Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 141

This is an current talk page .

re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Angie McCartney

This article is about Paul McCartney's family member (step-mom in particular_ and links to her book on Amazon, a new film she currently appears in "Good Ol Freda" and 2 Apps in her name Angie McCartney's Beatles Celebration and The Beatles Comic.She has half a million listeners to her weekly radio show so why on earth would this Aggie8- person say she is not notable? And what can I do about it?Lucyconlon (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lucy, and welcome. I recommend that you go to

third opinion and request the advice of an uninvolved editor. DPRoberts534 (talk

) 20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Andy, EuroCar, and Fuhghettaboutit gave much better answers than I. My apologies for not providing more thoughtful advice. DPRoberts534 (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lucy, "What gives an editor the right" is the same that gives each and every editor (you too!) the right to act on behalf of the community. We have various rules in place, we chinwag in odd corners about their details and their application, and we broadly act as a group. In practice, individual editors act individually (as happened here), but they're broadly acting in accordance with behaviours that are widely accepted and shared by this community.

Specifically, you're writing a

WP:BLP

- the hardest sort of WP article to start with - a Biography of a Living Person. We, rightly, have strict standards for these. Articles that don't yet meet them don't get let out into the wild. Aggie80 might have made the call this time, but most other editors would agree, support or make the same call themselves.

I suggest you look at

WP:BLP and at some other new biographies. Maybe ask the biographies wiki project or even WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

.

There are two hurdles you need to cross.

• First is
  WP:Notable
  - per the WP rules, those sources have discussed her.
• Second is
  Reliable Source
  . Ideally it's cited in the body of the text (this is technically a faff with wiki markup, so ask for help if you need it). I think this article can achieve this, but it's not there yet and needs some further editing.

You have chosen a hard task. BLPs are as hard as it gets. I'd not recommend that to anyone for a first article, but give it a go. You can also ask Aggie80 for their specific comments as to what needs fixing and how. Good luck with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello to Teahouse! Too add to

WP:SOURCE. Good luck! ///EuroCarGT

21:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Lucy. You've gotten a lot of responses above, and I don't want to be part of inundating you, but just one more thing, if you'll bear with me; a matter of focus. You ask "why on earth would this ... person say she is not notable?" No one said that and it's not just a matter of semantics. What you were advised was that the "sources [currently present in the article] do not adequately evidence the subject's notability." This is miles apart from how you interpreted what you were advised, though rest assured that many people need this clarified. An article on Albert Einstein, Ghandi, a president of the United states, etc. can be written whose sources do not adequately evidence the subject's notability, despite there being no question whatever of actually notability. In that regard, there are instances where a subject is actually not notable, as we

reliable sources that are entirely independent of the article's subject. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 22:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to begin helping wiki by editing, linking, etc. but would be of most help if it were in my areas of expertise. Advertising/Marketing. Or I would be happy to do easy busy-work, cleaning bad links, deleting copyrighted posts, ect. Summitgirl (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. There are some useful links in the welcome messages on your

WP:Visual Editor. That is a piece of software at an early stage of development and ought not yet to have been released; I would recommend that you use the link marked [edit source] rather than the one labelled [edit^beta]. - David Biddulph (talk

) 08:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Summitgirl! We certainly can use someone with your expertise. You may want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, which may have a list of open tasks or problems to solve on their talk page. Also, your expertise may be useful in improving the referencing of articles about companies and prominent people. Often these have references to sources which turn out to be press releases rather than real articles by journalists. You may be better able than most to spot these, and either replace them with better references or at least point them out on the articles' talk pages. Also, if you like to work on linking, check out Category:Orphaned articles, which has articles which aren't linked to anything at all yet. Whew! it's not like you will run out of things to do! —Anne Delong (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I notice that the first page you edited was

references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to support the text in that article, in order to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability, and to demonstrate the subject's notability. Currently the article has no references, and without such evidence it might be subject to deletion. - David Biddulph (talk

) 12:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If, of course, you are connected with the subject in question (which your user name might imply), then you ought to read

WP:COI, and rather than editing the article yourself you should suggest proposed changes (with supporting references) at the article talk page. - David Biddulph (talk

) 12:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

HI,

Has anyone successfully gone through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process and, if so, how long does it take to work?

Was it worth it or is it better to just move an article into main space and let the community start to improve it?

I ask because I noticed a very large backlog that makes me wonder if it's successful or if it's failing.

