Wikipedia:Teahouse

Bonadea, 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

Asking for clarification if uploading pictures with permission of photographer

I am in contact with someone who has indicated that they are willing to supply me with one or more photographs that they have taken themselves. I have permission to upload them to Wikipedia and would like to put them on Wikipedia Commons for wide use. I have not uploaded images before or gone through the licensing options in detail, although it seems that there are two preferred licenses (Creative Commons and GFDL) and that both should be applied. My questions are 1) Am I allowed to upload this person's work with their permission? and 2) If I am, how can I best describe the license options to them, since they are not a Wikipedia Commons user? Thanks, Kumboloi (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Screenshots and licenses

Hello! I'm currently making big edits in this article but I have questions about uploading of screenshots. Rights on this show are currently hold by one company, which owns separate site for watching, both of them have channels on Youtube and upload various episodes of this show, not without their logos in corner. Yet none of VHS rips on YT, from premier times and '00s retranslations, were taken down by copyright issues. So:

• how critical is uploading screenshot with said logos or without them (after edit in graphic editor)?
• with what licenses I should describe these screenshots?
• can they be used in other language versions of this article (with or without reupload)?

MahtMBah (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello MahtMBah and welcome to the Teahouse.

The fact that something was not (yet) taken down for copyright issues is not evidence.

Since the material you are talking about is clearly covered by copyright, the only way you could use something like this on English Wikipedia would be under WP:Non-free content criteria.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested Article Redirect

I have requested a music article for the song "Handclap" by Fitz and the Tantrums, but when clicked, redirects to the article "Clapping" How do I fix this? Bedsidelamp (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Here you go. The song is mentioned with the capital C. Clifta 21:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifta (talk • contribs)

MUSICIAN ARTICLES

I read that you cant set up a wiki article for a band or mucisian yet I see plenty of articles. The artist I have in mind is already referenced in other articles so how di do this ? Jakandra (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jakandra: There's no rule against creating an article about a band or musician, unless you are writing about yourself or a band you represent, in which case you have a conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Your first article for help on how to create the article. Funcrunch (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a writers guide to how to write articles?

I'd like to write an article, however, I don't want to make to many mistakes, format things incorrectly, or present information in the wrong way. Is there a writers guide? Zachary G. 19:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachAttrax (talk • contribs)

Hey ZachAttrax. Check out guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article and the somewhat more in-depth tutorial at Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Hope these help. TimothyJosephWood 20:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, how do I find the list of suggested articles?

Thanks PGA2013 (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello @PGA2013:, and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles and Wikipedia:Requested articles list possibly useful and requested articles. I'd also recommend to read Wikipedia:Your first article as it has a lot of good advice for new contributors (and I will also post a few other useful links to your talkpage). Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Bio of a living person

Hello, How I can create a new article, if my article is already on Wiki? I need to create a Bio of a living person,but not edit existing page. Margor.88 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Just edit the existing article. We don't create multiple articles about the same subject. By "my article" did you mean that the article is about you? If that is the case then you have a WP:conflict of interest and normally should not edit the article. See WP:COISELF for the limited exceptions. Any other edits should be proposed on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Already asked [1]and answered [2] [3] at help desk. Asking more than once isn't going to change the answer. User works for the subject of the article, and is at COIN Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Brian_Skerry. Meters (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is my version of the post reverted

Why is my version of the post reverted when the new version gives the summary of work done by the personality over his lifetime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobhit.dalal (talk • contribs) 18:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the question to the top of the page to its correct location chronologically.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 22:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirects from two pages

I just added a second redirect to National World War I Museum and Memorial, and I am wanting to know if it is better form to list each redirect in its own sentence like I have it, or if I should do one sentence stating both, or if it matters at all. RM2KX (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey RM2KX. I have combined the two into one custom hatnote, which saves a bit of space. It's still pretty beefy though. I also wonder about the prudence of redirecting National WWI Memorial to this article. I find it hard to believe that the only National WWI Memorials in the world are in Kansas and DC. I wonder if this wouldn't be better as a disambiguation page, given that there are in fact articles on other nations' national memorials. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you right,TimothyJosephWood. However, the source of the redirect previously covered only one element within the topic of the destination, meaning it still has a talk page and edit history on that subtopic. How would I go about separating them from the disambiguation page, and would I even have to do so? RM2KX (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

After looking, I am not seeing other memorials with that title, exactly, so for now I've included a category link in the adjusted hatnote. RM2KX (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

wiki badges

how do i get the link to badges ? or atleast the badgeometer? kindly discuss and let me know thanking you, jordanben jordan (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey jordan. It's not entirely clear what it is you mean by "badges". Maybe if you can be more specific, or provide a link to the type of thing you're referring to, then we can be of more help. TimothyJosephWood 15:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

i meant i hve seen many ppl /editors havin sumtin called barnstars .i want one too. plus i saw a link for a new barometer sumwere .plus one more question,how do i write an article and put it on wiki? jordan (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a page that describes writing your first article, Wikipedia:Your first article. - GB fan 15:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey jordan. Barnstars are tokens of appreciation given by other editors as a way to recognize when they think someone has done a great job of helping to build the encyclopedia. So in a nutshell, the way to get barnstars is to do a great job of helping to build the encyclopedia.

