Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Arthur Street School

I am from Dunedin, trying to add an article called 'Arthur Street School'. This school is the first school in Dunedin. It is significant because the school started on one of the first colonial ships to arrive in Dunedin, the Phillip Laing, which arrived at the port of Dunedin, New Zealand, in 1848. The school then became Beach Street School, before moving to its current location in Arthur Street in 1877. I hoisted the article 'Arthur Street School', which was immediately flagged for deletion despite there being references and citations. I added two notes in the edits saying I was conducting more research offline, in the Dunedin Public Library and Hocken Library. Having done that I came back to find the article deleted. What am I supposed to do? This is incredibly frustrating. Please advise the best procedure for creatinga an article and keeping it. Cargill208 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

self published statement

I am using some self published statements for an article i will soon upload to wikipedia. How do I refer to those specific posts since they are reddit posts by the developers.Emulator newsguy (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

John Thrasher entry

Hi: I would like to change the title of an entry I have been editing, which is a biography of John Thrasher. I would like to change it from "John Thrasher" to "John J. Thrasher" to distinguish it from "John E. Thrasher" which is a separate entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiana Author (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Indiana Author, was he most commonly known as "John Thrasher" or as "John J. Thrasher"? When possible, we use the most common form of the name here. What do your sources say? See WP:COMMONNAME for more details. To change the title, use the move function. Any autoconfimred user (an account at least 4 days old, with 10 or more edits) can use this function. DES ^(talk) 20:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Indiana Author isn't autoconfirmed yet. User:Indiana Author - Stop labeling your edits as minor edits. Read WP:Minor edit. Your edits are not minor edits. A minor edit is one that no reasonable editor could disagree with, such as the correction of typos. Content changes are not minor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ollo Kambou

I reviewed Draft:Ollo Kambou and declined it. In the absence of wikilinks to the teams that the subject played on, and the absence of a specific statement, I can’t determine whether he played on a Tier 1 team and so meets association football notability. I also mentioned that the draft appears to be an autobiography, the submission of which is discouraged. (However, if I see that he does meet an automatic notability guideline, I feel a duty to accept it in spite of disapproving of autobiographies.

User:Kambollo then asked at my talk page: “You just declined our new page - understandable as I'm new at this and not sure how to link webpages, which is the reason you gave for rejecting our submission. I did however cite as many webpages as possible and many of those include rosters for the teams on which he played. Could you give me more feedback as to what we did wrong and how to correct it?” First, I would ask who is “we” in referring to “our new web page” and why there is a reference to “the teams on which he played.”. Is this a shared account? Can someone please direct this person or group to information on wikilinking? What is needed is to identify a particular Tier 1 team on which he played. Also, please read the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The we is my husband and me. My husband is Ollo Kambou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambollo (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So then how do we get an article about him...?? I have not put any subjective material. I backed up every detail with objective material with no personal connection to anyone in our family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambollo (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, have you seen all the cited webpages? I think they contain the information you are looking for.

Quite a few of your sources are other Wikipedia articles, Kambollo. Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles, for perhaps obvious reasons. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this all because of my ignorance, but I feel that we proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he played for Yadanarbon FC, a team recognized by FIFA as a member of the Myanmar National League. Also, Manaw Myay FC is another team in the Myanmar National League (MNL). Does that not meet your qualifications for a Tier 1 team? Also, 10 of my 33 sources are from Wikipedia. Almost every single one contains information that is also in other listed non-wiki sources. Also, if I, as his wife, cannot write his biography, who can I get to create this site?

I appreciate all the feedback. Ollo Kambou 20:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambollo (talk • contribs)

Can someone please direct Uer:Kambollo to advice on how to link to other articles? They need, at a minimum, to link the names of the professional teams and professional league, but, more generally, they need to add as many links as will improve the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Kambollo - Read the user name policy. Sharing an account between family members is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't care if the 10 (out of 33) sources include information that is also in non-wiki sources. That doesn't justify listing the 10 articles as sources. There should be 23 sources and the Wikipedia articles should be wikilinks or See Also listings. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Kambollo, if you want to request that someone else write the article, you can do so via Wikipedia:Requested articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me that they've never played in a fully professional league, and so fails WP:NFOOTY. Seems to fail [[[WP:GNG]] as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Live it Up! with Donna Drake

I reviewed Draft:Live it Up! with Donna Drake and declined it because the references do not show notability. There are two references to Articles, but they are not properly formatted. I also advised changing a “Not to be confused with” comment to a hatnote.

I also note that the section headings need to be wikiheadings, and that the celebrity guests should be blue links, and that other subjects that have their own articles should have blue wikilinks.

Its author, User: Boop2016, requested assistance at my talk page. It may be that they need assistance with the references. It may be that they need advice on hatnotes. They also need advice on wikiheadings and wikilinks. Can some experienced editor advise them? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Boop2016. I suggest that you consult Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to cite sources properly. You also need to look for and cite more sources that discuss the subject in some depth, which need to amount to significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A New Page

Hi guys,

I'm working on an article for a small business based in NJ called AphasiaAccess. Could you guys possibly take a look, make some edits, offer assistance, advice, etc?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TPadilla2014/AphasiaAccess

Any help would be well appreciated.

Thank you,

TPadilla2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TPadilla2014 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello TPadilla2014 and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry to have to tell you that in its current form User:TPadilla2014/AphasiaAccess is not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. First of all, it is very promotional and not at all neutral. Indeed it reads like a fundraising brochure for the organization. See our guideline on promotion to help understand why this is not acceptable. Secondly, the draft does not establish the organization's Notablility. See our guideline on the notability of organizations. In general, there must be significant coverage by multiple independent published reliable sources. This means discussion of the organization itself, not merely of the cause to which it is addressed (aphasia, in this case). There should be a minimum of 2-3 paragraphs about the organization in at least 2-3 independent sources. More may be needed, depending on the depth of coverage and the quality of the sources. Moreover, most of the cites sources at present are to the organization's own web site. These do nothing to establish notability, and the use of so many of them is a warning flag of an unacceptable article.

There are also some formatting issues, particularly with the way sources are being cited. See Referencing for Beginners. The title of the source article or paper or book, date of publication, author, and venue of publication (title of magazine, newspaper, web site or the like) of the source being cited should always be included unless the publication omits them. However these details can be corrcted easily enough, once the major issues of content and notability are dealt with.

Only reliable sources should be cited to establish facts.

I notice that the logo was uploaded to commons, released under CC-BY-SA, and listed as "own work". Was that logo really your own personal work? Did you really intend to make it available to anyone in the world to use or alter for any purpose, including commercial use, forever? Most logos are copyrighted and are used here under a claim of fair use. See WP:NFCC for more details. But logos and other images should come late in the development of an article, anyway.

I hope that these comments are helpful to you. DES ^(talk) 17:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi TPadilla2014, your draft has no independent reliable sources to confirm that the organization is actually notable. Wikipedia does not really care what any subject has to say about itself, the publications of independent outside commentators, such as journalists or academics are what makes a topic Notable. So you need to look for mainstream news or magazine articles that discuss the organization in considerable depth and detail. Your draft also reads like an advertorial brochure giving the kind of information the organization would want to put out, but we need neutral description, not promotion. By the way, I removed a deprecated inline external link and added the actual url of a source to a reference (currently the 2nd one in the lead). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No rowspan in filmographies

Is that a stying or a thing on Wikipedia? Or rowspans are allowed on films? Winterysteppe (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I know that rowspans are discouraged because they impede accessibility as I understand some monitors for visually impaired people can not format the tables properly with this wikicode. You can find discussions about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film or check Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Horizontal lists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not to use rowspan has been a contentious topic at WP:FILMBIO. One of the more recent discussions was here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

citing image and primary sources

Hello! I created a page a page and would like to improve it with images and information from the subject's widow and the woman who worked with him at the NAACP for quite a long time. How can I cite them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmurraysr (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Cmurraysr. There are two separate issues here: information and images.

No information should appear in an article that has not been published in a reliable place (and preferably somewhere independent of the subject, though certain kinds of information can be cited to non-independent sources). Unpublished information of any sort is never permitted.

Images are a bit complicated, for two reasons: first it is important to get the copyright right (which usually requires the holder of the copyright in the images to explicitly release them under a licence such as CC-BY-SA (which will grant anybody at all permission to reuse them for any purpose). Secondly, using images is a two-stage process: first they need to be uploaded, and then they can be used in the article. See Help:Images and donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Any limits to submitting an article?

Hi there

I have submitted my first article and it's been rejected twice. I've edited it again and I'm hoping for 'third time lucky'. If it is rejected again is there a limit to the number of times an article can be submitted?

Thanks.

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davcomedia (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Davcomedia, and welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I'm aware, there is no limit on the number of times you can submit a draft article for review. However, you should obviously make sure that you have addressed any concerns identified in the previous review before resubmission (which I presume you have done). Cordless Larry (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you 'Cordless Larry'. I really appreciate your super-fast reply.

I was surprised on both previous submissions that it had been declined due to the quality of the citations I had included. Anyhow, I've made them very tight this time round and hoping all will be OK.

Thanks again.

Ian Davcomedia (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps I should have included a link to my latest draft. Please excuse my ignorance when it comes to Wikipedia... I'm new here and terrified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jonno_davies

Regards.

Ian Davcomedia (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, we are discussing Draft:Jonno davies (you'll want to fix the capitalisation at some point). The thing to understand about "notability" here on Wikipedia, Davcomedia, is that it refers to the need for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. While you have cited some good sources for verifying facts in the article, not many of them consist of detailed discussion of Davies. "Significant coverage" can be understood to refer to the quantity of sources about the subject, but also to this need for depth of discussion. Good sources would be newspaper profiles of Davies and the such like. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your comments. Yes, we are discussing the draft for Jonno Davies. Not sure why it's showing a lower case 'd', must be my lack of typing skills, though I can't actually see where I can change it in the editor? As for the citations, my understanding was they had been rejected due to their quality rather than quantity so I culled those I suspected were regarded as poor and added more from really good sources including IMDB, the BBC, Time Out and Disney. Do you feel I will need more?