My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, articles get created through AfC all the time: see . I think the amount of time it takes will vary widely from article to article. If you are sure that your article's subject is notable (and since you've been here a while), you could bypass AfC and put it directly in mainspace (creating it in your sandbox or a user subpage first if needed). Just be aware that a article space article with problems will probably be nominated for deletion, not just declined. Howicus (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Howicus, thanks for the response. I appreciate it. Does anyone else have any experiences with the AFC process? -- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, FGuerino! The process varies for several reasons. (1) Sometimes there is a big backlog. (2) Long, complicated articles about specialized topics often have to wait for a particularly experienced reviewer. (3) Some articles are declined and have to be improved before going through a second time. (4) Obviously unsuitable articles are often declined quickly (so if you are waiting that's a good sign!)

There have been over 30,000 articles accepted through the Afc process, so, yes, lots of people have had experience with this. I was so impatient waiting for my first article to pass (9 days) that I started fixing up grammar and spelling in the articles that were near mine in the queue, and now it's been nine months and I'm still working on this project! —Anne Delong (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, thanks for taking the time to respond. Wow! 30K is definitely a lot when you compare it to a backlog of about 1800. To be honest, I'm not so worried about the wait if I know the article is constructively being reviewed and improved, or if an article is rejected and it's passed back with very specific issues opportunities for correction. I guess I'm most worried about making sure that I've done as much as I can to get the draft into solid enough shape that I'm not wasting the time of any WP AFC reviewers. May I ask (just out of curiosity, because I personally intend to go through the AFC), do many people still promote directly to main space, anymore, or is it considered incorrect process to do so, as I don't see anything specific in the WP AFC about it being mandatory for all articles? -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello FGuerino and welcome back to the Teahouse. Yes, 30K is a lot, but on the other hand, it is less that 1% of the 4.3 million English language articles on Wikipedia. AfC is an excellent service for new editors unfamiliar with how to create an acceptable article, but by no means is it mandatory. Any editor who is conversant with our policies and procedures, and confident of their ability to write compliant articles, can simply write a draft in a sandbox, and then move it to main space. I have written over 60 articles (which I list on my user page) and have never gone through AfC. And none of my articles (knock on wood) has been deleted so far. AfC is an outstanding service for new editors, but it is also a process with internal problems. Discussion on improvements is ongoing.

An article moved directly to main space is subject to review by new page patrollers who may be harsh in their assessment, and in many cases will try to delete the article, or tag it for improvement. A thick skin is helpful. Good luck! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Cullen³²⁸,

Yes, you've mentioned that the AFC is a work in progress. I've been studying both paths just to get to know and understand how WP works. I'm not really concerned about how long it takes to publish as much as I'm interested in the least political path, where the people you're working with are always willing to teach and help you learn as you develop your articles so that, both, my articles and my writing abilities are constantly improving. I guess I'll see exactly how the AFC performs, once I go through it. Anyhow, thanks very much for your perspectives and experiences. All of it helps.

My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please can someone who knows about image copyright, and downloading images for a 1920s performing artist? The article in question is Clarence Chesterfield Howerton, and there are lots of photos out there, but I don't have enough experience in this area to feel happy uploading images. (Note: Howerton performed under the name of 'Major Mite', so there are also images under that heading.) Thanks, Matty.007 18:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I did a brief look and I didn't see anything that was verifiably in the Public Domain or released under an appropriate license. He was 9 at the time of the photo that is in the article, so if no free license can be found, we could make a fair use claim on a photo showing his height when he was older, especially if that photo did a good job showing height comparison with someone else. Before we can do that, we need to show that an exhaustive search was done for a free photo. Would you consider making a table or list with the URL's of all of the photos you can find? I can look through that list and see if any of them are free content. Ryan Vesey 21:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Matty.007. Items published in the United States in 1923 or after are subject to copyright in most cases, unless we have good evidence to the contrary. The current image is dated 1922, so prospects for an unambiguously free image after that date are bleak, I think. But anything is possible. I hate to disagree with an experienced editor like Ryan Vesey but we already have a good copyright free image. I think that it is a stretch to claim fair use on another image when we already have this representative free image of him early in his performing career. Copyright is important, and fair use exceptions should be very narrowly requested. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks both of you for the replies. I think, given the scenario that Cullen stated, that I will leave the image, but thanks for the replies. Matty.007 18:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, I feel that part of a stupid and pointless debate in the talk page of an article has undeservedly spilled over into my own talk page, and has marred any legitimate communication there. What can I do to undo this or remove the ugly parts? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi OrangeJacketGuy, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is your talk page, and for the most part you are free to blank sections or the whole page at your discretion. Archiving by moving sections to a subpage is preferred. Alternately you can use the {{

hat}} template to create a collapsed section. Whatever edits you make, ensure that you apply them to the entire section so as not to misrepresent the contents. Finally, I think you should keep in mind that when others visit your page it is your own comments that will reflect your character and not those of your correspondent. DPRoberts534 (talk