There are lots of ways that editors help do this, including fighting vandalism, copy-editing articles to improve grammar and punctuation, taking and uploading great pictures for use on the encyclopedia, and many others, in addition to editors who primarily work to create brand new articles. If you're interested in making new articles, you should check out our tutorial on doing so. But keep in mind that writing a brand new article is one of the more difficult things to do on Wikipedia, and it's far from the only way you can help. TimothyJosephWood 15:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi jordan. I can only offer you this advice concerning awards (aside from the useful information that Timothy Joseph Wood has already provided). I myself have received one barnstar, which I really appreciated. However, I did nothing to actively seek out that barnstar, nor did I do anything with the explicit goal of gaining an award. The barnstar I received was for my participation in improving Wikipedia (speficially, the Articles for Deletion section). I contributed by doing my best in researching whether an article deserved to be deleted in line with Wikipedia's established policies. Another Wikipedia editor appreciated my efforts, and awarded me with the barnstar out of his or her own consideration.

Therefore, I can only advice you not to worry too much about receiving awards right now. Instead, try to see where you can help improve Wikipedia (many options are already listed on Wikipedia:Community portal). Try to start small (e.g. copy-editing, reverting vandalism, adding reliable sources where they are missing, etc.) and build up experience. The barnstars will more than likely follow your positive contributions to this community project.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 18:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Links to de.wikipedia.org show as external links on en.wikipedia.org

Hi I'm creating the page for an artist called Maria Hinze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Hinze). I want to link to one of her professors, Walter Obholzer (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Obholzer) but as his page is in German on the de.wikipedia.org it always shows as an external link, and now I have been told that this is against the rules of Wiki, but I can't figure out how to keep it as an internal link. Can anybody help? Many thanks Pseudophile (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pseudophile. A regular wikilink to a foreign language Wikipedia article is created by placing a colon at the start of the link markup, then the language code, and then piping the link to the name you want to display. Thus [[:de:Walter Obholzer|Walter Obholzer]] displays as Walter Obholzer. There is also a template that is sometimes used, {{ill}}, to display the name being linked as a red link while still providing a blue link to the foreign article, and in that way, invite creation of the article here. However, this should only be used where the foreign language article is clearly a notable topic (under English Wikipedia's standards). I'm not sure that's the case here, as the German article is not well sourced (and I did not search to confirm myself). See also Help:Interlanguage links. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Tips for editing in wikipedia

Q.Hi I am SawOnGam and I am a rookie who joined wikipedia recently only about 10 fays and I want to know about the codes used in the wikipedia So can you list me the codes with their functions used in wikipedia Sawongam (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

ANS:Hey Sawongam. I assume that by "codes" what you mean is the markup that is used to format articles and talk pages. For an overview of all the most common types of markup used on Wikipedia, see Help:Wiki markup. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You may also find Help:Cheatsheet a useful summary - Arjayay (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much - Arjayay (talk) For your kindness :-) Sawongam (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

changing logo & editing content

Hello,

I would like to edit this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Tobacco_Group by adding my company*s new logo and changing the text. I have added text in the back end and for some reason not all the changes have been applied when publish. Please advise.

Many thanks. Andreayoung (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Already answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#changing logo .26 editing content - please do not ask the same question in multiple places - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

trying to create wiki page for someone who has same name

Trying to create a wiki page for a person that has the same name as another person who already has a wiki page. Can someone show me an example as if the name I am writing a wiki page for Greg Lindsay but somebody else by the name of Greg Lindsay has already taken it? I already created it for Gregory Lindsay BUT want to edit it to read Greg Lindsay(producer) so I can establish it for Greg Lindsay the producer and not just regular, Greg Lindsay (from Australia, who already has taken it). Thelinzla (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thelinzla, and welcome to the Teahouse. The page you created is currently called Gregory Lindsay. Before we sort out the best name, there is a more urgent matter - the article has been nominated for deletion. Your first action needs to be to find references in reliable sources that discuss him in depth, in order to show that he is notable. Without that, the article will probably be deleted. --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thelinzla, please note that IMDB is not a reliable source so currently your article has no valid references at all. - Arjayay (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

IMDB is a reliable source because if you click on a link from there it will take you to another site proving the credit. For example, Greg Lindsay has a credit on Charmed. If you scroll down to his Charmed credit and click on it, it will take you off his page and bring you to Charmed's page where it will prove Greg played the role of Trey on Charmed and the release date of the episode. These are done by the studios and production companies and not the actor's personal page. These links prove the role the person is associated with being a writer, actor, producer, director, etcThelinzla (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are links from other sources: https://newslinela.wordpress.com/page/22/?archives-list=1 https://www.facebook.com/pg/GregLindsay.net/about http://charmed.wikia.com/wiki/Greg_Lindsay vzhare.com/watch/932425686855353 celebrities.prettyfamous.com/l/315981/Greg-Lindsay http://celebrityimages.org/celebrity/512226/612803Thelinzla (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The first one appears to be a blog, the second purports to be his official Facebook page (but how do we know it really is his), the third one is a wikia, and the fourth is just a picture with text sourced to IMDB again. The facebook page can be used to establish personal details if it is proven to be his. None of these pages are of any use in establishing his notability. Blogs and wikias are WP:USERGENERATED. Meters (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Thelinzla. Please note we do not create pages 'for' anybody in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not for promotion of any person, society or company. Instead, we create pages 'about' people, who are notable. Please refer to WP:PROMOTION and Wikipedia:Notability for some basic guidelines to choosing a subject for Wikipedia article. --CiaPan (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Still need your help to delete my .jpg file in Wiki Commons.

