Wikipedia:Teahouse

A lad insane, 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

Places to look for Feedbackon newly created articles

Hey guys, I've written an article (together with some classmates) in my sandbox (User:Hawkseraph/sandbox). I wanted to get some feedback on it before putting it into mainspace (ideally from somewhat knowledgeable people, but any editor will probably have good pointers), but I'm having trouble finding a good place for that. I've made a request at the psychology wikiproject, but the assessment task force seem to be all but dead. I distinctly remember there being a specific place for this, but I've been unable to find it. Please halp :) --Hawks Talk/Edits 09:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

.js pages?

Hello! Can someone please explain what my monobook.js, vector.js, common.js and skin.js pages are? What are .js pages and what is the difference between them? I can't seem to find anything about them. What are they used for and how do they work? Thank you! NikolaiHo 01:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nikolaiho. Take a look at Wikipedia:User scripts, which explains them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nikolaiho. JS stands for Javascript, and those pages allow you to add custom Javascript that will be loaded whenever you visit a Wikipedia page. Basically, they're a way of customising how Wikipedia behaves (as opposed to your common.css page, which customises how it looks). The most common use for them is to install user scripts.

The differences between the four files aren't too important. Vector and Monobook are skins. Vector is probably the one you're using now, Monobook is what Wikipedia used to look like before 2010. Anything you add to monobook.js or vector.js will only apply if you are using the respective skin. common.js applies to both skins. skin.js is simply a convenient redirect to your current skin. Unless you have a special reason to, it's usually best just to put everything in common.js Joe Roe (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict). See Wikipedia:Skin and Wikipedia:Customisation for details. Here is a limited description. JavaScript is a programming language which can run in most browsers when they visit a website with JavaScript. .js pages have JavaScript code. At Wikipedia they can change how the site looks and works for you, for example add links to interface menus or add features to the editor. At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering you can choose between different skins for your account. They display different designs for Wikipedia pages. See for example your user page in MonoBook or Modern. The code to position your username looks bad for me in those skins. Your monobook.js and vector.js only run if you select that skin. Your common.js runs regardless of your skin selection. Special:MyPage/skin.js should redirect to the .js page for whatever skin you currently have selected (may fail in some browsers). skin.js is not meant to be a page by itself. JavaScript programmers can write their own scripts in their .js files or make them available for others. Wikipedia:User scripts shows some of the scripts which were written by other users and can be used without knowing JavaScript. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Official website on social media

I created my first article about an international sports person. This person uses a Facebook page as an official website. When I put this in the article, it was automatically deleted by the bot, and the message refers to the guidelines and indicates that it is possible to undo this, but after looking at the guidelines I am unsure if this is something I should undo or that for an official website it should just be outside social media. Any advice on this would be appreciated.

Belfastchild1974 Belfastchild1974 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Belfastchild974. It looks like the edit you're referring to is this. It also looks like XLinkBot has been set up to remove links to social media accounts, etc. added as external links to avoid the problems listed at WP:LINKFARM and no. 10 of WP:ELNO, but adding links to official social media accounts may be acceptable under certain conditions as explained in WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Bots are fine for performing routine tasks and doing what they are programmed to do, but they see every situation as the same and are under to make judgment calls for borderline cases. The bot also completely removed the entire "References" section for some unknown reason, perhaps just because the location of the "External links" section has been mistakenly placed before "References" (It should go after per WP:ORDER). ANyway, I'm not very familiar with bots, but you can ask it's creator at User talk:XLinkBot to see if the bot was malfunctioning at the time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

everyone is dissing my good edits why?

why does my good edits get things like -43 for a score, they're good edits?Griffen Ray (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Griffen Ray. The red minus sign next to a number indicates the net number of bytes an edit removes (roughly corresponding with the number of characters) and a green plus sign next to a number indicates the opposite. It has nothing whatever to do with grading anything. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't even ask a question. I need help.

This is attempt number 6. I haven't been able to post a question and know that it has actually been posted. It just disappears. The instructions on Wikipedia are really obtuse, with incorrect information (e.g., click on "Save Page", when no such button exists) and "sign ... by ending with four tildes..." - But, what does this mean? Put my username (which is what signing means) before or after the tildes? Or, just the tildes with no username? Why does it have to be so obtuse and difficult????? There are much more user-friendly ways of doing things. Working on Wikipedia is just so extremely frustrating... and I have considerable experience with programming, wikis, html.

But, the major issue is how to submit a set of 4 articles that are interlinked. I submitted one, but it was rejected because there was no link to the yet to be submitted other articles.

Is there a way to just talk directly to one individual who can help me through this?

Thanks.

bloom_jeff Jeffwb (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeffwb: the question above is only the fourth contribution you have ever made to Wikipedia. Two of the others have been to Draft:International Bateson Institute, and the fourth was a question at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Judging from that question, your intention is to submit four articles, each supported only by references to the others. That is never going to work. Wikipedia articles must be supported by references to reliable independent published sources, which may not include Wikipedia. I suggest that you start by picking one of the four subjects, and if you can find acceptable sources to establish that it is notable, create a draft for that one. Maproom (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

In response to Maproom.