Thanks.

Ian Davcomedia (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the number of sources, Davcomedia, but rather the number that provide in-depth coverage of Davies. Most are just confirming that he appeared in something. Note that there is some debate about the reliability of IMDB, as it features user-generated content. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb on this. To move the page, you need to click on the "Page" menu at the top of the screen, then "Move page". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Cordless Larry (sorry, I don't know how to add your hyperlink). Thank you for stressing the importance of in-depth coverage and I wasn't aware that IMDB wasn't regarded as a reliable source. I'm sure I can find better. I am, however, a liitle confused by your 'move page' instruction. What is the purpose of doing that? I don't understand. Does that allow me to change 'davies' to Davies somehow? Ian Davcomedia (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It's OK, Davcomedia - I tend to watch this page closely, so am seeing your replies even though you're not pinging me. If you want me or any other user to receive a notification, you can use the code {{u|Cordless Larry}} in the post. Moving a page is the same as changing its title, so you would move it from Draft:Jonno davies to Draft:Jonno Davies. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to inundate you with issues to deal with, Davcomedia, but I have just realised that there is a potential problem with your username. I will post a message on your user talk page about how to resolve this. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

First, the original poster has changed their user name from the above to User:Rob Bolton. Second, the draft in question is Draft:Jonno davies. Third, there is no specific rule about how many times a draft may be submitted. Thank you for asking. As User:Cordless Larry points out, the real problem is editors who repeatedly resubmit a draft with no real effort to address the overall concerns of the reviewers. This annoys the reviewers and wastes their time. An example of such tendentious behavior would be if a reviewer said, "Remove peacock language such as 'is an internationally acclaimed violinist' in the voice of Wikipedia", and the editor removes that statement and leaves the rest of the peacock language in. Thank you for asking. Do your best to address the concerns of the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry and Robert McClenon for your help and guidance. Cordless Larry, I took your advice and changed my username. I will endeavour to improve the quality of my proposed article and the citations. I may have to come back for guidance about how to 'move page' to rectify the davies/Davies issue as I'm still unsure about that action. In the meantime, my thanks once again. Rob Bolton (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the draft to Draft:Jonno Davies. See WP:Moving/ Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia username

Hi all,

I created my username in Wikipedia, and also my user page talk. I did it in my office's computer, and I saved the changes. When I entered my username and password at home, I don't know why I don't have my user talk page nor anything I have created and edited. Do I have to do everything in the same computer? Thank you very much!

Nuriaj95 (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nuriaj95, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should be able to log in, edit and access your user page and user talk page from any computer, so I don't know why you are not able to do this at home. Are you sure that you have successfully logged in there? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nuriaj95:, your user page at User:Nuriaj95 has a one-line entry, which was the first edit you made with this signon; is this what you intended? If there were other subsequent changes that are not shown, it is possible that you missed the last step in the edit, which is to press the "Save page" button at the bottom of the edit screen.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

I just wanted to thank all of you for helping to advance the informational cloud! My viewpoint of Wikipedia has changed immensely over the years. I am very happy for that because I am one of the many people who enjoy learning a plethora of information and I would read encyclopedias to enhance my knowledge.
It was commonplace for me to become distracted by other, more interesting, topics while doing school research. Just now, I was going to edit an articleKigo, a season word used in Haiku for a small grammar error while researching about Haiku because when I updated my Firefox they gave me a free Haiku! I wrote a Haiku in response to their Haiku and I will share it with yall because I love you and this is the Teahouse so I am sharing! <3

My Haiku:
New Firefox Enhancement
Just when Feeling so insecure
Plus Free Haiku

Mozilla's Haiku:
Proudly non-profit
Free to innovate for you
And a better web

Rrrof711 (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Tsunesaburō Makiguchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was forwarded here by EAR on an article on Tsunesaburō Makiguchi. For obvious reasons I cannot do much to edit the article. So here goes my original request: Even though I have retired from en.wikipedia this edit has caught my attention [1]. In the talk page the reasons for the edit has been given as follows: [2]. Besides the fact that the edit as such is purely POV it also defies logic. How can a group founded in the twentieth century predate a group originally founded in the late nineteenth century?? Besides that the edit deletes well-resourced material. The reason for me turning to this noticeboard is that I am officially banned from articles relating to Nichiren Buddhism. For that reason I decided to retire … none the less I fear that certain articles on the subject are being white washed yet again. If anyone does find interest in the subject / matter please also contact me via mail as I do not log in regulary anymore. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware that asking questions on an edit that I find being problematic on a subject [[3]] that I was banned on is already a violation of a ban in itself [[4]]. I was also unaware that when following an advice given, using a help page - at least what I thought of being a place for asking questions, and then even following the advice is worse than anything else. This all is getting very strange indeed. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox and new article

I just created my first new article, Nicolo Schiro. After a minor hiccup, it's been accepted, posted and there's nothing wrong with the article itself. However when I looked at the article's revision history my complete history of sandbox revisions I did before editing other articles and talk pages are included in the article's history. See here, here, here, and when I was just starting out and learning to type source code and formatting here. Is there any way I can remove this prior sandbox revision history from the article, especially since a lot of it is from before I even started writing the article? Libertybison (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Libertybison, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is there are particular reason for your concern about the article history being visible? It is technically possible to supress some article revisions, but this is usually only done to remove non-public personal information, potentially libelous information, copyright infringement, etc. Generally, it's useful to maintain a page history so that we can tell who added what to an article and when, in case there are questions about the veracity of material later on. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on your first article, by the way. It looks like a very good one at that. Another good reason for having the page history is so that you get credit for writing stuff like this! Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing really like what you describe above. It's mostly tests before editing other articles and talk pages. Also drafting before posting to talk pages of other editors and learning to type source code (I still prefer to use the visual editor) I don't mind keeping the revision history for the Schiro article but I just checked the article's revision history and I didn't start writing the article until 05 February 2016 but it has the revision history of my sandbox all the way back to August 2015. Also I blanked the Schiro article in my sandbox to work on edits to other articles and then reverted it back. I guess it's just a little embarrassing. Although, I do believe that the 50 most recent edits on the first page of the revision history are all article edits. Do you know if it's possible for a user to have 2 sandboxed, one for creating an article and another for just testing potential edits or drafts? Libertybison (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Blanking an article or sandbox doesn't eliminate it history, Libertybison. Only having it deleted will do that. If an article is moved from a sandbox to mainspace, then the history of the sandbox will move with it. I see your point about the sandbox previously having been used for other purposes, though. Do any other editors know if this is a good reason to supress revisions? In future, you can use as many sandboxes as you like, and give them names to identify them, such as User:Libertybison\Sandbox 1 or User:Libertybison\Test edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The start of the work seems to be the edit on 00:32, February 5, 2016‎. It would seem reasonable to suppress earlier edits since they relate to other topics. For future projects, I would use a named sandbox such as User:Libertybison\New Topic or use draft space. Dbfirs 10:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice Dbfirs and Cordless Larry! I went and found the guidelines page on revision suppression but it doesn't mention this exact issue, although it does say nonrelevant edits during a page merger can be suppressed in the revision history. I'll contact one of the admins listed to see if my situation applies. Oh and Cordless Larry, thanks for the kind words about my article. Libertybison (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, Libertybison. Pointing the admin to this discussion might help. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Logo

Hi,

I am very new to editing and I seem to be having troubl euploading my page's logo. I have followed the help page with no success and searched on Google, still with no success. I'm sure it is simple but I just cant seem to do it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

JCPboro — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCPboro (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse JCPboro. I see you are using three logos on Peterborough Saxons; so I don't understand what the problem is. I see that you uploaded them to Commons, claiming they were your "own work." If they are official team logos, then I doubt they are your own work as opposed to being owned by the team. If they are not your own work they will be deleted from Commons as copyright violations. Ordinarily logos are uploaded to Wikipedia rather than Commons, and only one can be used in an article. —teb728 t c 08:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

And you have licenced them under CC-BY-SA, which gives anybody at all permission to reuse them for any purpose, commercial or not, and to modify them at will, just as long as they give proper attribution. Is that what you intended? That is not usually what owners of logos want to do. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

How to find out if a Teahouse question has been answered?