I am trying to do a speedy delete of one of my files named File: Jean Jepson circa circa late 1940s or early 1950s.jpg I have had some feedback from your help desk. From these replies I am now aware that I am not an administrator and so I do not have access to the delete button. The file was created in Wiki Commons following the Upload Wizard instructions. I have read the help links on Deleting and they provide a lot of details but I cannot find where to go to do the delete and how exactly to do it. It may be simpler if you deleted. I only have two files and I am trying to eliminate clutter. I made an error in the file name and put in the word "circa" twice. That is all.75.155.187.94 (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Since the file was uploaded to Commons, the file needs to be deleted there. If you are c:User:CableHut who uploaded the file, then you should log in to your account, gp to the file's page at c:File:Jean Jepson circa circa late 1940s or early 1950s.jpg, and then add c:Template:SDG7 to the top of the page. You can do this by simply adding {{SDG7}} to the very top of the file's page. You do, however, need to add this template within 6 days from the date of upload. If you are not the uploader, then you can request that the file be deleted by going to the file's page on Commons, looking at the side bar on the left, and then clicking on "Nominate for deletion". As it is the file has been tagged for not having proper permission, so it will eventually be deleted by a Commons' administrator after 7 days if proper permission is not provided.

Please also note that the other file (File:Jean Jepson Portrait circa late 1940s or early 1950s.jpg) has also been tagged for not having proper permission, and this file will also be deleted unless you can provide proof that it has been released under a free license. Please refer to c:COM:OTRS for further information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Trying to talk to someone, but I don't understand what they are saying the problem is

Can someone help me figure out what the problem is with my suggestion for a change to an article? There is a user trying to tell me, but I don't understand his explanation. It is at the bottom of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mehmet_Oz. He says I'm doing OR and SYN, but I really don't think so. I'm trying explain why I don't think so, but he keeps saying I am. But I don't understand his reasoning. Maybe someone else can explain better? 45.72.157.254 (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, anonymous IP editor. The problem seems be with the use of the word "widespread". Calling something "widespread" when the cited sources do not use that word (or a very close synonym) can be considered synthesis and original research. Who says that four sources amounts to "widespread"? This is the sort of thing that needs to be resolved by talk page discussion leading to consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I eventually figured out what he meant. It seemed really weird that it took the whole afternoon and so many messages to figure out what the issue was. Is it always like that here? At this point I feel like my head has turned inside out. Was I not being clear or was he not being clear?

I thought I addressed the point with quotes from the articles, but it seems like criticisms of Dr. Oz from doctors, the scientific community, journalists, and the US Senate in articles that are about his propagation of pseudoscience isn't a close enough link to say that the widespread criticism is about Dr. Oz's propagation of pseudoscience. Are those not enough people to be widespread? Clearly the two of us disagree, so hopefully some other people will chime in as well. 45.72.157.254 (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but most matters here are not as slippery as gray areas of OR and SYNTH can be. Just remember, the source or sources needs to directly support the conclusion you are drawing, in their text. If you are drawing a conclusion, as here, from an implication of the number of sources saying something, rather than from what the sources themselves say, then you are engaging in a form of original research. The most common form of synthesis I see is the drawing of negative implications. For example, the claim that the history/origins of some subject/matter is unknown or not well researched because the Wikipedia editor has looked high and low for sources and has failed to find anything. That gap in an article that screams for some comment on the subject's history to make it seemingly complete makes this a very alluring form of synthesis to engage in (it's driven me to some distraction myself in articles I wanted to take to FAQ or to good articles but meeting the comprehensive standard felt impossible without some comment on an apparent hole one would expect to be filled in a complete article). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Good Wikipedia editors must rigorously cultivate the habit of saying nothing that is not an accurate summary of what the reliable sources say about the topic. That includes use of a term like "widespread". Fuhghettaboutit gave an excellent example. If, on the other hand, a leading authority on the topic had commented that its origins are unknown, then it would be appropriate to mention that in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. That's very helpful. I still disagree that in this particular case I'm engaging in synthesis, but I can see how it can be a difficult area. And maybe widespread is just too loose a term - could be it needs qualifying like 'widespread criticism among scientists and doctors' or something like that. I've just put a proposal on the talk page, so other people can weigh in. Thanks again for the explanation. 45.72.157.254 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Badges and groups.

Hi! I am very new to Wikipedia (as you can tell by my profile) and still finding out new things every day. I love contributing and helping the 'wiki community'. I recently came across a contributors profile and noticed they had certain badges/awards and was wondering how they gained them? I've done a bit of researching but only been able to find that I may have to join some 'groups' to earn badges? I hope you are able to tell me a bit more about these and point me in the right direction.