) 04:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello
  the editnotice help page for more details about how it works and feel free to tag User:Benison P Baby/pagenotice for CSD:U1 by replacing the content on the page with {{Db-u1}}. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk
  ) 14:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have written my first article. I'm not bad at writing but I am NO editor. My article is in line (11 days since written) for review. Can I ask someone to edit it, while maintaing my "place in line" to be reviewed? Is it a good idea to bring in an editor at this time? --User:GMarin (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! From the backlog, it looks like you are about halfway there. I took a quick look at your article. It is well written and formatted. I found one thing you need to address before it gets a real review. The most important thing for you to establish in your article is notability. Wikipedia has guidelines to determine which subjects can have articles about them and which do not. For example, I am definitely not notable. The subject of your article is very borderline, and that puts your article in danger of being rejected by the reviewer. Generally, a subject is notable if they have received significant coverage in the news, have books written about them, or similar. There are additional guidelines for military personnel who do not meet the general guideline, such as naval officers of rear admiral rank or higher. You can find the full list at

WP:SOLDIER. As written, your article does not reference any sources which provide significant coverage of the subject, and as far as I can tell he does not meet any of the requirements for a notable officer. If he is not notable, there is nothing you or I can do in the way of improving the article to meet that requirement. If he is notable, you will need to document that by providing references to news articles or other sources. I don't see any other problems that would keep the article from being accepted. DPRoberts534 (talk

) 01:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello

WP:SOLDIER. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

01:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi to both of you! I took your advice and I am add a bunch of references. We'll see. but thanks for your time!! GMarin 21:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrh246 (talk • contribs)

Im just trying to post by first article. Its for a person, my client, I'm creating him a wikipedia page, he already has one for his company, but he needs a personal one as well. It's asking me to cite the work but i cant seem to figure it out. The only source im using is the official website (phoenixancientart.com) so can that be my only reference? please help! thank you!! HichamAboutaam (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You should not be editing for a client; please read

notable to merit a Wikipedia article. Give him his money back. - David Biddulph (talk

) 20:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, HichamAboutaam. I'm afraid you and your client have a fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia. He does not need a Wikipedia page, and the fact that you and he think he does implies that the purpose is promotion, which is forbidden. Wikipedia wishes to have articles on every notable subject: the wishes of the subject are irrelevant. --ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Actuall I have uploaded an image named: Shrine of Ahmed Ullah Maizbhanderi- Old.jpg a while before. But failed to find it out. I encounterd this problem once before. Please, let a process to find out any specific image. ... Sufidisciple (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sufidisciple, welcome to the Teahouse. You can find a log of all the images you have uploaded. At the top of this page, to the right there is a link that says "Contributions". Click the link to see a list of all your edits to Wikipedia. That page will be titled "User Contributions". Below the title find a link that says "uploads". Click that link to see all your uploads to Wikipedia. The file you mentioned was not uploaded to Wikipedia. Instead it went to Wikimedia Commons, a related website. Above your list of uploads you should see a link for Wikimedia Commons. Go to that page and you will find the missing file. You can wiki-link images from Commons on Wikipedia articles the same way you would a Wikipedia image. Hope that helps. DPRoberts534 (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi! DPRoberts534, Thanks for detail information... Sufidisciple (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I like to make edits, but I don´t know how to edit a source. I have got a lot of messages about edits with no reelable source, but the thing is that I don´t know what to do. If I could learn to edit a source, than I could help with editing. Like, how do I edit a source to synopsis that I have read for an upcoming episode? Or I edit who directed an episode, but the episode has not been sent on tv yet. How do I do this? Twotimer17 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Referencing for beginners and feel free to ask additional questions here. Good luck! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

19:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Twotimer17. After you read about referencing, you can practise doing it in your sandbox. It doesn't matter how badly you mess up text there, because you can always erase it and try again. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I can´t do this. It´s so annoying and frustrating that I can´t make a source!!! Can somebody PLEASE help me. I ave given up on this whole project because I don´t understand that wikipedia page about sources! I would like to make a source after I write the synopsis for an upcoming episode. Can someone please tell me what to do?! Twotimer17 (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can do it. I can, so I know others can. What specifically cant you reference. A ref, provides veracity. It is critical. Otherwise, if I were to say, yeah man, Whoopflarea, Kentucky is a cool place, and not have a ref, most folks would say, oh man, there is no way in hell, a place exists called Whoopflarea. BUT, it does and it had a post office. Let me know if I can helpCoal town guy (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have article in my sandbox. That is not complete yet. Aside, I would like to begin another article but also in a sandbox. In this case, may, I create multiple sandboxes? How? ... Sufidisciple (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sufidisciple-- thanks for your question. You can definitely make multiple sandboxes on your userspace. Just type in User:Sufidisciple/NAME HERE in the search bar and tell it to create a new page. You can name your sandbox page pretty much anything you want, whether that's Sandbox1 or something more descriptive like the working title for your article. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Sufidisciple and welcome to the teahouse! I've taken the liberty of setting you up with a template I created that helps keep yourself organized when working on multiple sandboxes. Simply go to User:Sufidisciple/sandbox and type the topic of your new draft into the input box and click the create draft button. All of your drafts will be easy to find and located in the big box on User:Sufidisciple/sandbox so there will never be any need to track them down and find them. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• O! Dear, Technical 13, It's really great! Obliged... Sufidisciple (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

How can I utilize that template for my sandbox? I'm creating a series of articles. For the second one I just used sandbox_02, but having the master sandbox as shown here would be very helpful. Thanks!

KELightsey (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to get away with just pasting {{User:Technical 13/SandBox/DraftHeader}} as the content of your sandbox, just like User:Sufidisciple/sandbox looks. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, you can move User:KELightsey/sandbox 02 to User:KELightsey/sandbox/SQL Command Design Pattern, or whatever you want to call it.

While I'm here, looking at your earlier sandbox draft which was moved to

references to published reliable sources which demonstrate the notability of the subject. Someone will hopefully review your draft in due course, but the detail may have frightened reviewers off. - David Biddulph (talk

) 14:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• KELightsey, David is correct, although your existing User:KELightsey/sandbox and User:KELightsey/sandbox_02 drafts need have been moved to User:KELightsey/sandbox/SQL Facade Design Pattern and User:KELightsey/sandbox/SQL Command Design Pattern by me. I've also gone ahead and placed the sandbox template on your page and nominated the no longer needed redirect on User:KELightsey/sandbox_02 for speedy deletion as cleanup after move. Technical 13 (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have a question here, If you go visit Category:Pakistan_organisation_stubs you will see many pages doesn't fall in wikipedia notability guideline. They only have 1 Reference link and in 70% of the cases those references are from primary sources. What is the best approach to cater this type of stubs? Should they be recommended for deletion or leave as it is? Some of the pages were created back in 2010 or 2011. As these pages are from

Just To add some additional data, have a look at this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_%E2%80%93_School_for_Girls , this possibly looks like an advert, the reference improve tag was added on april 2010, What actions do you guys recommend for this type of pages? Should we simply add notability notice? or does this fall under deletion criteria? Thanks --

talk

) 13:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A small point, but when (within Wikipedia) we want to link to another Wikipedia page, we use

wikilinks like [[AES – School for Girls]] (giving AES – School for Girls), rather than internet URLs like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_%E2%80%93_School_for_Girls. - David Biddulph (talk

) 13:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The article that you have pointed out sure looks like an advertisement to me, and doesn't have any information about the school - not even it's whole name. It is likely a private school, but even that is not in the article. I would propose it for deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Pakistan_organisation_stubs: I picked 5 at random:

• Awami Workers Party: This has one presumably-reliable source which demonstrates its existence but it may or may not demonstrate its notability. This is a merger of several political parties, at least one of which already has a Wikipedia page. I won't say it is notable, but it is very likely at least as notable as the most-notable party from which it is formed. A Google search gave more than a few non-first-party results.
• Karachi Fisheries Harbour Authority
  : While there is nothing in this article which would suggest notability, I'm going to have to defer to locals as to whether fishing authorities are "presumed notable" (that is, where the person claiming non-notability will be challenged unless he claims to have done a diligent search for references before claiming non-notability) in the same way that, say, incorporated cities in most countries are generally presumed notable. In any case, the notability of this and similar fishing authorities should be looked at both as a group and individually. I also noted a contradiction between the article text and the reference text and added the appropriate template and started the appropriate discussion.
• Sindh Hari Committee: This needs more information, backed by reliable sources, to survive AfD if someone nominates it for deletion.
• District Bar Association Faisalabad
  : If it is the largest bar association in Pakistan, it should be easy to find reliable sources to demonstrate notability. However, it lacks them.
• Ida Rieu School: This article adequately demonstrates the notability of the topic.

My recommendations: Ask yourself: If you were to do a diligent search for information, including print sources, is it likely you could improve the article enough to demonstrate notability? If the answer is definitely "no" then

cleanup templates

, or just silently leave it alone as I have done with most of the examples above.

This being the teahouse, I recommend that new Wikipedia editors not propose articles for deletion or nominate them for deletion, and that they be careful before putting {{

speedy deletion. Again, this is just my recommendation, other experienced Wikipedia editors may not share my recommendation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs

) 21:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

- Bundle of thanks David. Will follow your suggestions. --

talk

) 16:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Viewpoints most welcome Mapedia (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mapedia. You are asking a very broad question. My educated guess is that it would be very difficult to gain consensus for adding generalized location data to biographies. Notable people tend to move around a lot, and deciding which location is most representative would be entirely subjective in many cases. I have a "minimalist" and a "maximalist" idea for you. How about using the place of birth, and in the case of dead people, the place of death? These are two standardized locations that are included in the majority of our biographies.

For the subset of our Good Articles and Featured Articles which are biographies, one could assume that the location data contained in the wikilinks within that article to geographical locations would constitute a "map" of that person's geographical impact. This might be dozens or hundreds of locations, and it would be fascinating to see those plotted out on a map.

I recommend that you take a look at

WP:USERNAME. The name associated with your account has a number of problems, as it implies that is a shared account rather than one for an individual person, and that it represents an organization. Please consider a name change. Thank you.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

02:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, all viewpoints welcome Mapedia (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This type of "meta" information is probably best handled by Wikidata rather than trying to load articles directly with it. If it is on Wikidata it is also instantly available to all other Wikipedias, not only this English one. Unfortunately I'm not well versed in the ways of Wikidata but I'm sure someone who can help could be found quite easily. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

All coordinates are indeed best stored on Wikidata, but I do not think anybody seriously discussed an option of using coordinates for biographical articles. Possibly, d:Wikidata project chat would be the best place to start a discussion over there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We are accessing the location data indirectly, using the Wikimedia API to access the Article data. Firstly we ask for all Categories that match a seed name, such as Anglo-Saxon. Then we request a list of all Articles within those Categories, and finally we request the location data for each of the Articles returned. We can then check this lat long for a country, if it is not given in the location data, via reverse geo-lookup. This then gives us more choice when assigning Articles to our own internal Categorisation system. When then use the Categories of each Wikipedia Article to allow for the Filtering of display of these Articles on our map.

We are working on getting the first maps using this system live, in the next few days. We have been working on some bugs, but we are ready to push out in the very near future. I'll post here again when there is something to share.

One other issue I have found is, some Articles do NOT return a location via the API request, despite the Article actually having location data in their articles. It seems only certain formats of location markup, guarantee a location returned. This is something I would like to understand further. Right now, even for articles that are clearly location based, there is not often a location given, so this is certainly something to help push forward on Wikipedia. I hope we can help drive this on Mapedia, where of course location is key to our display of information Mapedia (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone fix this infobox User:Titodutta/Vedanta Society of New York and suggest which map is applicable for "34 West 71st Street New York". Go here and search with "Vedanta Society of New York" to get lat long. --Tito☸Dutta 16:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at it. Do the changes I've made meet with your approval? (By the way, it seems to me that {{Infobox organization}} might be more appropriate than {{Infobox building}}, since it's presumably not the building itself that's notable; but that one won't let you use a automated location map, I think.) Deor (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, thank you. . Tito☸Dutta 01:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a dumb question-- yeah, I know, please don't blame me--. I was looking for some tutorial page (not

Found it.