I asked something about the Teahouse talk page a few days ago. How do I go about finding the question and whether or not discussion arose 24.144.169.31 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse anonymous user. This is the only post you have made under this IP address. What username or other IP address did you use for your previous question. Or what was the subject of your previous question? You are giving us nothing to go on here. It also would be helpful if you created an account and logged in when you ask a question; that way we could ping you or leave you a talkback message on your user talk page when we reply. —teb728 t c 05:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It has probably been archived, IP editor. The way to find it is to search for it using the box beneath the contents listing here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Replicating tables from peer sites

Thank you for the generated offer to help with editing. I'm sure the solution is very simple and I wanted to figure it out myself. But I have received other notices about citations and references. There is no point asking for any editing help if I cannot first convince Wikipedia editors of the page's relevance. So please, let me explain who I am and why I think this article is needed. If you agree, I will post my editing question about tables. I was recently hired to do PR for the international Korean-based law firm in question, DR & AJU. But that is not why, I'm building a Wikipedia article about it. I read Wikipedia's guidelines carefully and only decided to invest the time when we found numerous third-party references about the firm in English- and Korean-language journals and books. The firm is involved in cases with international coverage and is a good example of the changes occurring in the Korean legal market following FTAs with the EU and the U.S. My first task here was to compare law firms' social media presence. While all the Western firms I studied had Wikipedia pages on the English site, only two Korean firms are listed. The largest firm (Kim & Chang) and Yulchon (linked below with a "multiple issues" warning on its page. I did not begin this project until I was sure this firm's page could avoid all the issues raised with Yulchon's presence. I understand the guidelines and directions for references and citations. I don't foresee problems with those. What I am having problems with is getting a table to match those in related sites -- specifically the general summary (headquarters, No. offices, etc.) listed in these two example pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Wessing and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulchon. In the meantime I will skip that table and start adding the citations and references. Please look at the page after 4:00 am ET Friday, Feb. 19. If you feel it meets Wikipedia's criteria for a commercial business and I still have not figured out how to do the table properly, I will post my question. One last thing, if I need to do volunteer editing prior to the article being accepted, I will gladly comply. I have an MA in Korean studies and am a native English speaker, so I would feel confident editing Korean history and culture-related articles in need of grammar or style correction. Another area I may be able to be of help is your in-house pages describing how to post questions to this Teahouse and/or create tables in Wikipedia. To younger readers or those with ample Wikipedia editing experience they are clear, I'm sure. But I think middle-aged novices, like myself, might relate better to different wording and examples. I respect what you have done and are doing. I would enjoy being a part of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalKorea (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@LegalKorea: You say, "I was recently hired to do PR for the international Korean-based law firm in question, DR & AJU." Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In brief, Wikipedia generally does not allow articles that people have written about themselves, their close family members, their employers, or anyone else with whose interests they are closely aligned.--Thnidu (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Thindu, for the feedback. I read the policy and if it expressly forbade related parties from writing articles, I would not have started this project. But there is a caveat that if the employee openly discloses the association, writes a neutral piece based on third-party sources and allows critical references added later to stay posted, the article could be accepted. I plan to comply with all of these stipulations. That is why I'm asking editors to verify that the subject is notable and the article neutral before I waste their time with minor editing questions. Also if there were not already many Western firms on Wikipedia and only two Korean firms, I would not have started. But as the point of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge, shouldn't that knowledge include the existence of different kinds of firms -- especially in a time of global liberalization of the legal services market -- provided those firms are engaged in work of international relevance? LegalKorea (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where you have complied with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. —teb728 t c 07:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, LegalKorea. In answer to your question, that 'table' is called an infobox. If you edit one of those other articles, you will see, near the top {{infobox law firm}} (or possibly another infobox, but I'm guessing that is the one used. You need to copy that, all the way down to the matching double curly bracket, and paste it into the article you're working on; then you can change the values of the fields accordingly. Note that you cannot just make up fields: if some of the fields in the template you're copying don't quite match your needs, you need to look at the documentation on the template (which I linked to above) which say what fields are available for that infobox.

One other point, which might seem a quibble, but I think it is important for you to understand. There is not one firm (or person, or anything else) in the world that "has" a Wikipedia article. On the contrary, Wikipedia has articles about many companies and people. And if anybody chooses to regard the existence or non-existence of a Wikipedia article about a company as relevant to that company's web presence, that is a matter of complete indifference to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

help

Hello, I have arthritis and I am dyslexic. I don't understand most of the stuff that I have been invited to read on wiki, instructions etc. and this internet stuff is not really my cup of tea, I don't have a good stable connection by the way. How do I submit and entry or "article" as you call it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.221.217 (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The best and simplest suggestion I can make is to look at Wikipedia:Your first article. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

But I would strongly advise that before embarking on the difficult and often frustrating task of creating a new article, you get a lot of experience by improving some of our five million existing articles. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Improving the article, about Dr. Sudip Bose

Hello Everyone,

I am new to Wikipedia and need some help to write an article. Basically I want to re-write the article on Dr. Sudip Bose distributed in the following sections:

1. Early life and education
2. Career - here I want to talk about his current involvement
3. Operation Iraqi Freedom - here I want to talk about his service in Iraq
4. The Battle Continues - here I want to talk about the charity that he started


I have edited the article as far as I can. Appreciate if you guys can help to improve it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utsavde39 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Utsavde39:

1. When you post to a talk or discussion page, such as this one, always sign with four tildes: ~~~~. That will appear as your username, with links and a timestamp. (See the end of my comment here.)
2. When you mention an article on such a page, always identify it clearly— which you did— and preferably provide a wikilink— which you did not, so I have just added it.--Thnidu (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Thindu for your help. Utsavde39 (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Utsavde39: I notice that you wrote at User_talk:Doc_James, " I personally know Dr. Bose, and he requested me to improve this article. Just added back the personal data in the article. Need input from you to make this part proper. Any help is appreciated. Please don't remove the whole part, just comment." You seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. It is not Dr. Bose's article but Wikipedia's article about him. Wikipedia has little if any interest in what Dr. Bose wants the article to say. And his request does not give you the right to control the article. —teb728 t c 06:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In some areas of editing I believe there are also links at the top of the edit page that provide for signing the edit. Specifically, the talk pages. I am unsure why this page is not set up the same way. On another note, I believe that the person or other entity that specific articles are about should have some impact on the quality, quantity and accuracy of information in order to make articles as honest and reliable as possible. Rrrof711 (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline encourages the subject to suggest/request changes on the article talk page. But they are "strongly discourged" from editing the article directly and have no right to take the control the article. —teb728 t c 08:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Utsavde39, if you decide to continue working on that article (which is discouraged but not forbidden), my advice to you is to forget absolutely everything you know about Bose, and confine yourself to information which has been published by somebody unconnected with him. That excludes not only his own and his organisations' websites, but also any interviews with him, and any article written from press releases from him or his organisations. Even in the headings you've suggested above: the first two are all right, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is fine if that is the name of the organisation, and independent sources have written about it; but "the battle continues" is an interpretation which must not appear in a Wikipedia article unless it is directly quoting an independent reliable source - and in that case, I doubt that it would be suitable as a header.

Essentially what is going on is that, like many, many people who are not familiar with Wikipedia, you have come here to promote Bose: to tell the world about him in language of his choosing. This is not allowed on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk)

ColinFine

Operation Iraqi Freedom was a term used for the Iraq War in the United States, as you can see if you click on the link. "The Battle Continues" is where Utsavde39 wants to talk about a charity, in which case your advice about the name of the organization and independent sources would still apply.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Footnote reference in quote in reference

I've just created Anne's Spot as a planetary science stub, after seeing it redlinked from Anticyclone. I did a bit of research and was able to write two sentences about it from two reliable sources. The second of those, Vasavada et al., gave further detail that I added in the quote field of the note. That quote references a third source, which I think needs to be credited properly, but I can't figure out how to add a reference from a reference. I've read the refn template doc, and maybe I'm too tired, but I just don't get it. Help, please?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thnidu, While it is technically possible to have footnotes withing footnotes, in my view it usually leads to a confusing article, and should not be done unless there is not a better way to handle the situation. In this case, the better way is simple: move the quote into the article proper, with inline attribution. Then the footnote for the quoted reference can simply follow the quote. This will be much clearer. The article would read something like this:

Anne's Spot refers to a reddish-colored anticyclonic oval in Saturn's atmosphere, observed in 1977 by the Voyager space probes at 55°S. It may well also have been observed in 2004 by the Cassini orbiter, at about 53°S, one-third larger east-west, and with faster winds. Vasavada, Hörst and Kennedy write that: "It is tempting to speculate that this vortex is Anne's Spot from the Voyager era [Sánchez-Lavega et al., 2000]. If so, it has moved ~2° north in latitude and increased in velocity by ~25 m s−1, just as predicted by the zonal wind profile (in addition, its east-west diameter has increased from 3200 km to 4500 km)."

References

Does this method seem reasonable to you? DES ^(talk) 23:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Yes, indeed. Thank you for the advice, which I will take. --Thnidu (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Well, I tried it. I was unhappy about that quote taking up so much of such a short article, so I put it back to almost the way I'd had it, with a kludge in the refs to handle the ref-in-ref problem. --Thnidu (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

HELLO HOW ARE YOU I AM PHOENIX.= AND I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT HOW TO EDIT ON HERE.

How do i put pics on here and how do out words including link??? please help me?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olamilay (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Please, see Help:Files and Help:Link. Ruslik_Zero 20:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, Olamilay, please realize this is supposed to be a serious work. Please do not type in all caps, as the is considered SHOUTing on the internet and please write in complete, grammatically correct sentences, as any additions you make to the encyclopedia will need to be written. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Finding Edit Count

I need to find my edit count, but X! is not working. Everything reads 0. Assistance please?

Thanks,

Fritzmann2002 19:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Fritzmann2002 and Welcome to the Teahouse! From the top toolbar: click on Preferences and under User profile / Basic information, there should be a line for Number of edits. Cheers!  JoeHebda (talk)  19:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I always know I can get a good, quick answer when I come to the Teahouse! Fritzmann2002 20:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Steve Wilks

Hi there i am new to wiki pedia and i would love if someone could look at this page i just made for a friend has i can't get the picture to show because i am just editor and i would love if someone could just check it over for me to make sur i stand in good stand thanks for the help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_wilks i would really appreciate the help has i this is not really my field love peace and light — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterdow123 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Peterdow123, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved your question to the top of the page and given it a heading. Hidden down at the bottom beneath an existing heading, it might have gone unnoticed. Unfortunately, there are lots of problems with the Steve wilks article. The main problem is the lack of references. Not only does material on Wikipedia need to be based on what reliable sources say, but we need to know that the subject meets our notability requirements, which generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Unreferenced articles about living people are almost always deleted. The standard of English in the article is also poor, with essential punctuation missing. It also uses offensive language, such as "halfcast" (sic). The article name is also not capitalised correctly. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

personalities without web presence

Hi

I have been wanting to set up a page about an 'Urdu' language poetess who has won a national award in Pakistan.