Many thanks. Kinghumez (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kinghumez, welcome to the Teahouse. You didn't name the user and there are different types of badges and awards. The large majority don't depend on joining any groups. The easiest to get are from Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure which automatically gives badges like Wikipedia:TWA/Badgeometer to users who do the missions. See Wikipedia:Awards for some of the other possibilities. They often require a lot of work or a friendly editor noticing your good edits – making lots of good edits increases the chance of that. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kinghumez. All awards and badges on Wikipedia are informal and unofficial. Please read about Service awards, which are self awarded based on length of service and editing activity. Another common type of award are Barnstars, which are given by one editor to another for various types of productive activities. You can also get a variety of badges for completing the Wikipedia Adventure, but in all honesty, those are pretty trivial. There are a variety of other more prestigious awards, such as Wikipedian of the Month, and so on. Focus above all on improving the encyclopedia, and these awards will come to you as time goes by. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

And there is another possibility, Kinghumez: some users also put "userboxes" on their user page, to highlight their qualifications, interests, etc. If you want to find about a specific badge on a User's page, you can always ask on their Talk page - if they went to the trouble of posting it, I'm sure they would be happy to answer a question.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Thank" feature

I am not sure how the "Thank" feature works, even though I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It's explained at WP:Notifications/Thanks. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Just as the name of it implies, it's used to thank another editor for their particular contribution to a page. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Where does it show up? On the recipient's talk page? Or as a bit of tiny type in the page History? How does the recipient learn that he or she has been thanked? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey BeenAroundAWhile. A thank shows up in your notifications at the top of you screen, similar to how you are notified when someone pings you. To demonstrate, I will thank you for your comment after I post this reply. Thanks are ostensibly public, since they are kept in a public log, Special:Log/thanks, but are much more private than a Wikipedia:WikiLove message, which is publicly displayed on a user's talk page, rather than tucked away in an obscure log. TimothyJosephWood 13:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't understand what WP:Notifications/Thanks says in English, it does have links (in the left-hand toolbar) to equivalent pages in some other languages. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

How to be an effective editor?

How to be an effective editor?16:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjbcawili (talk • contribs)

That's a very open question, Jjbcawili! I would say it's about finding your "niche" here on Wikipedia. There are lots of jobs that help improve the encyclopaedia: writing articles (about things that interest you, things that we're missing, or things people want to read about), copyediting, counter-vandalism, patrolling, the list goes on and on. If you can find some tasks that interest you and that you're good at, you're definitely an effective editor. – Joe (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

edit

How to edit page and create new pages ? Also , how to change the name of a main article?16:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjbcawili (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Jjbcawili. You can edit (almost) any article simply by clicking the "edit" tab at the top right of the page. Creating new articles from scratch is more difficult, but you can use the article wizard. To move pages (change their title) you have to be slightly more experienced, but until you get there you can ask someone else to do it on the article's talk page. You might find the the Wikipedia Adventure, a short tutorial on editing Wikipedia, helpful in getting started. – Joe (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

About Speedy deletion nomination

Hello,

Please tell me, is creating an informative page of any shop or firm on wikipedia, according to the terms and policies of wikipediaAbhishek.moonat (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Abhishek.moonat. It is not. An encyclopedia is a compendium of articles on topics of knowledge, already substantively written about by people out in the world and is never the place to first discuss topics, that the world has not already recognized. The vast majority of small businesses in the world are not notable, as we use that word to define the standard I summarized of previous recognition in writing. Generally, this means that unless reliable, secondary and independent sources have written about the shop or firm in substantive detail, a stand-alone article is not warranted. Please also be aware of our conflict of interest guideline, and that people owning or involved in a business, wanting to write about that business, must provide disclosure of paid editing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Judgement of Articles

How are articles are judged? What qualities should an article possess so that it is eligible for posting it worldwide? I have checked out all the article-related Wikipedia pages but i still cannot understand. Please help.

Faceless Wikipedian (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Faceless Wikipedian. As threshold matters, an article should:

1. be on a notable topic (as demonstrated by citation to reliable, secondary and independent sources);
2. have only verifiable content;
3. engage in no original research;
4. be written from a neutral point of view; and
5. not violate any part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Though I think this goes a bit beyond the scope of your direct question, after these threshold matters are met, the path to a great article would be to aspire to meet the featured article criteria. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Faceless Wikipedian. You can find out more information about how articles are evaluated by reading Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

My article is not on any Google search

I have written an article entitled Bill Elliott (musician), but the article appears to be transparent on any Google search, even using the exact words. After I was finished with it in my sandbox, I blanked the namespace article by mistake, (instead of my sandbox version) but undid it. The article shows up OK within Wiki, but not outside Wiki. The same is true for Google searching for a keyword within the article. Can you help? Thanks--Eagledj (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. A decision was taken some months ago that new pages would be NOINDEXed until they have been accepted by the New pages patrol process. This came as a surprise to many editors. There is an increasing queue (currently 15618 pages) awaiting patrol, and a backlog of more than 3 months. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, David Biddulph. I did not know this, and it seems like a Good Idea! Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Technically that decision was made five years ago, but didn't take effect until recently due to a software bug. – Joe (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How to replace an existing citation with a more accurate link

How to replace an existing citation with a more accurate link Niccasey (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved! thanks anway

Niccasey (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

page deleted

hello my friend have created page name called Audrey D'Silva but page was deleted , i wanna recover that page is it possible ?Mehakdhavan (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Audrey D'Silva has been deleted twice, the first at the author's request and the second after WP:Articles for deletion/Audrey D'Silva. The header of the latter page has a link to WP:Deletion review. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How can I find my deleted article in the deletion log.

