole group of the other editor's changes as one. That way, you don't necessarily have to examine the edits individually to decide if you agree with their cumulative effect. I agree that this sort of letter-by-letter editing can be frustrating to look at, but at least the edit history can help reduce the problem. The other extreme, where an editor makes a lot of large edits all over the article all at once can be a lot more frustrating to figure out and I don't know of any tools to make it easier. And it's always legitimate to ask an editor whose edit summaries are blank or inadequate for letting other editors know what the intention was to improve their edit summaries. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: I agree that bulk edits can also be a problem. That's two different extremes from opposite ends that are both problematic. But I've come across the worst and most extreme example of the aforementioned. How about this, please take a look at this article: Any thoughts on this? DA1 (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again DA1. I think depends upon the editor as to whether they mark their minor edits as such. I think I've only used the minor edit button once or twice, but I do tend to always leave an edit sum. As for the example you've referenced above, I'm not sure there's a way to force people to either leave a clearly worded edit sum or combined their multiple little minor edits and tweaks into one more comprehensive edit as long as the edits they make comply with relevant policies and guidelines. For sure, you can leave them a message and explain why you think this editing style is not helpful or add {{uw-editsummary}} to their user talk, but whether they take you advice and change their approach is kinda up to them. I think that's all you can really unless there is something actually wrong with their edits or that you can establish that their approach is causing serious some disruption to Wikipedia in general. While this type of editing style might not be desirable in many ways, it's not in and of itself something which the community automatically deems to be tenditious (at least not as I understand TE); so, it's not really something that's going to warrant being blocked over. I personally find the bulk edit approach to be more problematic and something which has more potential for abuse, than lots of minor edits simply because in the latter case its usually much easier to figure out what has been changed by looking at the diff and often easier to fix an error without affecting other parts of the article by simply reverting the problem edit. Anyway, although this is an interesting discussion, it might be more suited for a policy/guideline talk page or maybe even WP:VPP than the Teahouse, since it's on those other pages where any changes to relevant policy/guideline are going to be more likely made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"Marking" the edits as minor was never an issue of mine. My issue was vague and ambiguous edits, and ease of review.

I have actually left a message, asking the user to please use ES or combine his edits so that it isn't as tedious.

I'm not sure if this approach at dealing with this is really thought out. There is always an issue with reviewing articles in situations like this. It discourages user review. What's to say the edits are all good? Would you like to review the article I posted above, perhaps then we could rest assure that it's all good. Bulk edits have their own problem, but extreme cases like this (to me at least) are worse. I've reviewed bulk edits in the past but this type of flooding is impossible to deal with, especially when there's so many edits it spans multiple pages thereby making it impossible to compare between pages since the History page only supports comparison between a threshold of 1000 edits. DA1 (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Just for info: My favourite minor edit flurry was an editor who recently took 204 edits to change 15 words, and left no edit summaries. (diff). Had I spotted an error in one of them I'd probably have cheerily rollbacked the lot as it would be unreasonable to expect other editors to wade through to find the precise moment of a typo. I really think this is tendentious editing and bordering into disruption - but couldn't find any policy against it. Anyone? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm trying to update the page name of a company that changed the casing of its name.

The page in question is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pod_Point_Ltd%2E

The company originally wrote its name as "POD Point" but recently updated it to be written as "Pod Point".

I tried moving the page to the new version of the name, but it did not work, I suspect because it's only a case change vs. a spelling change.

My next idea was to try changing to a more formal variation of the company's name "Pod Point Ltd.", then change back again to "Pod Point".

Unfortunately this has not worked; I am now unable to change "Pod Point Ltd." to either "Pod Point" or revert back to "POD Point".

Could anyone advise on the best way to achieve the goal of updating the page name to "Pod Point"?

Thanks,

LightningTen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningten (talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Note, the article is Pod Point Ltd., with redirections from Pod Point and POD Point. --CiaPan (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lightningten, welcome to the Teahouse. An administrator is usually required to move over an existing redirect. I have done it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Lightningten, case change renames are allowed; the issue here is that there was already a page at that title; for those issues one can request the move be done at WP:RMTR Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Galobtter Thank you both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningten (talk • contribs) 11:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

To control the quality of such edits I installed igloo tool , unfortunately it failed to launch. How to launch igloo? Spurb ^(talk) 06:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Spurb: Partial reply: I've never used it, but in the absence of anyone else responding to you immediately, have you tried the advice on this section of the Igloo page? It suggests Igloo doesn't launch with every 'skin' that users select, so a refresh or your browser and a check of these notes might be one suggestion. Let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: When launching it on vector default skin the outcome is that: rollback rights are required to use igloo. Spurb ^(talk) 12:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)