However, there isn't much I can find about her on internet through any authentic source. Unfortunately, she wasn't given much appreciation or recognition in media or news in general. I created an account by her name which was deleted.

I have plenty of information on her through private sources.

How do I go about it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aizazbokhari92 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Aizazbokhari92, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume that when you say that you created an account, you mean an article? If that article was Narjis Afroz Zaidi, then it appears to have been deleted because it did not demonstrate the notability of the subject. To have a Wikipedia article about something, we generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Using sources that are offline is fine, but the sources do need to be published rather than private. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability on this. I presume that if this poet has won national awards, that will have been covered in the media? You can use this media coverage to demonstrate the subject's notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Article relevance

Hi there,

I got in touch a few days ago to get some feedback on my draft article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Malaria_Eradication_Research_Agenda_%28malERA%29

I have added more independent sources. Please, note there are 2 peer-reviewed papers that address this topic (not only mention it), an statement from the director of WHO highlighting the relevance of malERA, more than 5 news items about this subject...

malERA is a high level/high impact topic for the eradication of malaria. Please, see the metrics that show the impact of these papers. http://almreports.plos.org/reports/metrics/20462

I think the community will greatly benefit from having this piece of information in wikipedia. Please, let me know if there is anything else I could do in order to get this published.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MESA po (talk • contribs) 09:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Rather than a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Malaria_Eradication_Research_Agenda_%28malERA%29 it is better to use a wikilink. [[Draft:Malaria Eradication Research Agenda (malERA)]] renders as Draft:Malaria Eradication Research Agenda (malERA). - David Biddulph (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you David Biddulph — Preceding unsigned comment added by MESA po (talk • contribs) 09:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MESA po. I'm not sure that there is much more that we can advise here, other than that you add any relevant sources establishing notability to the article and then resubmit it for review. That is what the review process is for, after all. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Guys, how to mention that article is needed proofreading and contain grammar mistakes?

Diff7 (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Guys, how to mention that article is needed proofreading and contain grammar mistakes?Diff7 (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Copy editing --David Biddulph (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

actor page

Im very confuse how to add a reference to create an actor pageBlumenstar13 (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You will find a number of useful links on your user talk page, including to WP:Your first article, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Descendants of American Slaves

I reviewed Draft:The Descendants of American Slaves at Articles for Creation. I declined it as not providing evidence of notability, and asked to get rid of the references to Wikipedia, which should be wikilinks, and to the organization’s own web site, which should be an external link. I then received a reply to the decline from User: DASI100. That reply didn’t ask any specific questions. So I will ask other experienced editors here to comment. The organization probably is notable, but the draft does not make a case to me for non-profit organization notability, partly because some of the references, as noted above, are clearly not valid references. I now also noticed that there are multiple external links in the body of the article. These are not permitted in the body of the article. Move them to the external links section. Also, the author of the draft is User:DASI100. Does DAS stand for Descendants of American Slaves? If so, there may be a conflict of interest, and the user name may be improper. Do other experienced editors want to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If the editor has a COI, DASI100 should declare it on his or her user page and add {{connected contributor}} to any relevant article talk pages. Notability is inherent to a topic, but, per WP:AFCR, it still needs to be demonstrated in the draft. But reviewers should ignore minor formatting issues like manual of style violations or embedded external links. You can clean them up later when the article is posted. Or tag the article for cleanup, and someone else will do it. The important part is that the article should be able to survive an AfD discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

I am working on a page that is submitted for deletion. I re-wrote the "Biography" section for Austin Petersen, because it was lacking sources. I was wondering if someone could take a look at it, to see if I am on the right path. Thank youHezymundo (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is Austin Petersen. It appears that the Biography section has been deleted by another editor. I personally think that the deletion of whole sections from an article that is at AFD is not useful, because it causes the !voters to shoot at a moving target, and changes what is being considered for deletion, but that opinion is worth what you paid for it. The real question is whether there are multiple independent reliable sources about him and about his candidacy for the Libertarian Party nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Applicable sources for wikipedia page i'm writing

Hello- currently i am drafting a page about the first wii u emulator(this is a real emulator, i checked just to make sure and this one is actually real) out there called Cemu. It is the first wii u emulator to boot and play commercial games. the developers maintain a reddit page here https://www.reddit.com/r/cemu I can only find out certain information via this source. The posts i'm reffering to are ones posted by the developers(you can tell if they're a developer or not by the fact this it says CEMU Developer next to the name of the person who posted that post if they're a developer.) I need information for an infobox that i can only get there like what programming language it's written in.Which if you look at the whole page here https://www.reddit.com/r/cemu/comments/3q28w0/cemu_101_released/ one of the developers posts "It's written mostly in C. There is some C++ code for GUI stuff but that's about it." my question is can these posts by the developers on normally untrustworthy sources like reddit be cited for the article i'm going to soon upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emulator newsguy (talk • contribs) 01:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Emulator newsguy, if it can be pretty clearly established that these posts are in fact by the developers of the emulator, they could perhaps be cited under the rule on self-published statements. However, they will not contribute to establishing notability, and you must have sufficient reliable sources to establish the notability of the topic separately, otherwise these posts won't matter. DES ^(talk) 01:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

we're unable to make edits to the references

I am trouble editing on Michael Tobias page. We're unable to make edits to the references, is there a reason why? We have an active account and were able to make changes to everything else, thanks!Jjp22389 (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jjp22389 and welcome to the Teahouse. For most styles of referencing in use here at Wikipedia, the reference details are stored in the text adjacent to the statement being supported by the reference, not in the References section, which is only used to display them. See referencing for Beginners for more details. DES ^(talk) 17:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jjp22389. The issue noted above is a common source of misunderstanding and so we have a template dedicated to discussing it in some detail that might help. Please see Template:Edit refs. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Jjp22389, I note that you refer to yourself as "we". Can I ask if you are sharing your account with someone, or editing as a group using one username? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Making my first page and I need help

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberdunk_2" is page i made which I created to help new users understand the game better. When i decided to save the page it said my page could meet criteria for speedy deletion? ZenCara (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ZenCara and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia only has pages about Notable topics (in the special Wikipedia sense). Also, Wikipedia articles should be neutral, and not serve to advertise or promote their subjects (or anything else). Nor is Wikipedia game guide or how-to. Unless tis game has been covered in some depth in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the creators and publishers of the game, it should not have a Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk) 18:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Usage of source with license

Hello, I am wanting to use this journal source but it has a special license at the bottom. Am I allowed to use it on Wikipedia if it has such a license? Thanks. Marshmallow Honey (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Most journal articles are copyright, Marshmallow Honey. That doesn't mean that we can't summarise what they report or use short quotes from them. It just means we can't reproduce them in full (which we wouldn't want to do in any case). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. Marshmallow Honey (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You can't use those words, but you can put the information in your own words and use the journal as a reference. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings David Biddulph, so I can't quote the source whatsoever? Only paraphrase? I'm also a bit unfamiliar of what is the right way to use Template:Cite journal for this source, how would I go about that? Thanks for all the help. Marshmallow Honey (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Quotes are fine, as long as they don't comprise a substantial proportion of the source. See WP:COPYQUOTE on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Organizing Topic Coordination for Hypericum

Hello! I am Fritzmann2002. I have spent a lot of time working on creating articles for the many species of Hypericum. This process is very time consuming, and I am not very good at creating large articles with many different features, etcetera. To try to better the coverage of this interesting genus, I wanted to call together some editors to collaborate and learn with me and to accomplish these goals:

• Bring the main Hypericum article to Good Article status
• Have a Start Class article for every species in the genus, or at least those in the selected species list
• Have an image of said species of every article
• Create the necessary non-article material, e.g. redirects, categories, stub templates, and the like

If you would like to assist me in this, please see the talk page and add your name. I don't expect to get a lot of help, but anything is much appreciated.

Thank you, and Happy Wiki-ing,

Fritzmann2002 15:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Fritzmann2002, I think if you post your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants you're likely to find editors with similar interest who can assist you. They might be able to give you some tips to help you out with creating these articles. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I will most definitely do that. Fritzmann2002 15:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Manika Kaur article tone not reflecting encyclopedic tone

Hi I've written my first article about a kirtan singer Manika Kaur but apparently it's not following the right encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. It would really help if someone could tell me what in particular is wrong with it? Also in the Talk page it says that contentious material that is poorly sourced must be removed immediately - it would also be really helpful to know exactly what this is referring to, and how it can be better sourced. Thank you very much. Blue Mountain Coffee Beans (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Blue Mountain Coffee Beans: Thank you for taking the time to create and improve an article here! Taking your second concern first, the "poorly sourced" notice on the talk page is not directed at the current contents of the page! It's just a general notice that is placed on the talk pages of all biographies of living persons as a reminder to be careful when editing.

Now for the "tone" issue. Tone is basically just the "feel" of the article, and can be tricky to pin down. The tone issue with "Manika Kaur" is that it reads like an essay or like a magazine profile piece, not like an impartial encyclopedic article. To quote from Wikipedia:Writing better articles, "The tone ... should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." To improve the tone, try reading sections of your article with similar sections of other, more established, articles - #Debut album with The Beatles#Musical style and development or Taylor Swift#Influences, for example. I hope this helps. Happy editing! – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

As to non-encyclopedic language, that is a matter of judgment, but "In her teenage years she led a peaceful life within the Sikh community singing kirtan at the Gurdwara or spending time helping out in elderly homes.