Hi,

I wrote a page called 'Transcrypt' about a popular open source project I initiated. It was deleted because it was considered promotional. The reasons are said to be in the deletion log. I tried to search for record of this deletion in the log, but couldn't find it. I've filled in my user name and the name of the page, but there were zero hits.

Kind regards Jacques de Hooge Jacdeh (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It wasn't an article, it was a draft. The link is there from the notification on your user talk page. The link goes to Draft:Transcrypt, which shows you the deletion log entry for that page. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, David, for your reply. I have seen the entry you refer to. Only I wasn't aware that this was indeed a deletion log entry. The person deleting the page replied me to look in the deletion log to find the reasons why. However I only found the original remark about lacking references there. The point is that I've added those references in order to comply with quality and notability standards. I didn't get any reaction to that. Not that these references were good enough. Not that they were worthless. The page was just deleted, that's all. So I try to get into a conversation with someone experienced about how to improve this page. But I don't succeed in that, which I find frustrating. So at least I am glad to have obtained an helpful answer from a human being. I will for now not invest anymore time in this page. Not that I'm not willing to in principle, but there's no guarantee I'll get a decent reaction after even more effort. Still I consider Wikipedia very useful. Using it almost daily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacdeh (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jacdeh. There seems to be a bit of confusion here. The message on your user talk page says that the draft was rejected (not deleted) by SwisterTwister last August, for lack of adequate references. Separately, the deletion log says that the draft was deleted by Athaenara last week for a different reason: that it was unambiguous advertising or promotion. Why there is this difference in view, I don't know (as I am not an admin, I can't look at deleted pages). Perhaps between August and this month you added material which made it more promotional; perhaps SwisterTwister noticed the lack of references and didn't consider the text; perhaps those two would actually disagree about whether it was unambiguous advertising: you could ask Athaenara for more information (I've linked them above, so they should get a notification about this reply). But the point I'm making is that while adding references could meet SwisterTwister's original rejection, it would probably not satisfy Athaenara's judgment for deletion, which was on different grounds. It is certainly often the case that people close to a topic find it hard to judge how promotional some text is: that's why we discourage people from editing articles where they have a conflict of interest. One way I like to think of it that, if you started the project, then Wikipedia has essentially no interest at all in what you think, know, have said, or want to say about it (I'm not trying to be offensive, just blunt): it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the project have published about it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, alright, I can of course not be considered to be objective. Thank you for the clear and extensive explanation. I didn't add anything else then references, one of them to a book, in which I had no say, nor do I know the author, but the project is descibed there in a separate paragraph. Also there's a reference to a discussion on stackoverflow. But perhaps I shouldn't be the one writing the article, although I think on the other hand I am the most knowlegeable about this subject. Anyhow I value your careful reply and do not at all consider it offensive. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacdeh (talk • contribs) 08:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

##1

how to delete our notifications or alerts? How to clear some unwanted msgs on our user talk page ? kindly let me know about this by discussing thank you. jordan (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, jordan. Just to clarify, are you taking about notices and alerts or messages on your user talk page? They are two different things. Notifications and alerts appear in the icons in the top right of the page (the bell and the inbox) and are only visible to you. I don't think you can delete them but if you click the circle next to one it will mark it as read and won't bother you any more. User talk pages are the main way Wikipedians communicate with each other and are visible to anybody. You can edit your talk page (User talk:Jordanben) just like any other page – click "edit" in the top right of the page. However, usually people don't delete old messages, they leave them there as a record for themselves and other editors. If your talk page gets too crowded, what you could do is archive it instead. Hope that helps. – Joe (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How to delete a file. Should be simple and straightforward but not working out that way.

I am trying to delete a duplicate file. The HELP sections says that files are deleted in the same manner as pages and that the process is very simple. Go tot he file (or page) and there is a delete button at the top of the page and you click that and a dialog box will ask for the underlying reason.

Of course when I open the file there is no delete button anywhere in sight and so I am unable to delete the duplicate file.

Please help! 75.155.187.94 (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@75.155.187.94: Which file are you trying to delete? --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Files for discussion, where you can nominate any file you wish for deletion. Though I am not familiar with the "delete button" you mention, please be aware that not all functions are available to unregistered editors. Please consider opening an optional Wikipedia account, which offers many benefits and no negatives. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi person editing from 75.155.187.94. It sounds as if maybe you read an instruction page directed at administrators—who do have a deletion button; non-administrators do not. In addition to the instructions above, it's possible that if it is truly a duplicate separate file, or a duplicate version of a single file, then tagging it for speedy deletion might be possible. It must strictly meet the criterion though, which are set out at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Files. The deletion tags that you would place on the file page, if a speedy deletion criterion applies, is given for each criterion at the page I linked. A second possibility occurs to me. If the file is at the Wikimedia Commons, rather than on Wikipedia (people often don't realize images they see are not actually hosted here but there), then there is a "nominate for Deletion" link under the tools menu on the left hand side of the page. None of the deletion methods anyone has discussed here will apply to the Commons, though they have equivalent procedures. See Commons:Deletion policy. By the way, if you had told us the name of the actual file, we all could have crafted far more targeted answers for you. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess you refer Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Deleting#Deleting files. The page is for administrators as the name clearly says, and the second line on the page says: Basically, click on the "delete" tab at the top of the page (the tab will only appear if you are an administrator logged in to your account). In the future, please provide links to pages you refer to, in this case both the file and help page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the helpful responses to my questions.