This form of communication and the difficulties in such communication can be completely avoided, with a better interface and a better way of communicating. However, I did not say that this was the 6th attempt to post an article. I said that this was the 6th attempt at trying to get a QUESTION posted. And, I did NOT say that the only references were to the other articles in the set. Each article is linked to the others, but each one is supported by many outside and internal (to Wikipedia) sources.

Please don't make assumptions. Look at the actual meaning. Jeffwb (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jeffwb. We all feel the frustrations of Wikipedia's 15-year-old software. It isn't perfect and there is a bit of a learning curve. However, even the smallest change impacts hundreds of millions of articles on several of the world's largest websites, so implementing a "better interface" is not so straightforward. The good news is it is an open source project, so if you would like to volunteer your considerable programming experience to improving it, you are welcome to.

To answer your actual question, you can use the article wizard to submit your new articles. The will be reviewed separately, as all Wikipedia articles must independently adhere to our core content policies. Your submission Draft:International Bateson Institute was declined because it had no independent references, not because of the lack of related articles. Joe Roe (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jeffwb. I am sorry that you are having difficulty learning our coding. Yes, it can be tricky at first but with a bit of practice, it will become easier. After all, we have succeeded in creating the #6 website in the world with many millions of articles. In order to date and sign a post, you just type four tildes, and nothing else. As for Draft:International Bateson Institute, it has no references to reliable, independent sources and so cannot be accepted in its current form. Red links are not sufficient reason to decline a draft. Your two references are published by the International Bateson Institute itself so do not establish notability in Wikipedia terms. Please read Your first article to better understand our requirements. As for our interface, I suggest that you discuss that with the Wikimedia Foundation staff. Those of us who are humble Teahouse volunteers have nothing to do with interface changes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

To sign using the tildes, simply type in the four tildes (without spaces between them) with nothing else (except, of course, the content). The software coverts the four tildes so that once you hit 'Save changes,' which should be at the bottom of the input box (i.e., the box in which you type your comments), below 'Edit summary' but above 'This is a minor edit.' ('Edit summary,' 'Save changes' and 'This is a minor edit' are with some other, related stuff in a light blue or gray rectangle just under the whit input box (at least that's the way it is on all the computers I've used). [Now i have finished answering you, si I will "sign' my name, i.e., I will type four tildes after this sentence and closing the parens, and when I hit 'Save changes,' it will come out as 'kdammers.')Kdammers (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jeffwb. I get that you are frustrated, and it's certainly true that many things on Wikipedia are not as easy as they might be. Given that, I wish that so many people did not plunge straight in and try to do one of the most difficult tasks in Wikipedia, which is to create a new article. I always advise people to spend a few weeks helping to improve some of our many many substandard articles, and getting the feel for how Wikipedia works, before trying for the big one.

The people who write and configure the software, like the editors, are mainly volunteers: there are places where you can suggest and discuss improvements to how it works (most accessibly, the Village pump). But it is a huge and complex beast, that many many people have put their ideas into.

You criticise Maproom for making assumptions: but "submitting a set of four articles" is not a recognisable task on Wikipedia. Creating an article is, and then creating another article, and so on. Your mention of "a set of four articles" made me think, as it evidently did Maproom, that these articles somehow depended on one another. What other "actual meaning" are we supposed to ascribe to "a set"?

I'm not sure if you've read Your first article, but if not, I suggest you do. And as I said, my personal recommendation is that you get rather more experience of editing Wikipedia - and looking at the outcome of review and deletion discussions - before you return to creating articles. --ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the reason that Jeffwb refers to the articles as being interlinked is that Robert McClenon's review states: "Transcontextual research and warm data appear to be important to understanding the mission of this institute, but they are not defined, being redlinked instead. Define them". That is not, as I see it, the primary reason for the decline - the lack of sources is - but it perhaps explains some of the above. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Cordless Larry is right. The primary problem with the article is the lack of independent sources. However, it does appear that to understand what the Institute does, it is important to know what "transcontextual research" is, and the article doesn't define it. The author has created a difficult task for themselves by making the articles dependent on each other. If the article had had independent sources, but had still had a redlink for transcontextual research, I probably would have neither accepted nor declined the article, but would have left a comment that transcontextual research should be defined. As it is, for the article on the Bateson Institute to be accepted, independent sources that have written about the Bateson Institute, such as scholarly reviews or newspaper articles, are needed, as well as an explanation of transcontextual research. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have one more comment. A considerable amount of the draft on the Bateson Institute had to be removed as being a direct copy from their web site, and therefore a copyright violation. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. In fact, the draft was first nominated for deletion as in copyright violation, before the copyright violating material was deleted instead. Wikipedia cannot accept copy-and-pastes from web sites. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Does the author have any specific questions about how to edit Wikipedia that haven't been answered? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The author says that they made six attempts to ask a question, and this and the question at the AFC Help Desk are the only two that I can see. What was the nature of the other efforts to ask a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Bot

Hello, i want to know that how to command our bot so that they can work automatically ? 36.253.254.4 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, IP user, I don't understand your question. Unless it is answered by WP:Bots, you'll have to explain it more clearly. I moved your question to the top, because that is where new questions go on this page --ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Userboxes?