Although she never had any formal training, Kaur grew up in a spiritual environment where music occupied a very important place as a part of the Sikh culture" seems to me to be non-neutral when in the voice of Wikipedia. That is the sort of language that I expect to see in autobiographies (which are declined). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the overall tone is too far away from what we require, Blue Mountain Coffee Beans, but I agree with the comments above that it could be more impersonal and dispassionate. Also, wording such as "it conveys a message of peace, love, and truth" needs to be attributed to its source rather than being in Wikipedia's voice, as it presents an opinion or interpretation rather than a fact. On this point, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I need help editing the references section of an article.

I'm trying to edit an article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schoenewolf. I want to edit the References section. When I click the edit button, the reference items turn blue and on the right it says, "Template," and "Generated from Reflist." On the right of that is "Edit". If I press edit I get another box, and the heading "Reflist" and then a note, "This template displays the list of footnotes at the end of an article and provides additional formatting and organizing options. After hitting "Apply changes" and turning back to VE read mode, you will not see the references list. After hitting "Save page" and turning back to normal read mode the reference list will reappear with the changes applied, see T53146." I can't figure out from this how to edit this reference list. I just want to delete an item in the reference list and add another.Amy Capella (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amy Capella
You do not edit the reference list, you edit the article at the point where the reference first occurs. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for the "How-to".
Please note that you need a very good reason to delete a reference, not just that you disagree with it, and should explain that reason in your edit summary. - Arjayay (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. As was said in reply to your question at Wikipedia:Help desk#References, references are not edited in the "References" section. You need to go to the place in the article where the reference is used; one way of getting there is to follow the up-arrow (^) link beside the reference. I see that you mention VE; most of us wouldn't recommend using VE (because it is notoriously bug-ridden), but that is probably not the problem in this case. One more point: in your question you give the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schoenewolf, but in general if we want to refer to a Wikipedia page we do it with a wikilink; [[Gerald Schoenewolf]] renders as Gerald Schoenewolf. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Getting bored

How to pass time in ICT practicals class? Gayontika (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not by asking questions at an inappropriate place, I'm afraid, Gayontika. This is for questions about how to edit Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comics

I need to know how much comics worth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.16.66.150 (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. We can't offer advice on the valuation of comics. You might want to try Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

name change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synovate_Business_Consulting We are now Ipsos Business Consulting, could you please let me know the next steps for the page title and URL change?Ipsosbc (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Ipsosbc, I've moved the article for you. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of Vandalism

I have been improperly and inaccurately accused of vandalism and disruptive editing by somebody in Wikipedia and have no idea how to respond. My edits of February 15 were correct and have been retained and yet this person of apparent authority has threatened me with blocking any future edits. Since I don't know what he is referring to, I feel I am unable to make edits and so ends my experience with Wikipedia. Please advise. Burke (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Burkeedwards. Can you point out where you were accused of vandalism? I don't see any edits on February 15 from this account. Did you make them while logged out? Sometimes what happens is that logged out users will receive warnings for edits made by other people who use the same ISP. This is one reason why it's advantageous to log in to your account when you edit: you don't share your talk page with anyone else! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I found it as a banner headline when I opened Wikipedia. I found it again when I clicked Talk at the top of the page. It looked official, but I couldn't determine where it came from or anything more about it. On the 15th I corrected the entry "Brian Holland" to give his correct birth date, where his brother, Eddie Holland's, birth date was listed and I took out the word "as" in the first line of the Charles Lewis Tiffany entry where it read, "was as a nineteenth century leader in the American jewelry trade..." I marked each as a "minor edit". Burke (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: I may not have been logged in when I made those edits. I'll be sure to log in in the future. Burke (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The article Brian Holland hasn't been edited since 2 February; it has no edits on 15 February. Which article do you think you edited? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you remember any quotes from the notice? Then we could at least try to pin down what generated it. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This may be Bryan Holland. Debouch (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There was an unexplained removal of content from that article about a month ago, but not by the original poster. Can the original poster please provide better information as to where they think they were accused of vandalism?

This is the edit in question, made while logged off as IP 107.134.222.187. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry. It appears to be nothing but an error by the experienced editor User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. It happens. Your edit certainly appears to be valid, and it was not reverted. Ignore the warning, remove it from the talk page, and contact the other editor if you are still worried (and he doesn't reply here). Meters (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This last entry seems to clear up the situation. Sorry if I overreacted but, to me, vandalism is a pretty strong word. Thanks for everyone's input. Burke (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that vandalism is a very strong word. Unfortunately, it is common for a few editors to yell "Vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute. Doing so, when there is a good-faith content dispute, or when there is no evidence of intent to harm Wikipedia (which is what vandalism is about), is a personal attack. In this case, it seems that the situation has been cleared up as a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It's just an assumption on my part that it was a mistake, but it certainly looks that way. It wasn't a content dispute since the edit in question corrected a clear mistake on the page (but the edit summary could have been a bit clearer). The IP had had no previous warnings, and has a history of good edits. An experienced editor left a level 3 vandalism warning but didn't revert the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 February 2016‎ (UTC)

How to fix notability?

Hello Wikipedia

I revised my article after receiving your advice ad sent it in for submission. I have gotten an answer and it was rejected on terms of notability. Most of my sources are directly from the developers leading to notability issues. There are a lot of people who have talked about Subterfuge on their blogs but I didn't use them for sources because I wanted to keep my article based on direct sources. How can I improve this to include more sources that are not directly from the developers in the hopes of getting it published? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Subterfuge_(game)&redirect=no Chariot Rider (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Chariot Rider, and welcome to the Teahouse. If by "direct sources", you mean ones that are not independent of the article subject, then that is a problem in terms of demonstrating notability, because that requires evidence of significant coverage of the subject in independent sources. Finding and adding those is what you need to do. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Chariot Rider. You might find it helpful to read the essay Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect/Conflicting WIKI Info on LIST OF TERRITORIAL ENTITIES WHERE ENGLISH IS AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.

I am not going to even attempt to edit the article, but am rather drawing it to your attention in the hopes that you can refer it to a competent editor.

The above listed WIKI article omits IRELAND in the sub-category titled COUNTRIES WHERE ENGLISH IS A DE-FACTO OFFICIAL LANGUAGE. English is indeed the de-facto language of IRELAND (see WIKI description of the legal term de-facto). Under the subsection COUNTRIES WHERE ENGLISH IS A DE-JURE language in the same article, IRELAND is incorrectly included. The official (de-jure) language of IRELAND is IRISH (Gaelic) though English is the de-facto spoken language.

As though to punctuate this inconsistency, IRELAND is listen as one of SIX countries in WIKI article, ANGLOSPHERE.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinguistMan62 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, LinguistMan62, and welcome to the Teahouse. According to the Constitution of Ireland, both Irish and English are official languages of the state, making English a de jure official language, not a de facto one. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not type in ALL CAPITALS. It is considered SHOUTING, and is considered to be rude on the Internet. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

My new article was declined for "promotional" language, but I didn't mean to do that. Advice?

Not the place for the text of a draft

Jennifer Rade, also known as the “Wicked Witch of the Wardrobe,” is a renowned fashion designer that lives in Los Angeles, California. Rade is known for her diverse portfolio of not only fashion design work, but also appearances on television and movies. She works with numerous A-List celebrities (incomplete list included.) Not only have her outfits been seen on the red carpet, they have also been in music videos and commercials. In February of 2013, her clothing line “EDGE” debuted. Rade’s work gained more attention in 2015 when styled Caitlyn Jenner for her Arthur Ashe Courage Award acceptance at the ESBY Awards. Jen Rade has been a spokesperson for companies such as Jergen’s Natural Glow, Proctor and Gambles, Schick, Nintendo, Ilori, Bloomingdales, Gap, Tiffany, Caress, and Macy’s. Rade is currently a spokesperson for TJ Maxx and Marshall’s. Introduction to the fashion business: After Jen Rade graduated from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, she moved to Los Angeles, where her work was soon recognized by Lionel Martin. Jen Rade began to complete work in hip hop and rap music videos with the help of Martin. Rade’s services were then hired by famous rappers such as Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, Tupac Shakur, and Ice Cube. After Rade’s hip hop design career took off, notable rock and pop artists such as Lenny Kravitz, Will Smith, Dave Matthews, and Slipknot. Marilyn Manson even picked up on Rade’s styling work and hired her for six of his music videos. Style: Jennifer Rade’s style is unique to Los Angeles, in the sense that she considers “less is more.” Rade does not often overdress her clients and this was made evident in her QVC Edge clothing line. Rade dresses “casually and classic.” This style choice is also seen often on Angelina Jolie, whom Rade works with often. According to an interview with PopSugar Magazine, her favorite three outfits of Angelina Jolie for a red carpet appearance so far are from the 2004 Oscars, the Mr. and Mrs. Smith premier, and the Oceans 13 premier. Notable Accomplishments: EDGE Clothing Line: On February 22, 2013, Jennifer released her EDGE Clothing line through QVC. This clothing line set the trends for Summer of 2013 and was both admired and used by celebrities and fashion enthusiasts alike. In an interview with Stylecaster, Jeniffer described EDGE as her own “personal style” with “a bit of edge to it.” Jennifer intended for it to be a diverse clothing line “You don’t have to be 25 to wear it, you can be 55!” Her relaxed, stylish, and unique view on clothing has provided confidence for the average consumer as well as celebrities. Caitlyn Jenner ESBYs Appearance: In July of 2015, Caitlyn Jenner attended the ESBY Awards to accept the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. Caitlyn had long admired the style of Angelina Jolie, who consequently was styled by Jennifer Rade. Since this was Caitlyn’s first live appearance on the stage, there was a large amount of pressure on Rade to both capture Angelina Jolie’s image and transfer it to Caitlyn. Rade chose an off white colored ivory dress for Caitlyn that was admired greatly and critically acclaimed. Commercial Costume Design Awards: Rade’s work has been officially recognized for her excellent design work in commercials. The first time was in 2005 when Rade won a Commercial Costume Design Award for her work in Apple’s iPod “Dance” commercial. The second time Rade’s work was recognized was in 2006 when she was given a Costume Designers Guild Award. This time it was for her successful design for Target’s “Branding Circles” commercials. Acting Appearances: Jennifer has appeared in a variety of television shows, commercials, and even movies. On television, Rade has appeared on Project Runway’s Under the Gunn, Styl’d, Style Star, SoapTalk, The One: Making a Music Star, Shop Like a Star, Confessions of a Teen Idol, The Face, Paris in LA, The Munsters Today, and most recently, I am Cait. One of her most notable appearances on a television show was when she was a judge on Project Runway’s Under the Gunn. Not only has Rade had multiple television show appearances, she has been involved as an actress in commercials for Xfinity, H&R Block, T-Mobile, Honda, Netflix, and Netzero. In movies, she appeared in Shrink and Majority Rules. Commercial Costume Designs: Jennifer has styled actor costumes for numerous commercials as well. Her most notable commercial work was for the Apple iPod commercial, Dance, which she was awarded a Commercial Costume Design Award. Her other work for commercials includes Coors Light, Hershey’s, Target, Apple iPod, BlackBerry, US Bank, Microsoft, Golf Pride, Playstation, Smirnoff, and Michelob Ultra. Movie Styling: Jennifer has worked as a fashion designer for actors on movie sets as well. Some of her notable works include Michael Jackson’s This Is It (2009), Motorama (1991), Maxim Xul (1991), Undiscovered (2005), Playing Dangerous (1993) Music Video Costume Design: Jennifer has been a costume designer for multiple music artists, including Pink, Will Smith, The Dave Matthews Band, and Marilyn Manson. Marilyn Manson is one of Rade’s favorite artists to work. She has been quoted saying he is her “dear friend.” Rade says that Manson is “funny, smart, and well read.” List of Celebrities Styled: Jennifer Rade is a favorite stylist for many celebrities for their red carpet appearances. She has styled over fifty A-List celebrities for their time on the red carpet. While she has styled for many celebrities, she has consistently styled for the actress Angelina Jolie. Below is an incomplete list of celebrities styled.