^[zootalk]

13:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, there's something terribly wrong with Wikipedia today, at least on my computer. The infoboxes aren't appearing, and all the template tags (e.g. "AfD tags") are just appearing as plain text. Additionally, all my watchlisted items are bolded, which hurts my eyes somewhat. Is anyone else experiencing the same? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not experiencing any problems. What browser are you using? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 12:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No problems here. Perhaps try bypassing your cache? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have created a page for "Raymond Paul Russell". He was a child actor, journalist and for the last 10 years a novelist. He has written 3 books. I don't want it to look like an advert just a historical listing so that I can add future novels. I think when I have put brackets around the links on the Internet I have used the wrong ones as a message has come up saying "Orphan". There are about 10 pages of links on Google for this person, am I using the wrong links or the wrong brackets? Help pleaseRandomharvest (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. A few points. The

WP:BIO. - David Biddulph (talk

) 09:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I just finished my first article and marked it for submission. I now see that it can take some time to get reviewed. I would love to get some feedback prior to it being reviewed so that I can work out any potential issues beforehand. I welcome any and all feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andy.price/sandbox

Specifically, I am hoping for feedback on the formatting and citing of references. Thanks, Andy Andy.price (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Andy. Your draft, which is now at

secondary sources, showing significant coverage of the subject in publications independent of the subject. - David Biddulph (talk

) 10:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The only items in the article that I am referencing from their website are the types of products that they offer and where they offer them, and in a few of those cases those facts are backed up by another reference. So I am referencing what would seem to be objective facts from the company's website, but is that not allowed? Can this article be published with references such as those, or would it be best for me to remove the content that is referring back to the company's website? Andy.price (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Andy! Welcome to the Teahouse. In order to have an article published on Wikipedia, you have to prove that the subject is notable. Encyclopedias (Not just Wikipedia) by definition are tertiary sources. That means we only have articles on subjects that

secondary

sources have "made note" of.

The problem with your article is that the only two secondary sources (Lancaster Eagle Gazette and Columbus Dispatch) are not linked to an online version so they can be checked. There are several cities in the country named Lancaster, and one happens to be in Metro Columbus. As the specific notability requirement for a company,

WP:NCORP

, requires widespread coverage, you can see where the location of the specific Lancaster is important. Another requirement for notability sources is that they be truly independent (not written from a press release) and predominantly about the subject. At this point, we just can't tell. Although online referencing is not strictly required, without at least one solid source for notability that can be verified, your chances of getting your article approved are very slim.

So, as you can see, the article's referencing needs to show two things: The verifiability of the facts, and the notability. I would think that the columbus paper should have an online version. And please be more specific about the other paper. Ideally, you would have a national mainstream publication (not trade journals, as they are almost universally written from press releases) talking about your subject. I hope this helps. Notability is a very confusing topic for newer editors. It is common to mistake notability for fame or importance, but there is no relation between them.

talk

) 05:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I am curently putting together an article on my late grandfather. To stay within the rules I am making it as objective as I can ...that's another story.

My question is about the copyright status of an item

My grandfather was presented with a citation which was illustrated. This was back in 1945 and I have no idea who drew it. Clearly, it is still technically in copyright (in the UK I think it is 70 years after the death of the originator) but I have no idea who did the drawing and I very much doubt that the copyright would have any value or be asserted by anyone - but I'm not the owner of the copyright (and can't supply proof of who is) so I don't know the best way to handle this. I decided to go for "Creative Commons" and I still think this is the best way but I am being asked to substantiate the copyright. Help!!! Thanks Steve Steveupstone (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Steveupstone and welcome to the Teahouse. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but no Wikimedia Foundation project will willingly do anything that violates copyright. Your doubts that the copyright has value, or will be asserted by anyone? That means nothing to us. If the copyright is worth one cent, or a fraction thereof, and the chance of someone asserting it is far less than the chance of you or I winning a massive lottery prize, we still won't violate that copyright. It simply isn't going to happen if experienced Wikipedians are watching. So, your choices are to use an image that complies with copyright law, or use no image at all. Though the rules are complex, the underlying principle is simple: We allow no copyright violations whatsoever. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Would the enormous (and potentially expandable)

Hello! I'm not sure, the current

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Hydrology seems like a good section with many good info and sources, I wouldn't make a "Main Article" or "See Also" page. By checking other river related Wiki-pages, they don't seem to have another standalone article linked to it. For example; the Don River has a Hydrology section that isn't too long but doesn't have a standalone article. ///EuroCarGT

01:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@

Scream about the things I've broken

) 11:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I forget to write that I put it again. But I don't know to write the title again: "Historical Background" and I don't know how can I put it on Content? 01:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)01:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarasyani (talk • contribs)

It seems that you figured this out by yourself. Great! —Anne Delong (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm new here. Who can help me? I want to describe my problem.