This is my first WP article that I am creating and I am not familiar at all with all your protocols. I am definitely not an administrator and that is probably why I could not see the delete button. Yes the file that I am trying to delete is in Wiki Commons so I will read up on that side of the house. I will be more specific about file names in future if I need more help. 75.155.187.94 (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

How to locate and edit a new Catgegory for a recently uploaded picture.

I had to create a new "category" as requested by the wizard while uploading my first photo for my first draft article. Of course I made a typing error in describing the category and now I need to edit it. I have looked all over the HELP feature and I can find no way to locate or edit my new category! Please provide some clear instructions on how to first locate and then edit my category. All this is related to my article: Jean Jepson, Dancer, Teacher, Choreographer.

Teahouse has been very helpful in providing answers to my previous questions. It is not clear to me though if sending email replies would be helpful if I have a follow-up question to your initial reply. Please comment on this.CableHut (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CableHut. The Teahouse is for answering questions about editing Wikipedia, and I think you are talking about an image uploaded to our separate sister project Wikimedia Commons instead. No matter. I went over there and clicked the "edit" button on the image you uploaded, and changed "Category:Tap" to "Category: Tap dancer". That is a very easy thing to do. The categories are near the bottom of the image file.

As for email replies, that is very rarely necessary. Just return to the thread you started, click "edit", and add a follow-up comment to the bottom of the thread. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

how long

My article has be waiting for 3 weeks+ can someone get round to it soon please. 82.38.157.176 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, 86. You are currently working on two draft articles. Neither are currently submitted for review. So in short no one is going to get around to either anytime. And I cannot help further because I have no way of knowing which one you want to submit for review. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh I didn't realise the one I want to be submit is Draft:List of highest-grossing animated films in Canada and the United States I thought I did send that off i do it now the other one my next project I will work on that after, i will try to send it off now if I have anymore problems I will come back.82.38.157.176 (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Back it telling me both articles have been submit82.38.157.176 (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why John from Idegon thought that Draft:List of highest-grossing animated films in Canada and the United States (which was indeed the draft you linked to in your original question) had not been re-submitted for review. It was submitted on 1 January. There are 435 drafts awaiting review; about a quarter of them have been waiting more than 3 weeks. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for one editor to put a command in a comment when no such consensus exists or indeed has ever been discussed on the talk page?

For example, here I had added Trumpeter Michael Sachs to the list of notable alumni for the National Repertory Orchestra. Michael is the long time principal trumpeter of the Cleveland Orchestra, a world famous trumpeter and educator, and I provided a reference that demonstrated his notability and connection to the NRO. Immediately following that, another editor here removed my entry, and put in a comment stating "Do NOT add names with now WP article". There was no consensus at this time, the other editor simply issued a command. Now according to WP:CSC, "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future" so (1) wasn't my entry perfectly reasonable, and (2) weren't the actions of the other editor outside of WP policy and borderline rude? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Cohler, there exists a project wide consensus that in order to be listed in a notable person's list, that person's notability needs to be shown by the existence of their biography here on Wikipedia or sourcing that shows that beyond a reasonable doubt. See WP:NLIST. If the person you want to add meets article qualification guidelines (either the general guideline or the musician - specific guideline), then by all means write their biography then add them to the list. John from Idegon (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon that is very different from what Marchjuly told me here so now I am confused. And certainly it does not say that on WP:CSC which I quoted above. Why is there so much disagreement on this issue? Perhaps the policies surrounding this need to be clarified? Also, WP:Notability says that notability is established not by existence of a WP article but by the existence of acceptable sources. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 19:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Cohler, you did not provide an independent source showing that this musician is "world famous" but rather a link to an orchestra website that lists all members of that orchestra. Because of your topic ban, you would be well-advised to avoid any type of editing that can be perceived as disruptive or misleading. Please desist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, Cohler, I see that you were editing a list that includes your own name, and you are topic banned from writing anything autobiographical. This is a really bad idea. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my topic ban. I am simply trying to get an answer to my question. Why do you only respond with commands and veiled threats? Forget about the particulars, I am asking a general question, why are people giving totally different answers? Some are saying notability does not require a WP article, others are saying that it does, and WP:Notability clearly does not require a WP article. Here for example, John from Idegon wrote "there exists a project wide consensus that in order to be listed in a notable person's list, that person's notability needs to be shown by the existence of their biography here on Wikipedia" which is a direct contradiction of what Marchjuly wrote when he said "Individual entries of such a list do not have to have a stand-alone article written about them". I'm just looking for an answer to the policy question. Please answer the question and stop the veiled threats. I thought this was the place for asking questions in a friendly environment? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Doc James clarified the terms of your topic ban to include "your work or the people you work with" here Wikipedia:Teahouse#Notability_requirement_for_a_list_that_is_inside_another_article. That would seem to include the National Repertory Orchestra article. Once again you seem to be tendentiously editing very close to your ban. Meters (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Read it again. I said they had to have a bio or you had to prove it (probably could have said that better...you have to prove they would qualify to have a bio). You are violating your topic ban. So, to put things in simple terms, you cannot edit that list. You cannot edit any article that contains your name, you cannot edit any article about any organization you have ever had any association with. That's what a topic ban is. You have been given a topic ban in order for you to show you have the capacity to internalized our requirements. You show that by editing in areas you have no connection with (e.g. Bread) successfully. The alternative is you will simply be blocked. Sorry....that's as friendly and supportive as it can be phrased. John from Idegon (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