(Drewholt (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't the place for the full text of a draft, so I've collapsed the display. All we need is a wikilink to Draft:Jennifer Rade. The feedback at the top of the draft is what you need to read, and included in that are links to useful pages. You need to read about independent published reliable sources, and how to use them in references as footnotes. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Statements such as 'Jennifer Rade’s style is unique to Los Angeles, in the sense that she considers “less is more.” ' look promotional and should not be made in the voice of Wikipedia. If someone else said that, quote them with a footnote. Also, use proper wikiheadings for the sections. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Every single assertion about how successful she is must be cited to an independent, reliable source, Drewholt. Every single quotation in the draft must also be cited to a reliable source. All unsourced promotional language must be removed, without exception. This is mandatory. Please read and understand the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Feedback request for my first page

Hi Everyone,

This is my first attempt at creating a Wiki page. Before I get to far into the process I was wondering if I can get feedback on my draft work in progress. Subject matter, photographic copy rights, layout, citations etc. are all concerning for me. Of course all comments are welcome. The draft is located in my sandbox User:Craig.cgc/sandbox

Thanks Craig Craig.cgc (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I see you have quite a lot of images and very little text so far at User:Craig.cgc/sandbox. Usually adding images should be one of the last steps in creating a draft article.

• The lead section, the text before the first section heading, should introduce the subject and summarize the entire article. In this case it might start something like "The State Reform School in Westborough Massachusetts was a correctional institution active from <year1> to <Year2>.
• Context should be clear at th4e start: where and when was this reform school established? How long did it exist? What are its chief claims to fame?
• The body of the article should go into more detail about the subject, divided into suitable sections. The framework you have looks plausible.
• You will need to find and cite reliable sources to support the statements in the draft, and to establish that the topic is notable. Read Referencing for Beginners for information on how to cite sources.
• Any images should also have their sources cited -- who created the image and when.
• The article draft should not editorialize: it should state facts derived from reliable sources. It may indicate opinions, provided that it is made clear whose opinions they are (not Wikipedia's) and that a source is cited to show that that person held that opinion. The aricle may not draw conclusions beyond what can be found in the sources.
• Please read Your First Article.

I hope the above helps. Feel free to ask more detailed questions. DES ^(talk) 17:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. Wikibooks - Referencing

Hello - I asked this question in wikibooks' Reading Room too, but figured I should post more than one place. I'm trying to add a reference into a post on Wikibooks but it keeps telling me I'm trying to enter an email. I'm not - I'm attempting to add an outside link as a reference. I'm citing everything the same as I would when I was using Wikipedia. Is there a specific webpage-citation method I'm missing for Wikibooks?

Thanks. Hfk667 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Hfk667. Do you have the problem on Wikipedia too? Also, try posting the link here inside a <nowiki></nowiki> element so that we can see what you are trying. —teb728 t c 01:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Permission to use photo

I have an email from the holder of the copyright to a picture, giving me permission to use it on Wikipedia. But the permission is for non-commercial use, only on Wikipedia. The picture is at https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:8c97mp28v , and it has the license CC BY-NC-ND. I would like to use it on a page I am creating: Draft:Haymarket - Boston. Can I use this picture? If so, where do I upload it, and how do I document the permission to use it? NewtonCourt (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, NewtonCourt, but neither CC-BY-NC-ND nor "Only on Wikipedia" are compatible licenses. The image cannot be used anywhere on Wikipedia until the copyright holder puts it under a free license, unless it fits the rather narrow fair use criteria (at WP:NFCC). See WP:COPYRIGHT for more details. DES ^(talk) 14:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Here's one last try. Would it be acceptable as "fair use" to post on Wikipedia a 200-pixel-wide thumbnail of the historic photo? The page with the thumbnail would have a link to the original full-size photo that's available to the public on digitalcommonwealth.org. NewtonCourt (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If the image is a unique historic image, such that no free equivalent could ever be created, and if all of the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria are met, then and only then could the image be used under a claim of fair use. A fair use rationale must be placed on the talk page of the article, and this can't be done while the text is in draft or user space, fair use images can only be used in main article space. DES ^(talk) 17:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi NewtonCourt. I just want to slightly clarify what DES wrote above. If you upload the file as non-free, then you should add the non-free use rationale ("fair use rationale") to the file's page; do not add the rationale to the talk page of the article. There are quite a few different templates you can use for the rationale, but one will be added for you if you use Wikipedia:Upload wizard to upload the image. Just follow the instructions and the appropriate template will be used. However, as DES states above, non-free images may only be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. So, I suggest you wait until your draft has been approved before uploading the image; otherwise, it is likely to be speedily deleted per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I might add, NewtonCourt, that one thing your article does not need is more pictures. Each photo in an article should directly illustrate some portion of the copy, and should be placed in physical proximity to the copy supported. Although there are circumstances where illustration is the best method of communication, this is not one of them. All the pictures make your draft look like a promotional brochure. Best practice would be to create a category for these photos on Commons and link to that category using the {{Commons}} template. Only chose a very few photos from your gallery and use them to directly illustrate something in the copy in the article. John from Idegon (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Tagging other users

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering how I can tag other wiki users?

Thanks,

KerryFromThePub (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @KerryFromThePub: You can tag other users by using the {{Reply to}} template. For example, I've tagged you by using {{reply to|KerryFromThePub}}. This should send you a notification that I've tagged you in a comment. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

page not really "deleted"

Hello. I recently authored an article ("Kenneth R. Brousseau") that was subsequently proposed for deletion. I decided to further work on the article, and in the meantime requested that the page be deleted. However, the "shell" of the page still exists - if I google the subject, I can still find the wikipedia page on it. Only, when you go to the wikipedia link you only see that the page has been deleted. Is there any way to fully remove this page? Otherwise, when people search for the subject on google and go to wikipedia link that comes up, they will only find the deletion history of the page. Or, once I re-publish the page, will it replace this "shell" of the original? Thank you! Daysofsage (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Daysofsage, it is most assuredly deleted as completely as it ever will be. We keep records of deleted pages of course. It takes some days for items to be removed from Google search results, although they seem to add almost immediately. In any case, it is a Google issue, not a Wikipedia issue. John from Idegon (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, when you recreate the page, the 1 or 2 sentences on Google will be replaced with the new one. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Google can tell the difference between a deleted and a non-deleted Wikipedia page, so once it detects the deletion (it may take several days, as John noted), it will remove the entry. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Broken Link (Bot?)/ Deleted Article

I want to edit an article that had been previously been declined due to insufficient reference articles. I tried pulling it up several times, but the closest I seem to have come is a link to a broken link or bot or something. The article is for American Music Producer Tommy Hittz. When I edit this article, am I only allowed to summarize the information from the references, or can I add more information if I know firsthand? 2602:306:3BF8:F600:2DF1:7E0A:8648:83B6 (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. A Wikipedia article should summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. Adding information that you know firsthand is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If you try to go to Draft:Tommy Hittz, it shows that this draft did exist, but was deleted by RHaworth in August 2015, with the message: "(G13: Abandoned AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13)". --ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Creating an infobox

How do I create a infobox? Kidsoljah (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Kidsoljah, you can go to WP:Infobox and swipe a basic template for creation, which you then adapt to whatever parameters you want. However, be sure that the infobox you want doesn't already exist. Try searching for "Template: Infobox xxxx" or something like that. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kidsoljah. White Arabian Filly has assumed that you mean you want to create a new type of infobox, a new infobox template. If so, their advice is right; but I suspect you want to create an infobox in an article. In that case, the easiest way is to copy one from a similar article, and change the fields as appropriate. You can see what fields are available and what they mean at Template:infobox <whatever> for the particular infobox you are using. --ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Ancestry a reliable source?