My nickname is Tarasyani on WIKI. My excuse that I write you very bad English. Because my English is not very well.

I have a serious problem with an another editor who has a religious prejudice. It is about "Khidr".

I wrote many books about mythology, about the myth of Khidr too. Almost a month ago I begon to add new information for this article. But "Ogress" who is another editor, deleted suddenly all information. This is second time that he deleted it...

I understand that he is originally from Iran and he is Muslim Turkish. He want to write only religious (Islamic) or mythological datas about Khidr. Therefore he deleted all scholarly information. I added it again. But I don't want any discussion here. I give always references...

I'm new here and my English is not so good. Therefore I need your help.

Do you want help to me, please? Greatings, Tarasyani

01:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)01:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarasyani (talk • contribs)

Hi Tarasyani, welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing I would suggest you do is discuss your changes with Ogress on the article talk page. Each article has one, and it is where editors go to discuss changes to the article. You can find a link to it at the top of the page. Ogress gave her reasons for reverting your changes at the bottom of the talk page. I have some suggestions for you about article content. It is important to reference a reliable source when you add information to an article. If your sources are religious in intent, it is possible to use them to describe beliefs held by large groups of people. However, they may not be used to establish historical fact. Second, your addition to the article was very long. That makes it difficult for other editors to review. I recommend that you instead start with the small pieces that you think are easiest to defend. I hope that helps. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi DPRoberts534, Thank you for help! My data's are not religious, scholarly. Everyone can control it, because I give references enough. I will try to do what you wrote. Thanks again! I hope that I use correct way to send a message to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarasyani (talk • contribs) 07:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I am working on my client's website and he is a soon to be published author and medical expert. He is wanting to have information about him published on Wikipedia, and I thought I would see if I can find out how he can make that happen.

Are there writers here that he can hire, or ask to write the article? I only know that he can not write anything himself, but that is the extent of what I know about being published on Wikipedia.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you,

Wally 107.220.215.77 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello 107, and welcome to the Teahouse! Generally, you cannot "hire" editors to write articles for an outside client. Please read

WP:NOTABILITY. Konveyor Belt ^{yell at me}

19:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A slight correction to what Konveyor Belt says: he will never "get an article of his own". Nobody in the world has a Wikipedia article. If he becomes known enough, Wikipedia may have an article about him. This might be seen as a pedantic detail, but I think it is an important distinction to help people understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not. --ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Institute_of_Risk_and_Safety_Management&action=edit&redlink=1

With no copyright issues and written by it's members this page is unjustly being removed without just or fair reason!

This is what ruins Wikipedia - hidden agendas.Safetyprofessional (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Safetyprofessional and welcome to the Teahouse. If text of an article replicates another webpage, this is considered a copyright infringement. Because of the deletion I am unable to see what the text was, but I assume it was a duplication of something published by the institute. There are three problems with this:

• We can rarely be sure that someone truly represents an organization, and has the authority to release text under our
  very permissive copyright license
  . By necessity, Wikipedia is very cautious when it comes to legal & copyright issues.
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Even if Wikipedia could legally publish it, text originally written for a company website is written for a different purpose, and would rarely be appropriate in tone and style for an encyclopedia.
• Wikipedia strongly discourages writing articles about entities one is strongly connected to for several reasons. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Safetyprofessional. There is no hidden agenda. The deletion log says "([WP:CSD#G12]: Unambiguous copyright infringement)". As LukeSurl says, if material has been published somewhere else it may not be used in a Wikipedia article unless the copyright holder explicitly licenses it under one of the licences acceptable to Wikipedia - the procedure to follow is described at

reliable sources, independent of the institute which are an absolute requirement to establish that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability; and once you have them, to request somebody else write an article as WP:Requested articles. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk

) 09:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

IIRSM is genuine and so are it's members unlike the twisted people deleting hard work Wiki, this ends the first lesson on catch 22 and it's unsuspecting unpaid volenteers.Safetyprofessional (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it safe to assume that the IOSH page will now be deleted then too? Or is this just an attack on those attempting to add well documented and unbiased facts? I'm all but done with Wiki, does nobody actually help to build anything?Safetyprofessional (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record last months attack on the IIRSM was by a mirror website and another 'helpful' idiot reporting the Institute as the ones copying. One big joke. Safetyprofessional (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Calling people names and accusing strangers you have never met of hidden agendas and nefarious motives is unlikely to get you the help you need in writing an well-referenced encyclopedia article of proper tone and style. You may want to alter your approach when seeking help in the future if your goal is understanding what Wikipedia is, how it works, and what a good encyclopedia article looks like. If you have other purposes than those, you may want to reconsider your work here altogether. --Jayron32 20:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Better do your job properly and detete all the links too:

NEBOSH

(IOSH), the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management (IIRSM)and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA). ...

13 KB (1,789 words) - 12:30, 11 July 2013

Certified safety professional

Continuing professional development (CPD) is also a strong requirement of both memberships. IIRSM also offer RSP Recognised Safety ...

7 KB (944 words) - 13:46, 14 May 2013

OSHCR

International Institute of Risk and Safety Management (IIRSM. Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH. National Examination Board ...

5 KB (669 words) - 02:05, 9 March 2013

British Safety Council

External links : iirsm. org/ IIRSM. Category:Safety organizations Category:Charities based in London Category:1957 establishments in the United ...

2 KB (322 words) - 15:27, 30 August 2013

RSP

RSP Recognised Safety Professional honorary post nominal letters given by IIRSM (International Institute of Risk & Safety Management) to ...

2 KB (295 words) - 02:54, 19 July 2013

Institution of Occupational Safety and Health

See also : IIRSM References : External links : http://www. iosh. co. uk Official IOSH website. http://www. iom-world. org/news/news_archive/osh. ...

5 KB (664 words) - 14:42, 30 August 2013 Safetyprofessional (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Jayron your response to the recent activity on here speaks volumes.Safetyprofessional (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

For my adoption practical I am working on un-tagging articles. I worked on one awhile back (before my schedule got really hectic) and I removed the tags, added images etc. I am now wanting to actually attempt to bring this article to good article status (one of the adoption practical exam requirements). Where can I ask people to give me some feedback? In other words what is the proper way to do it? This Safetyville USA is the article. Thanks PS Please remember to leave a note on my page telling me my question has been answered at the teahouse. I am crazy crazy busy with school, moving (yes, still), work, and now Jury duty. My question here is bound to get buried by the time I come back. I will greatly appreciate it. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome! First off, you should look at the article, make some improvements, add additional reliable sources and etc. Any article on Wikipedia could get Good Article status, however they must meet the certain criteria's listed at

Good Article criteria

. You seemed to made many edits on this article which is great because seeing an article get Good Article status is a good thing as you've contributed a lot towards the article. The main criteria to follow are:

• Well-written
• Verifiable with no original research
• It's in-topic and explains the subject well
• It's written in a
  neutral point-of-view
• Stable, with no content disputes and edit conflicts
• Well-illustrated with a good number of images

Since currently your busy, I would recommend you to contribute to the page when your not busy and have lots of time on your hands. ///EuroCarGT 03:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much!Tattoodwaitress (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

whay was my edits on the sports related curses taken down i put up some of the most infamouse afl curses of all time (HAR0066 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, none of your edits were sourced. Ever Wikipedia article needs reliable, indepedent sources to show that the subject is notable. Without a source, we can't verify if those curses are real or not. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi HAR0066, welcome to the Teahouse. I think the revert of your edits to Sports-related curses was likely accidental. It would definitely help to avoid this situation in the future to include references for the information you are adding. You don't necessarily need to dive down into the details of citation formatting, all you really need to do is provide enough information that someone else could find the book, magazine, newspaper, or website you used as a reference. To do this, add a <ref> tag at the end of the sentence or paragraph you wrote. For example, in sports-related curses, you could add your citation like this:

appointment of Paul Roos as coach Melbourne can only hope there fortunes can be turned around.<ref>http://www.footyalmanac.com.au/afl-round-8-richmond-v-melbourne-the-curse-of-norm-smith/</ref>

One other thing you should be careful about is to only add information published in reliable sources, and not try to draw conclusions based on that information. For example, we should let the readers speculate about when curses will be lifted rather than telling them. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)