Hi there. I basically want to include "userboxes" on my userpage, as I've seen on other editor's userpages. How do you make userboxes? Thanks for your help. RW1234 (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi RW1234. A little trick. Very often if you know the name of anything on Wikipedia, then adding Wikipedia: or its shortcut, which works the same, WP: in front of it, will take you to a help, explanation or process page explaining the subject. With that in mind, please take a look at WP:Userboxes. If you have any follow-up questions after visiting there, please ask here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks. RW1234 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

How to become a semi protected on user's page?

Hello am trying to edit some musicians pages and it says i have to be semi protected, what should i do ? Musicianguides (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Musicianguides, you can't become semi-protected, semi-protection is a status of a page, not of a user. See WP:SEMI.

Possibly the page says it is semi-protected, so you are not allowed to edit it? --CiaPan (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Musicianguides, welcome to the Teahouse. The page probably says it is semi-protected. Your account has to be autoconfirmed to edit semi-protected pages. That means the account must be four days old and have at least ten edits. Your account is currently one day and has eight edits. Until you become autoconfirmed you can click the "View source" tab on the article and follow the instructions to submit an edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Read the protection policy. Semi-protection is a measure that is sometimes applied to pages that protects them from edits by unregistered editors and by editors like the original poster who are not autoconfirmed. The most common reason for semi-protecting a page is vandalism by IP addresses. As noted, a new editor can request an edit to a semi-protected page. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Trying to verify if I posted first article correctly and set it up for review

Hi there, I thought I followed the steps correctly to save and submit my first article, but I can't tell that's actually happened. I'm seeing a box that says it hasn't been submitted for review, but when I click on the submit button, I see a bunch of characters; I no longer see the story. I'm afraid to click "return" or whatever the button is to complete the action because I don't want to wipe the work I spent all night creating. Can anyone help me figure this out? It looks as if I followed every other step correctly, from boldfacing to referencing. But I'd sure like the people who are supposed to judge that to take a look. Thanks for any help ...

TexasEditor1 (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TexasEditor1. You have only two edits to Wikipedia. The second was your Teahouse question above, and the first created Draft:Billy Crockett. This count may not include deleted edits. If you take a look at your own draft article, you will see a prominent notification at the top saying that you have not yet submitted it for review. I suggest that you wait before submitting it. Your references do not show that this person is notable. I read your fourth reference from the Huffington Post twice and it does not even mention Crockett once. It seems that a band recorded at a recording studio that your draft says Crockett helped found. But the source does not say that. There is a lot of what I see as unreferenced name dropping in your draft. That is a very bad sign.

A Wikipedia article should summarize what reliable independent sources say about a topic. Your draft article says a lot of things that are unreferenced. That is a major shortcoming. I suggest that you read Your first article and do your very best to bring your draft article into full compliance before submitting it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I already chatted with someone else who answered my question and gave me constructive advice. I also can assure you I read "Your First Article" and as much of the other information as I could digest before I tried to post. I also tried to include proper links and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasEditor1 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello TexasEditor1. But you still have a Huffington Post reference in your draft article that does not even mention Crockett. Why would you think that this reference helps to establish his notability or belongs in an article about him when it does not even mention him? Please give a logical answer. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know when you looked again, but I must have been editing when you were. That link is no longer there. It was meant to support the reference to artists who recorded at the studio. -- TexasEditor1 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

How do I translate an article?

I have three current articles, and I would like to make them more accessable. I know Spanish, Scots leid, and a little bit of some other languages, but don't know how to translate my articles. Thank you.

Sea Captain Cormac 02:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

Does the WP:Translate us page help? Rojomoke (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

How do I propose a merge?

I was looking at an article and I felt that it wasn't notable enough to stand as an article of its' own. How do I propose a merge? Verified Cactus (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: the easiest way is with Twinkle, a script that helps automate many tasks. If you want to do it manually, you can put {{merge to}} on the article you wanted merged and {{merge from}} on the article you it merged into. After that, start a discussion on the talk page of the destination article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged. Verified Cactus (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I need help with my templates

1. I need to link the audio in this template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Pashto_IPA_chart/table_vowels_with_audio with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_central_vowel
2. I need to make this template smaller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Pashto_IPA_chart_vowels_with_audio

Can someone please assist me Adjutor101 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A better place to ask this type of question is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). -- GB fan 19:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Adjutor101 (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Why don't admins like it when I try to make articles more neutral?

A bunch of admins were picking on me for making "disruptive" and "erroneous" edits and contributions. My edits primarily focus on making articles more neutral and secondarily on making sure facts are verifiable. They respond to me with various excuses to use the word "Well-known" or tell me that us newbies shouldn't be giving advice to experienced Wikipedians. They even threaten to penalize me. You can ccompare my revisions to see if they did good to make Wikipedia more NPOV. Some admins accuse my edits of making the articles full of spelling or grammatical errors and use this accusation as an excuse to revert my edits.