Since Ancestry tend to data-mine from sources such as censuses, parish registers and so on, are they a reliable source? An example is (in respect of Morvil), Ancestry gives Robert de Vale's dates as 1250 - 1303. Can I cite that if it's on an Ancestry public page, even though they do not cite a source themselves? Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Much of Ancestry.com's content is user-provided, so not reliable. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Ancestry.com. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

... and even when they transcribe census records, transcription errors are fairly common. Dbfirs 12:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What are the "rules" about creating a new stub article??

Quick question ... I was trying to be helpful and create a stub article for a publishing company that was missing. While I was still trying to create the article, another user deleted the article from under me for violating "the rules". How long does a user have to create a perfect article?? It seems like the article has to be 100% perfect at birth, or it'll be deleted within five minutes for violating "the rules". What, exactly are the rules for a stub article?? Hi-storian (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Any article must be sourced and demonstrate notability from square one. You can, of course, develop it and use "Show preview" to check it as you go, and not use "Save page" until it is ready. If you need to spend moretime developing it, you would be better off using a draft through the article for creation process (or a userspace draft), and in either of those cases you don't need to "Submit" it for review until you are happy that it meets Wikipedia's requirements. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: I've weighed in on the particular circumstances on your talk page, and I agree with David Biddulph here. I've been editing for sometime, and I still use sandboxes, and I just used Template:Under construction the other day. A new article doesn't need to be perfect from the outset but there are some minimum expectations based on speedy deletion criteria. I think some (but not all) editors prefer to see:

• A lead statement so it's understood what the topic is about,
• A claim of notability with some prose, and
• A few sources consistent with these principles.
• No evidence of copyright-infringing text nor promotional-sounding text.

I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Some of this helps, but it seems rather intimidating. What would make a publisher notable?? I understand that a very small local operation with less than a dozen titles would not be, but a major publisher that has hundreds of titles, marketed internationally should be, right?? Where do you draw the line??

Thanks also for the link to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. It's very long and gets very technical, but in the third paragraph of the introduction it says "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." How soon is too soon?? Five minutes?? An hour? A day? I take it's a bit of a judgement call, but some clarification of what is intended is helpful. It seems like the overall policy is about clear gibberish, vandalism, self-promotion (making a Wikipedia article about yourself) or technical issues like broken file formats and such. I'm not sure why my article got deleted while I was still writing it. I do understand the "Show preview" versus "Save Page", and do use it. However, I still do a lot of work by cutting and pasting from existing examples, and sometimes have too many tabs open, and it gets confusing, so sometimes it's easier to save an incomplete edit, close off the unneeded tabs, and start fresh. Still learning the ropes, here. Thanks! Hi-storian (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the two previous answers. It is not necessary for an article to be "perfect" at birth, but it is necessary for it to avoid speedy deletion. Evidently the OP's draft was speedy-deleted. An article may be speedy-deleted within five minutes or six hours if it doesn't satisfy the minimum criteria. For those reasons, and because it takes time to complete a minimum article, it is best to develop it somewhere other than in article space, either in user space or in draft space. Depending on how confident one is in one's ability to get the article to be minimally acceptable, one may either use Articles for Creation or one may move the article into article space when one is reasonably confident that it will avoid speedy deletion. A few editors argue that it is not reasonable to tag an article for speedy deletion within some number of hours after it is created, because it may still be in development, but I disagree; the article should not be in article space until it can avoid speedy deletion. The disadvantage to AFC is that may take up to two weeks before the article is reviewed. The disadvantage to an inexperienced editor moving the article from user space directly to article space is that another editor may disagree with their judgment as to whether it is minimally complete. In any case, the original poster's error appears to have been that they were creating the stub article in article space. Either develop it in user space and move it to article space when it is more or less finished, or use Articles for Creation, depending on your own level of experience and how confident you are in your judgment of whether it meets the standards stated above. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As to the OP's latest question, about the comment that "administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation", my advice to an article creator is to make no assumptions. Do not assume that you have five minutes, let alone an hour or a day, to complete the article before moving it into article space. The article got deleted because you were still writing it in article space, and that is taking a risk, because not all nominators and not all administrators even follow that advice. Don't plan on "minimally completing" the article in article space. Plan on "minimally completing" it in draft space or user space. If it doesn't have a clear lede sentence, a claim of notability with some prose, and a few sources justifying that claim, it isn't "minimally complete". It doesn't have to be perfect before being in article space, but it does have to be minimally complete, and don't assume that the deleting administrator will wait five minutes, let alone an hour or a day. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

High-storian, I agree with the above comments. I have written almost 100 new articles, none of which has ever been deleted. I write all of my articles in my user sandboxes, and never move them to the main encyclopedia space until they are fleshed out and properly referenced. Also, I do not write stubs and recommend that you do not write them either. A stub is defined as "an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." Maybe stubs were acceptable in the early days of this encyclopedia, but in 2016, we should be writing encyclopedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I briefly took a look at the above posts and my eyes glazed over. OP?? AFC?? You win, I give up. I cease and desist from attempting to contribute new articles to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy clearly means nothing. Hi-storian (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@High-storian: Not sure if this helps, but in the context that Robert McClenon used them in, "OP" means "original poster" (in this case, that would be you) and "AFC" stands for "Articles for Creation". Also, I think the easiest way to go would be to just create a userspace draft (as other editors have already suggested here) and to ask for advice after you've started it. CabbagePotato (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If you need a glossary to help you with the acronyms used in Wikipedia, you'll find it at Wikipedia:Glossary. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

High-storian. It is unfortunate that so many people come here and plunge straight into the most difficult and potentially frustrating activities: creating a new article. I always advise people to spend some time improving existing articles first, in order to become more familiar with how Wikipedia works. It is also unfortunate that anybody ever even suggests that a new person (or anybody, actually) might create an article directly, as opposed to creating a draft that they can work on with comparative freedom, using the articles for creation process or the Article wizard. Please don't be discouraged! --ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is unfortunate that many newcomers either just decide to come to Wikipedia to create an article, an activity requiring considerable knowledge. I don't think that this idea among very new ideas is directly related to the idea among some experienced article creators that article creators are an elite, and that other roles in Wikipedia are less important. I will also comment that the remark about speedy deletion, suggesting that administrators should wait a while before deleting an obviously incomplete article, is actually harmful, because it gives the impression that creating an article in article space is a reasonable idea. It is not. In my opinion, creating an article in article space is not a good idea even for experienced editors. Maybe that statement about waiting before speedy-deletion should be removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with much of the above, Robert McClenon. There has been strong opposition at WT:CSD to removing the guidance against overly-prompt speedy deletion for most reasons (not copyvios or attack pages), and some support for making this guidance actionable, by sanctioning taggers who violate it. "A while" is usually defined as somewhere between 5 minutes and an hour, not days and days. I first created an article from scratch in article space on about my 25th edit, about 3 weeks after my first edit ever. Most of the text from that 2005 edit is still in place, too. At recent edit-a-thons I have assisted total newcommers to create articles. We did start in draft space, but moved to mainspace while the edit-a-thon was still in progress. In one case, the article was submitted for Did you know a few days later, which it passed easily. (I am referring to Takeshi Murata, but other articles created at the same session can be found at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Women in Arts and Tech#Outcomes. While I do generally advise inexperienced editors to create new articles in draft mode, most often using AFC, I don't advise them not to try creation, although i do try to indicate some of the hurdles that must be overcome for successful article creation. DES ^(talk) 22:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

How do I get a picture of mine to be on Wikimedia commons? Awsomegamer75795 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As long as the picture really is "yours" i.e. you took it, you are prepared to release it so that anyone can use it for (almost) any purpose, and it is on your computer, click "Upload file" under "Tools" in the column on the left, then "Commons Wizard" on the next page, and follow the instructions, - Arjayay (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition to what Arjayay wrote, it is important that the item you have photographed is not itself copyrighted. Photos you take of mountains, lakes, plants, animals, historic buildings or celebrities at public appearances are fine. Photos of contemporary paintings or sculptures by others, or any published copyrighted work, cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that commons has a requirement that material uploaded "must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". See commons:Commons:Project scope, and commons:Commons:What Commons is not. --ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Improve article to show its notability

Hi there,

I would like to get some support on my draft article.

I have modified its content and references according to reviewers´comments. The subject is very relevant for malaria eradication and I would like to know what sources I need to add to show its notability.

Additionally, I would like to know if there is anything else I could do to improve the article and get it published.

Thank you very much MESA po (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

MESA po, the comments of LaMona are to the point, this will be a tricky topic to get accepted. The only way to do it will be to find and cite substantial additional coverage in third-party reliable sources. The article would need to clearly establish that the program itself, and not just the research being done under it, is notable. Links to the papers, and an indication of their authorship, would also be helpful. DES ^(talk) 18:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much DES I have addressed the points that you raised. There are among the sources cited peer reviewed publications, different news items as well as a statement from Margaret Chan, who is the director of WHO. Would you mind leeting me know what additional sources would contribute to show that the topic is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MESA po (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone review my draft?