First, I am asking a theoretical question that has nothing to do with any specifics. I simply gave an example. Second, I have never worked at the National Repertory Orchestra, it is a training orchestra for young musicians and I did receive a fellowship to be in the orchestra for one summer in 1979. That hardly qualifies as some place that I work. What are you talking about? Could you please answer my question and stop with the attacks. I am not and have not violated my topic ban. Boy you admins seem to love attacking people who ask simple questions. Very frustrating indeed. I guess the Teahouse is not so friendly after all. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 20:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(EC) What is required is that notability of the person be established. The easiest way to demonstrate this is by creating a well referenced article. Short of that, you would need to list multiple references (i.e. show the notability, show that the person could have an article) with the name in the list. While this is not forbidden; the former method is much preferred. A single link to a listing of all members of an orchestra does not prove that person meets the notability requirements. Does this help clarify matters for you? LadyofShalott 19:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

LadyofShalott, Cohler can't write articles about people he knows and works with because he has a conflict of interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers I don't work with any of the people in the list. As I said, I was a student member of the orchestra in 1979 nearly 40 years ago. Why do you jump to ridiculous conclusions and then publish them here as fact with no basis whatsoever? Please desist. Furthermore, I am just asking a question here. Answers as opposed to your totally unfounded accusations, would be appreciated. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 20:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

LadyofShalott Thank you for the first actual response to one of my questions here. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 20:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

So getting back to my question, "Is it appropriate for one editor to put a command in a comment when no such consensus exists or indeed has ever been discussed on the talk page?" And this is a general question, not in relation to any particular circumstance. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 20:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. If you want a more detailed explanation see above. You'll generally get a clearer response if you don't phrase your questions in a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" format. John from Idegon (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Cohler, yes, you have violated your topic ban when you wrote in an earlier Teahouse thread: "Why? The topic ban is on Jonathan Cohler. I'm allowed to edit other things right? Boston Conservatory is not related to "Jonathan Cohler" other than I am a notable faculty member there." You are not allowed to edit, mention or even allude to or hint at Jonathan Cohler, except when appealing the topic ban. Please stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Cohler - If you have a specific question that isn't related to your topic-ban and isn't confrontational, you may ask it. However, you don't appear to be asking a question so much as trying to start a quarrel. Please be aware that some of the editors here are administrators who can block you for disruptive editing, including for editing in violation of a topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I was deliberately not getting into the topic ban question because I have not looked at either the ban or the article in question. Cohler, multiple editors who have looked at those think you are in violation. I would advise you to step away from this topic. LadyofShalott 21:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cohler: If my response to your previous Teahouse question was in error or created confusion than my apologies. However, you're quoting of me probably makes more sense if you quote the entire sentence and not just the first part. What I wrote (bold added by me) was Individual entries of such a list do not have to have a stand-alone article written about them,but that is typically the basic criterion for inclusion. You left out that last part (which I think is kind of important) by mistake when you posted this above. The part you quoted seems to imply that I am in disagreement with John from Idegon, which is not the case at all. At the end of my post I wrote There is no automatic inclusion for such names, and like other article content you may have to reach a consensus for it on the article's talk page, which means that the citeria for conclusion of a particular article is something that is often decided on the talk page of that article. Some articles such as University of Oxford could have an "Notable alumni" list 1000s of entries long if inclusion was pretty much automatic, but the consensus doesn't seem to be to allow that. That is why another article List of University of Oxford people where those not suitable for mentioning in the main article was created, but even that article would be huge and unwieldy if everyone was included, so its further broken up in to other stand-alone articles such as List of University of Oxford people in the law. This why I also wrote in my that it's OK to be bold and add a name to the list, but you should follow WP:BRD if you're reverted.

Fnally, I wrote at the very beginning of my post there was probably something about your editing at "Jonathan Cohler" which led to the community deciding to topic ban you from editing that article. So, if you try and use the same approach on another article, then your editing their will probably come under scrutiny as well. In general, editors who try to turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND have very little success achieving their goal(s) even in cases where they may have a point. If other editors posting above are telling you that adding the names to a list i a violation of your topic band, then you need to either (1) request clarification of that from the admin who closed the relevant discusion which lead to the topic ban or (2) accept that and move on to editing something else. The Teahouse is supposed to be a friendly place to try and help others with editing questions. It's not really set up to work like WP:VP/P, WP:AN, or other community noticeboards which deal with more specific issues. Perhaps one of those would be a better place for you to address your concerns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Should quotes or parenthesis be included in articles when you're not directly quoting someone?

Example: The "autobahn" (German Train) is a very popular German method of transport.

Should it be that, or this:

The autobahn is a very popular German method of transport.