• Little Rock, Arkansas
• Louis Braille

--Turkeybutt (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason to say things like you said them in the Little Rock edit. Instead of adding all that about the society dubbing the river crossing this or that, just say that the river crossing is well-known, and cite the group's website at the end of the sentence. Your edits made the article read in a clunky way. You probably didn't intend it, but I do agree with reverting it. The other linked edit, to Louis Braille, was entirely correct.

By the way, I've written 82 articles here, 5 of which have been listed as Good, and have used "well-known" multiple times. It and "notable" are completely acceptable and are not puffery. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Although sometimes things are described as "well-known", "notable" or "very famous" without supporting sources simply as puffery, which isn't acceptable. Gab4gab (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Templates 'Reply to' and 'User link'

Hello teahouse. Just interested in the difference between {{Reply to}} and {{User link}} in relation to notification. I read the respective wikipages and am none the wiser. The {{User link}} page does not mention notification (the documentation could be improved in this respect) but I do receive an email when someone uses the template. Which template is preferred or doesn't it matter. Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi RobbieIanMorrison. There is no preference. A notification is caused by a wikilink to a user page, whether by some template or written directly like [[User:RobbieIanMorrison|RobbieIanMorrison]] in this post. Most of the templates which include such links were written and documented long before the notification feature was introduced in 2013. Some of them have since added mention that they cause a notification but for most of them it's a side effect and not the main purpose like for {{Reply to}}. mw:Manual:Echo#Technical details mentions some situations where a user page link will not produce a notification but they have nothing to do with templates. The main condition is that it must happen in a signed edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter. That's a very useful reply. Thanks very much. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing my first article - Ross Ulbricht article

Hi, I'm not new to Wikipedia in the sense that I've used it and appreciated it for years. I've recently decided to actively participate because I learned I can - so easily, thank you. The first article I'd like to work on is about Ross Ulbricht. But I'm also concerned about stepping on toes and/or creating a conflict when that's not my intention. I noticed that two people have edited this article since earlier this year. Wikipedia's stated policy doesn't indicate a need to ask permission but I'm wondering if I should contact those two editors directly, as a courtesy.

I'd like to rewrite the article, touching on the distinction between the government's position and the defense's, decisions by the court that influenced the jury and why, the corruption underlying the investigation, and the appeal that's now pending. This appeal will affect precedent, not just case law, but laws passed by Congress in the future relative to internet privacy, the drug war, and criminal justice reform, which are socially compelling issues today and the fundamental reasons Ulbricht's case is important. I would use a lot more cites to the trial transcript (most of which I've read) and alternative media (eg, reason.com).

To say there are problems with the criminal justice system in general and Ross Ulbricht's trial and conviction in particular is not facile or cliche. Here, many of the articles cited rely on Silk Road journals for their information about Ross Ulbricht (those journals are disputed and an unreliable source of factual information) or a point of view favorable to the government's position without regard to real, objective flaws the defense has struggled with.

I think this article should reflect the fact that Ulbricht's claim to fame is not just starting an online black market but that his criminal case is a spotlight for the social issues mentioned above. The article doesn't in its current form reflect this in a cohesive, identifiable manner.

Sorry to be long-winded. I'll certainly be more succinct with this or any other article. Thanks, LeslieLhboston (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lhboston, and thanks for coming here and asking. You're right that you do not need permission from anybody to edit an article, but that it can cause conflict if you plough in and do so. What I suggest you do is outline on the article's talk page the changs you would like to make. I'm guessing you're talking about Sizeofint as one of the other editors, and my mentioning them here in the {{U}} template will notify them of this discussion - you can similarly notify any other editors in your discussion if you think they might not have noticed.

The change of yours that David Gerard undid he was right to undo: editorial comment never belongs in an article, but on its talk page.

One thing I would caution you about: you must put no argumentation, advocacy, synthesis, or conclusion in the article, unless you are reporting a reliable source that has made that argument: please read carefully about original research. You are free to report what different reliable sources say about a subject, and may give appropriate weight to them according to their preponderance and standing; but you must not attempt to discuss them critically or reach a conclusion about them. --ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The trouble with the Ross Ulbricht article is that he has a lot of advocates, and what they say tends to be unsupported by the reliable sources. Note how all the claims are sourced to mainstream (non-Bitcoin advocacy, non-Libertarian advocacy, non-"alternative media") press, for example. If you believe the mainstream sources on a subject are wrong, it can be very easy to slip into advocacy or, worse, righting great wrongs. These styles of editing are unlikely to survive checking against the factual statements verified in mainstream press. If you want to write an essay about why the mainstream press-reported position is wrong, Wikipedia probably isn't the place for it and edits along those lines won't stand.