Can someone review my draft for a page submission? it was taken down before due to lack of notability being displayed. (Electroswing770 (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Electroswing770, If you are referring to Freshly Squeezed Music. It was delted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freshly Squeezed Music. Any new version would need to deal with the issues raised there, and particularly would need to establish notability by providing substantial discussion/coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I don't see any drafts, on this or any other topic, that you have created using this account. Can you please provide a name or a link if the draft is on-wiki? DES ^(talk) 19:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I presume that Electroswing is referring to the material currently posted at User:Electroswing770/sandbox. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Electroswing770, if Cordless Larry is correct, and you are talking about User:Electroswing770/sandbox, I would say it is not yet ready to be accepted. It does very little to establish the notability of Freshly Squeezed Music. There are number of mentions of the label, but not extended discussion of it, mostly in connection with the White Mink: Black Cotton compilation, and just saying that it was on the FSM label. To make this into an article, there would need to be several sources, each of which had 2-3 paragraphs or more about the label, not just a brief mention. Also, blogs are rarely useful sources. It would be better to quote an off-line source than a blog which reproduces it, usually, although in this case the blog in question might be allowed under the "recognized expert' exception. One further point: it is not usual to have both "references" and "sources" in separate lists, unless the page uses "Harvard" references or some other sort of shortened footnotes, which this draft does not currently do. DES ^(talk) 16:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Uploading album covers

Hello!

I'm new using Wikipedia, this is the third or fourth time that I've edited a page and the changes I've made have been rejected, especially while uploading images. Where can I get copyright free images?

Mtvazquez40Mtvazquez40 (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It sounds as if you want copyright-free images of copyrighted artwork. This isn't possible (unless the resolution is so low as to make the image useless). Maproom (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about "useless" - we have lots of album covers, in order to identify the album. The free-use rationale requires the image of an album cover to have one side less than 300 px - Amazon and other websites usually use 240 x 240 px or 250 x 250 px - which are ideal, and can just be copied, as they are not Amazon's copyright. Please ensure the covers are uploaded to en.wikipedia - not commons.wikimedia - as commons can only accept copyright free images. - Arjayay (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Arjayay, for the correction. I had forgotten that en:wikipedia is more tolerant. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Stuck in special characters

I am having a problem on commons which means that I cannot sign with four tildes. I am not familiar with the commons version of the Teahouse but I suspect the problem is not specific to commons rather to me! [5] The colons at the start of a line are also not displayed or inserted correctly. I think I must have got stuck in special characters and cannot work out how to escape. Most embarrassing, help please. SovalValtos (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi SovalValtos. I looked at what occurred but I was hoping for some clarification of context. Assuming you are using a relatively standard QWERTY Roman alphabet computer keyboard (if not clarify that), are you saying that when you try to place colons by hitting shift and the colon key to the right of the "L" key, you place triangular IPA colons like this ː rather than standard colons? And when you press shift plus the key for tildes – just above the tab key and to the left of the 1 key, it somehow does not work? What happens when you try?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget that the position of some keys will vary according to the keyboard layout. On my UK keyboard the tilde is shift + hash, on the right, not at the top left as you describe. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note I am likely to use words in a non technical and perhaps confusing manner. Replying first of all to Fuhghettaboutit. There is no problem in my current editing on the Teahouse. The problem is only on commons. I am using a relatively standard QWERTY key board on a Toshiba laptop which is just over 3 years old. I have just checked and the problem is evident on other pages on commons, but I shall refer to the page[6] for my explanation, and to the section Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boron5 a Boston terrier.jpg where my edits have been made.

The first visible abnormality shows when I press the 'edit' at the end of the title line of the Boron5 section. The edit box that appears, unusually has a sub box at the top, with several lines of symbols. Currently 'symbols' is selected within that box to the left, though I can change to IPA or Latin.

If I then place the cursor at the bottom of the edit box in the usual manner to start a new edit, and then press together shift and the semicolon keys a faint version of a colon appears. If I then repeat shift + semicolon the faint colon is changed to showing just the top dot rather than adding the expected second faint colon to the right of the first one. A third press of shift + semicolon returns the first colon to two dots and completes the second faint colon. The faint colon could be what you describe as a 'triangular IPA colons' but I can only see the triangles after magnifying the page considerably and I find the page you linked, triangular IPA colons like this ː confusing.

Tildes. After completing the text of my edit the first press of shift + # gives what looks like a very small tilde up high in the place where an apostrophe would normally go. A second press of shift + # moves it down to where a comma would normally appear. Even when I had four of them and I tried to save the page, it did not have the effect of signing.

There were further problems when I tried to make a strike through, but I will not go into that now unless you want as I think the problem must be based around having accessed the symbols box, activated it, and not knowing how to get out of it.

David Biddulph I do not think it can be due to my keyboard layout as I am having no problems here. Luckily so as I would not be allowed to ask a question without being able to type four tildes!

Thank you both for your time. SovalValtos (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey again SovalValtos . I don't have the slightest clue what could be causing that nor how it could be stuck and I would think virus, except it's too weird that it only does it there. My half-assed technical advice would be to clear your cache, dump all cookies, restart and if that doesn't fix it, post to the computing section of the reference desk with the context you posted here. You might also tell them the browser you're using and your operating system. Tech gurus also hang out at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), though I suppose technically its; for Wikipedia questions, but I doubt anyone would jump down your throat for posting about a Commons issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Again please do not underestimate how dim I can be. It could be something as simple as not knowing to click on the red X to close a page! I have found how to get rid of the box at the top of the edit box. There is an arrow at the left of 'Special characters' which toggled them out of sight. However the weird colons persist in being generated. I think I have completely cleared the cache including Favorites website data. I do not know how to 'dump all cookies'. I have Windows 8.1 and Internet Explorer 11.0.28 . I have a paid version of Avira anti virus, recently renewed. SovalValtos (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have now posted to the computing section of the reference desk. SovalValtos (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Assistance with declined article

Hello:

I submitted an article about Indie Musician and Musicpreneur Nate Maingard, which was declined for numerous reasons. I then submitted some questions as to the reasons why on the Articles Creation Page, but no one has replied. I'm hoping that someone here will.

Although a professional journalist, this is my first time submitting an article, although I've edited bits of other articles here and there.

I'd like some guidance as to the issues with this kind of performer and wiki-rules, as well as some assistance in revising the article in order to resubmit. I don't want to do so until it is correct along wiki lines. But I also have found that quite a few others have had similar issues when it comes to submitting or writing articles for musicians like this.

Unfortunately, as with most indie performers who prefer to follow their own indie path, some of the cites I used have been considered unacceptable. There is a problem insomuch as these kinds of performers rarely chase traditional PR. There was also a statement that the artist does not meet the various criterion for a Wiki Article. I believe he does meet more than one of the criterion required to have a wiki page. Nearly all of the platforms who review these kinds of artists are themselves indie-platforms. Although I respect the rules wiki has set, I also notice that these have been hotly debated when it comes to some of the reasons the article was declined, and in fact Wiki DOES state that in terms of certain kinds of artists, exceptions can be made.

The reasons given were (please understand that I am not debating these reasons, but am asking for guidance and consideration based on my perspective and the issues facing this sub-culture):

1) "Do not use the person's own works as references."

Unless I am misreading the wiki policy on this, the Attribution Page states:

"Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability (In this case I believe it is) it is not contentious; (It is not) it is not unduly self-serving; (I suppose this depends on the editor's perspective - I'd appreciate a review of the article and some feedback) it does not involve claims about third parties; (This may be a snag on my part in some places within the article) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (I don't believe it does) there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; (there is not) the article is not based primarily on such sources (it is not, although I do use such sources quite a bit)"

2) "Also, you cannot use personal sites (Boundless world) or social media as references."

• The personal site in question links not to an article but to an interview. Is the issue here merely the type of site, or the interview itself? I'm not finding any articles on Wiki that suggest one cannot cite a video interview as evidence of what someone has said.
• Also, the only Social Media reference pertains to the artists musicpreneur success thus far. Surely there is no greater evidence than a link to the artists actual SM page (in this case, Twitter) as well as to an indie article that also covers this same topic? Again, some guidance is appreciated.
• Finally, as stated on the attribution page, "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources...it is relevant to their notability." In this case it certainly is. Which is why that statement from the editor is perplexing.

2) Mention was also made that I should "See wp:NMUSIC for the criteria for notability of musicians." That criteria includes:

• Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. [He has been a number of times.]
• Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. [He has and this brings me back to the sort of cites I used. The hipster sub-culture is almost exclusively catered to by the very kind of sites that have been disputed as being notable and/or reliable.]

3) My apologies if I have not formatted this correctly. There also appears to be some debate about that as well and I find it a bit confusing. Thank you in advance for any assistance that can be offered. Tal1962 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The way you have formatted your question seems fine to me. But it's rather long, and it would have been helpful if you'd started by saying that it's about Draft:Nate_Maingard.

As usual, the problem is with references to establish that the subject is notable. The draft currently has 33 references. If you believe that any of these are to reliable independent published sources with significant discussion about him, you could save everyone's time by telling us which ones. Maproom (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, delete any references that a reviewer or Teahouse regular says are not reliable. In particular, delete the references to the subject's own works and to any web interviews with the subject. Interviews are only reliable if they have been published in reliable sources such as magazines with reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for taking time to reply. It's much appreciated. I will go through the refs and provide a list of those I believe to be reliable. As to Robert's suggestion that I delete refs: The problem here is that I am respectfully questioning the veracity of this regular's claims, as per my above bullet points. I hope I am formatting this correctly, but here is an example of what I am pointing to as per Wikirules Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. If you scroll down to Using self-published sources section, you should be able to see what I am referring to (some of which I had copied and pasted above). Also, if you don't mind, can you please guide me to the section on Wiki that relates to video interviews? Thus far, I am unable to find anything which states that a video interview is unreliable. Thank you again for your time and assistance. 2601:86:0:2786:8D5B:2694:6103:6349 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

An interview of the subject, in any format, may be reliable, but cannot be independent. And a list of reliable references won't help. What we are looking for – I think I've said this already – is reliable independent published sources with significant discussion about the subject. Maproom (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)