That said, nothing stops you drafting a new version, but expect it to be edited with all the sources in the present version if it has any hope of replacing the present article - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You're probably going to step on a few toes learning the ropes but I hope that doesn't discourage you from editing. I don't want to overwhelm you with policy at this point but in addition to David's pointers I would direct you to the neutral point of view policy and the weight policy. The article should reflect what mainstream reliable sources state and not be a polemic against injustices. We also generally try to avoid using primary sources like direct transcripts. Feel free to post on my talk page or alert me with a the {{U}} or {{Ping}} templates if you have questions about anything. Welcome! Sizeofint (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Will this go to everyone, I wonder? Yes, I understand Ross Ulbricht is a tricky topic. The other day I was trying to simply tag the article for greater neutrality and obviously didn't know how to do. I have taken the Adventure tutorial, which is really quite good. I also take the editing policies seriously and will adhere to them to the best of my ability. Thank you for your pointers and responses! They're much appreciated. Lhboston (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, right. What you attempted to do with this edit can be done in the article, Lhboston, but not that way: you should use a template such as {{POV section}}. But if you're going to use this, you should justify it on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Should note that a tagging that is not justified with sources that meet WP:RS is unlikely to stand - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

My article was rejected on the basis on lack of notability...

And I don't understand because the person I am writing about has accomplished feats in his field. Anyone who can help provide some insight, so I know what edits/changes need to be made? Thank you in advance!

13:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilary Lauren (talk • contribs)

Draft:Ryan Stewman was started by Ryan Stewman himself. Are you now editing it on his behalf? (@Hilary Lauren:) Joe Roe (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:GNG, Hilary Lauren. Feats don't make notability, in Wikipedia's terms. Nor do fame, influence, importance, significance or popularity. Notability is about whether people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to write about the subject, and publish in reliable places. (And part of the reason for this is that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what any subject says about themselves, so unless there is truly independent copy about them, there is literally nothing which can go in an article). Several of the references in the draft are obviously not reliable (Facebook) or obviously not independent. But the couple I've looked at which are in reliable sources are clearly based on interviews or press releases, which means that they're repeating Stewman's words, and so cannot contribute to notability. I haven't looked at them all, so some may be both reliable and independent; in which case you need to base more of the article on those sources and less on non-indpendent sources.

I note that the majority of the references are to support the statement "he has been featured in ... ". Wikipedia isn't interested in where somebody has been featured, unless it is somebody completely independent that is saying so. In the context of the draft, that entire paragraph is advertising puff, and should be removed. --ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Picture gallery

Hi, I'm having some issues. I've been trying to create an image gallery section on the article Captain (United States O-3) like I did in the article Six-star rank but it doesn't seem to work. The pictures just disappear instead.*Treker (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi *Treker. Galleries have quite a simple syntax:

<gallery>
File:Image1.png|Caption1
File:Image2.png|Caption2
File:Image3.png|Caption3
</gallery>

I think the problem you were having was from writing out the full image syntax (i.e. [[ ... ]]) within the gallery tags. I've taken the liberty of fixing it on Captain (United States O-3). Joe Roe (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Joe Roe. I was getting really frustrated when it didn't work.*Treker (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Query about references

I have submitted a new page/entry for a new company which is due to launch in the coming days. However, my submission has been rejected because it does not contain any references.

My question is, if you are a new company and you have no references yet, then how can you overcome this obstacle and manage to get your submission accepted?

Christian McKee (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Christian McKee - the only answer (which you will not like) is wait until the company is notable and has been written about, at some length, in reliable, independent, sources. Untill then it is too soon for a wikipedia article. We are not here to promote new companies, but to record what has already been written by independent observers. - Arjayay (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Christian McKee. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a misapprehension that Wikipedia is a channel for telling the world about your company. It is not. Nobody (and no organisation in the world) either "has" or "deserves" an entry on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has articles on millions of subjects that have already been noticed and written about. If, in time, your company is written about in some depth by people unconnected with it (the Wikipedia jargon is that it will have become notable) then we may have an article about it. The company will have no control over the contents, and Wikipedia will have little interest in what the company either says about itself or wants said about itself. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

New Article

Hello, I am looking for advice as to whether an article on a particular Aboriginal Language would be acceptable here, or if there is a better forum to create this on? I have an Elder who has translated his native tongue into English. Given all the recent articles in The Guardian newspaper on Aboriginal Languages & their importance, I thought this would be of interest to many. As well as individual words, the article would include some simple phrases for those wishing to try speaking the language. We could also include sound bites of the words being pronounced. This Elder has had his writings on his tribes history published & these texts also include some of the words. I would appreciate any advice. Kind regards, Linda Simpson Bpangerang (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bpangerang: If you can locate scholarly research on the language, it would make a great Wikipedia article. There isn't really anywhere on Wikipedia to host content that teaches users how to speak a language, though. That's best hosted on our sister project Wikiversity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bpangerang: Just to echo NinjaRobotPirate, an article on the language would be a fantastic addition to Wikipedia. However, the specific material you mentioned would be better suited to some of our sister projects: you could upload the sound files to Wikimedia Commons, individual words to Wiktionary, texts to Wikisource and, if you were being ambitious, it could all be put together into a Wikibook for learning the language.

All that material could be used to enrich a Wikipedia article though, as NinjaRobotPiratean, the article itself would have to be based on existing published sources and avoid any original research. WikiProject Linguistics might be able to help you with that and any cross-wiki aspects of your project, so if it's something you're interested in I'd strongly encourage you to get in touch with them. Best of luck. Joe Roe (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, good ideas. I bet WikiProject Linguistics would be the best place to start. They'd probably know about all this stuff much better than someone like me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Admissibility of a draft?

In Draft:Mount Olives Hospital I've added two external references and two photographs. The second reference, present when first reviewed, is fairly independent. For comparison, please have a look at Vancouver General Hospital. VGH is operated by Vancouver Coastal Health. Except for "Leo Awards, All Winners 2014", all of the references and external links in that article refer to sites belonging to Vancouver Coastal Health or an agency thereof. Ie. "Leo Awards" is the one reference independent of the subject. Exclusion of the Mt. Olives draft while the VGH article is allowed is fair? Is the Mt. Olives draft any better now? likely to succeed? Thanks, PeterEasthope (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PeterEasthope. Please remember that Wikipedia has 5,232,035 articles at this moment and probably well over a million of them have significant problems. This is not an excuse to create new articles with significant problems. Those other articles should either be improved or deleted, and experienced editors work on that constantly. As for these two hospitals, the one in Ghana that you are writing about has less than 120 beds while the one in Vancouver has over 1,000 beds and is a teaching hospital. Our core content policy Verifiability requires that we build articles by summarizing what reliable, third party (independent) sources say about a topic. So, please find more independent sources and format them as explained in Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: I believe a Wikipedia essay someone wrote, Other stuff exists, would apply in this case. Note that the essay is not a rule, but it generally describes the way we act here on Wikipedia. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, PeterEasthope. The Vancouver General Hospital article was created in March 2006‎, long before the drafts process was introduced. Lots of articles from that time period need to be improved, but we don't use that as a reason to allow new articles that don't meet the appropriate criteria, otherwise the quality of the encyclopedia would never improve. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

verifiable sources

hi! my article was rejected because it lacked verifiable sources, which is peculiar because most of what i mentioned in my article is already supported on wikipedia. any help you could provide towards a solution would be great. Thanks! pittmankarenPittmankaren (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pittmankaren, "supported on Wikipedia" is meaningless because Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable source. You need to reference independent reliable sources such as mainstream media, news or magazine articles, commercially published books or academic articles, that provide significant in-depth detail about the subject. Then you need to prerly reference those sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This is true; you can't cite Wikipedia itself. However, if you see a statement on Wikipedia that you would like to repeat in another article, you can check to see if the original statement is properly sourced. If so, you can check the source and reuse it in your new article. I say that you should check the source because you don't want to propagate a misreading of the source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Style to use for numbers in Table cells

I have been going over the style guides on Tables Help:Table, Manual of Style, and Advanced table formatting - but I can't find a few answers:

• Should numerical values in a table be right-aligned in their cell, or left-aligned?
• Should percentage values in a table be suffixed by the percent sign (%) or should the percent sign just be present in the header for the column denoting values are in percent?

I think I am not able to find the right article on Wikipedia that covers these aspects. Can someone please help me?

Thanks, Amiwikieditor (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Amiwikeditor. The fact that the style direction you are looking for is not there may be a sign that this is a subject where the person creating the table is assumed to know best how numbers should be formatted in their table, there's no hard-and-fast rule that applies to all cases. In the overwhelming number of cases, where a column has numbers of different widths, you'll want to use right-justification. Percent signs in cells are fine, but someone looking to squeeze their table may choose to indicate that numbers are percentages in the column header instead. If you find a table that looks incorrectly formatted, you can boldly fix it or ask on the talk page of the containing page whether there's an explanation for what looks incorrect to you.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Amiwikieditor, someday I'll learn to spell better, or at least check preview more carefully.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input jmcgnh. I guess I will define a style for the page that I am trying to bring the changes about. And I will borrow from best practices elsewhere outside Wikipedia for the alignment topic. Amiwikieditor (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Naming a reference when using CITE WEB template

I named a cite web reference successfully (at least it seems so), but when I try to use that name it does not work. Clearly I'm doing something wrong! :^/

The article is Certified Acceptance Corporation. The named citation is currently the third footnote. It is located in the first phrase of the first sentence of the second paragraph:

Coins which CAC deems solid or high-end for their grades receive green stickers,[3]

I named the citation as follows:

<ref name=CAC_FAQ>

I tried to use this named citation in the last sentence of the second paragraph in the [Overview] section as follows:

<ref=CAC_FAQ />

What am I doing wrong?

Thank you! - Mark D Worthen PsyD 03:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Markworthen The second use of a named citation also uses ref name=, it just adds a closing slash.

So it's not:

<ref=CAC_FAQ />

but

<ref name=CAC_FAQ />

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh silly me. Sometimes the error is so obvious once one 'sees' it! Thank you for helping me see it. :O) Mark D Worthen PsyD 04:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Mark, when I wrote that answer I was betting it was a slap your forehead issue; you just couldn't see the omission because it was your own.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

My Talk page post deleted by a new IP.

I added a comment about a recent journalistic report with a link to the original article. I received a notice via email that there was a change. Another Wikipedian had replied. I didn't realize until later that this person had found that my post had been deleted by an IP - the WP restored my post.

I know there are cases when a post may be edited (maybe even deleted?): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable , but I do not see where my TP post crossed any of those lines.

How can I tell in the future if one of my TP posts is edited or deleted since I only got one notice? How can I prevent this from happening in the future?

Article's Talk page: Talk:Trump Model Management
The IP address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:186:4300:6AC:19C7:705A:DAF0:EEA2

Thank you for your advice, Wordreader (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have Edit revert checked for web and/or email notification on your Preferences page? Mark D Worthen PsyD 04:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not all changes to the page that touch your edits will be noticed by the notifier. You just have to put the page on your watchlist and check changes. Everything we do on WP is subject to revision by other editors, including editors who are not logged in with a username. And, if nobody has done so already, "Welcome to the Teahouse, Wordreader".  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that about the Notifier. Thanks  —jmcgnh! Mark D Worthen PsyD 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are asking how to respond to improper deletion of a talk page post, the usual procedure is to warn the editor and restore the post. If an editor persists in deleting talk page posts without explanation, you may treat it as a form of vandalism and report it at the vandalism noticeboard. It is also possible to request semi-protection of a talk page. This is seldom done because unregistered editors normally should have the right to comment on an article, but if a talk page is being disrupted by shifting IPs, semi-protection may be the least disruptive approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 —jmcgnh: I know that about the WP articles (ie: that everything is subject to editing, though there are certainly Wikiers who don't seem to believe that), but my Talk page post deletion to be unexpected. It seems like a real "dirty trick". I went to preferences and switched on "Edit revert" (I already had most of the other items switched on.) Thank you, talk, for the follow-up steps to take, should they become necessary. All the best, Wordreader (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Can I reference page in another language?

Some of the websites I need to refer to are in Chinese. Can this be accepted on an English page's reference list? MOconcept (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MOconcept.

There is no restriction on citing references in other languages. Doing so on the English WP may hamper the ability of English-only speakers to verify your references, so citing English resources, when they exist, is preferred.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!  —jmcgnh MOconcept (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

sentence in lede shouldn't maybe

i hollered on my talk page & everyone's busy ao i'm pasting my question: hay there help. its a bit late for me to edit & i'm not sure what to do but in the follow article (address pasted below) i've also pasted the last 2 sentences of the lede paragraph. i'm don't think it belongs; at best the research is divided. i've not read everything on pub med but i'd want to say the opposite is more correct.

Please help me with...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_catastrophizing#cite_note-3. However, we cannot yet rule out the possibility that at least some aspects of catastrophization may actually be the product of an intense pain experience, rather than its cause. That is, the more intense the pain feels to the person, the more likely they are to have thoughts about it that fit the definition of catastrophization.[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15288400

Mausbug (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Mausbug (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

if it matters, i've found the point at which the offending sentence was added. i've been reading more at pub med. the link at the end of my initial post is merely one link.Mausbug (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

oh, it seems the editor who added this hooey has also been gently reminded of policy on chronic fatigue & unexplained medical symptoms. perhaps ... Mausbug (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

i'm sorry. did you read the opening line? its very late for me but i didn't want to leave this. i dont think the final 2 sentences of the referenced article should be included. someone will need to trust that i am not able to attend to this & accept that i'm doing what i can. thnx. Mausbug (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Templates

Last time I nominated a template for deletion, it was a mistake. That's why, I wanna know about these templates:

Template:End of revelations about the plot. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Those two templates look like they were used for spoiler warnings, something that WP no longer warns about – see WP:SPOILER.

And searching for them in all of en.wikipedia.org, I only found one page where they were used, in an edit that occurred yesterday.

So I would say fire away with your nomination for deletion!  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree - they should go. Apart from each other, and here, they are used in only one place, a draft article in Habbonight's sandbox - I suggest Habbonight read WP:SPOILER. --ColinFine (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion because I am an evil kill-stealer for the good of Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Images

Hi. I wonder wether it is possible to use foreign language Wikipedias' images on an English Wikipedia article. More specifically, I refer to images that cannot be found in neither Wikimedia Commons, nor the English Wikipedia. Thanks. --Nauajos (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nauajos. There is only one Wikipedia Commons and all the images there are freely licensed or copyright free, and can be used on any language Wikipedia. They can also be used by anyone for any purpose, without payment or asking for permission, although many require attribution. Each language Wikipedia may also host its own images, and the usage of those images may be restricted. You need to look at the file page for the image in question, and understand any licensing restrictions there. For example, here on English Wikipedia, we host many non-free images, which normally are used in a single article under the legal principle of Fair use.

Markworthen, I appreciate your effort to help, but unless you are very confident that your answer is accurate, it is best to refrain from answering. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response, Cullen328. My question is of a more technical nature. Assuming there are no licensing/usage restrictions/issues, is it technically possible to use a foreign language Wikipedia hosted image on an English Wikipedia article? And vice versa, an English Wikipedia hosted image on a foreign language Wikipedia article? And how? --Nauajos (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No, and no. To use an image in a Wikipedia article it must be hosted either on that language's Wikipedia or on Commons. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Nauajos. I hate to disagree with my colleague David Biddulph, but yes, there is a way if there are no licensing restrictions. You can download the image to your own computer and then upload it to Wikimedia Commons as a new file, correctly reporting the original source of the image and the licensing status. Once uploaded, you can then reuse it anywhere as you see fit. Similarly, with an image hosted here on English Wikipedia under the terms of WP:NFCI. If another language Wikipedia has a comparable policy, you can download that image to your computer and then upload that image to the other Wikipedia as a new file. You must use it only in compliance with that Wikipedia's image policies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. Frankly, Cullen328, I don't see where you and David Biddulph disagree! --Nauajos (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Nor do I. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

How do articles get rated?

I put a few Wikiproject templates onto several appropriate articles, and I was just wondering what had to happen in order for them to be assessed. Verified Cactus (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

A small number of WikiProjects have formal review processes for the top classes (B and A), and GA and FA obviously have their own processes, but other than that anyone can assess an article and most WikiProjects will appreciate you doing so. Most (all?) WikiProjects use a standard scheme, so an assessment for one can safely be copied to any other in their scope. Joe Roe (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Thanks. How would I go about rating a page? Do I edit the template after I've assessed the article? Verified Cactus (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: That's correct. You would edit the template and insert a |class= parameter. For example, if it is the {{WikiProject Biography}} template, you would edit it to read {{WikiProject Biography|class=C}} to add a C-Class assessment to the article. Mz7 (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: And if you find yourself assessing a lot of them, there's a gadget you can install to make it a bit easier. Joe Roe (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

VerifiedCactus, in my experience, many articles rated as stubs have subsequently been improved and expanded. I frequently upgrade such articles from stub to start class without hesitation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Getting a bit off topic here, but "Start" also seems to be chronically misused by people too afraid to assign C or B class (the standards for which are pretty low, written as they were in 200x). They see it's longer than a stub, call it "Start", and there it stays forever more... Joe Roe (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, Joe Roe, B-class in particular comes with pretty high standards. In comparison to C which requires "more than one reliable source", B calls for more or less total conformity with WP:MINREF. Even FA articles may fail this criterion when they are "improved" by editors who are not mindful of sources, and can remain so for a long time. The completeness criterion of B is also ambitious. It even wants you to compare the completeness of an article with the requirements of an A-class article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Picture size

I added a picture (from 1898) to an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Higgins_Prouty); but it is too big for the size of the section, how can I decrease its size? GinnevraDubois (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

See MOS:IMGSIZE. It's best not to change the size of images directly, because the Mediawiki software automatically adjusts it based on the size of the reader's screen and their preferences, which you would be overriding. If you're referring to the image at the bottom of Olive Higgins Prouty, I'd simply move it further up the page so it fits alongside the text. Joe Roe (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much!GinnevraDubois (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about New Page Patrolling and Review of New Pages:

Hi, I have been around Wikipedia for about a year but have just started to work with new page patrolling. I know there's a learning curve there, so want to make sure I get it right. Just to clarify: if the new page does not qualify for speedy deletion or PROD but still has some issues that need tags, should you then just leave the page marked unreviewed after you add the tags? (From what I've read, 'reviewed' means the page has no issues and needs no tags.) Thanks ABF99 (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ABF99. I am sorry that no one has answered you yet, and I do not feel confident about the answer. I am pinging an editor with expertise in new page patrolling. Kudpung, can you please comment? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The answers are all in WP:NPP, WP:CURATION, and WP:DELETION (or should be). In short however, adding tags will automatically mark the entry as patrolled. Unless you are a very experienced user looking for a special kind of page, the correct and default system to use for patrolling is Page Curation. Patrollers should also be sure to use the message feature to inform the creator of the tagging (this is only done automatically for deletion tags), otherwise the article will remain perma-tagged, possibly for many years. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. I wondered about this because using Page Curation I have noticed that pages that are marked 'not patrolled' there sometimes show up with tags already on them. --ABF99 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This is because some users prefer not to use the new system we developed in 2011 and re still using the old page feed and Twinkle to tag the pages. The two systems are not compatible and cause confusion when viewing through through the interactive feed.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Changing email address

I'd like to change the email address associated with my WP username, but can't find how to do this. Sorry if this a simple question.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Email options at the foot of Special:Preferences. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks

Gravuritas (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

How to verify and document death of a recently deceased person?

Question: How do I change the article of Ralph Goings, the photorealist painter from living to deceased? His death has been announced by a friend on Facebook, but I need to verify and get the facts. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a policy on it, but I can't find it ... News coverage is the gold standard. The idea being that hoax death announcements are a common form of comedic vandalism, annoyingly. So if a recent death doesn't have a cite, people may look askance at it.

I've cited in the past to a non-news source that's a reliable official website. e.g. when David Gaiman died I figured citing his rather famous son Neil Gaiman's blog would be pretty solid, though it was replaced with a newspaper article as soon as one was available. Andy Dog Johnson's death was first cited to his brother's band's official Facebook (he was the band's artist) and that was then replaced with a cite to the band's official site. In such cases I'd suggest noting why the source is a good one on the talk page.

So if Goings has an official site that notes it, that would probably count.

Of course, we have recent counterexamples like the hacker who hacked Jimmy Wales' Twitter and announced his death, which also forwarded to his Facebook ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)