Which should be used?ZaxAttrach (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello ZachAttrax and welcome to the Teahouse. Definitely the second one, as per MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Much more style advice is available at WP:MOS. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

... and, of course, an autobahn is a motorway, not a train. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you ZaxAttrach! If you're wondering, the example I found this in was Loharu fort. Zachary G. 18:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi ZachAttrax. Use quotes (italics are preferred) only when talking about a word as a word. See MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Parenthesis are OK, but in the case you show, you would wikilink to autobahn instead of giving a definition. By the way, an autobahn is a German federal highway, not a train. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Assessing an article

I'm a new user (about 800 edits) and I've been working on the article Guccio di Mannaia which is categorized as "Start-Class", but I'd like to ask someone to take a look at it to advise me how it might be improved. Is there a particular place to ask?

Thanks!

TimeForLunch (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi TimeForLunch, your best options for such specific assistance are either WP:WikiProject Visual arts or WP:WikiProject Biography. Post your request to either Project's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, TimeForLunch. I think that the most obvious area for improvement would be to add a photo of the Chalice of Nicholas IV, which seems to be his best known work. It may take some effort to find (or take) a freely licensed photo, but adding one would certainly enhance the reader's understanding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's an interesting topic, TimeForLunch, and an interesting article – nice work! My first stop for info on that sort of figure is always the remarkable Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, which I see you've already consulted; those articles tend to have a very full bibliography, and following up those leads might perhaps lead to some further information. Many of them are likely to be quite hard to track down. On the article qua article, some quick changes you could make might be: (1) more wikilinks – not everyone knows what a chalice is, for example; (2) cut out "deceased" and any other euphemisms, replace with "dead" or other plain English word; (3) be ruthless with anything that might appear as peacockery or puffery – "widely considered a masterpiece" is almost certainly true, but is not something you need to say here, it should be obvious from the description; (4) expand general statements where it's easy to do so – even if the source says "the papal court", it should be pretty straightforward to look up who the actual popes were that Pace di Valentino worked for; (5) build round your article – an article on Pace, even if brief, would add context (and a wikilink) to Guccio; (6) (should probably have been #1) do what Cullen328 suggests; (7) use human-readable dates! – we aren't machines, ordinary mdy or dmy works fine here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all this input, Roger (Dodger67) (talk), Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, and Justlettersandnumbers (talk). I’ll take all these suggestions and work on them as time permits. This advice will also help with other articles going forward. TimeForLunch (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Template to tag inadequate ref?

I was looking at Alphabetic_principle, doing a bit of copyediting, and found several refs that were badly formatted— "cite" template without "ref" tags, so the ref was expanded in the text itself; URL and title with no tagging at all— and was able to fix them up at least somewhat. But this one, in § Role in beginning reading (second paragraph, second sentence), looks hopeless:

<ref>Chall</ref>

It wouldn't be so bad if there were a Reference or External link or such with some such name, but there's no such beast. I looked for a template to tag it with, but couldn't find any such; the best I could do was

{{clarify|reason=reference is a single name, totally inadequate}}

before the "/ref" tag. Is there anything more suitable? Please ping me to answer. --Thnidu (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: I'd have thought {{better source}} would be appropriate...but that just may reduce to the same thing as {{clarify}}. Any sort of remotely likely tag with a reason= parameter may be sufficient for the purpose: leave an in-line reason why some more editing work is required, get the page listed in a cleanup category, then drop it back into the vast lake to be picked up at some future date by you or someone else who has time and interest in fixing the problem more permanently.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: That ref was introduced in this edit on 1 July 2010 by an IP editor who has never made any other edits. There is nothing in the context at the time to help with filling out the details. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: There is an author of that name who wrote about the development of reading skills, so seems to be appropriate - for example, Chall, Jeanne S.; Jacobs, Vicki A. (1 January 1983). "Writing and Reading in the Elementary Grades: Developmental Trends Among Low SES Children". Language Arts. 60 (5): 617–626.. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The book in question is probably Chall, Jeanne S., Learning to Read: The Great Debate, McGraw-Hill, 1967. This book is widely cited in other books that discuss the alphabetic principle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Thanks. There are so many templates, including about refs, and though I searched I just could not find an appropriate one. Your suggestions are helpful.

@Gronk Oz and Cullen328: Thank you both, comrades. With this I can put in a close-to-proper cite. --Thnidu (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz, Cullen328, and Thnidu: The correct template would be {{Full citation needed}} – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Finnusertop!
Respected more-experienced colleagues Gronk Oz & Cullen328, now I don't feel so bad about not finding it. ;-)
And in searching the Web for more info about the book, I found -- whaddayaknow? -- Jeanne Chall, with a fuller citation for the 1996 edition! --Thnidu (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Notability requirement for a list that is inside another article

If an article about a school, for example, has a section titled "Notable alumni" or "Notable faculty", is it required that each person listed have their own WP article? My understanding is that while notability is a requirement to qualify for a stand-alone article on WP, the existence of a WP article does not necessarily confer notability, and furthermore, there are many notable people who do not have WP articles. So if I as an editor, add a person to such a list, with proper sourcing proving notability, my entry should not be deleted solely on the basis that the person does not have a WP article correct? That's my understanding of WP:Source list. Am I wrong? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 07:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TheClarinetGuy. You are correct that not every entry on every single list must have its own Wikipedia article. However, those entries must be verifiable. In the case of those lists designated as lists of "notable" people, though, the standard for inclusion is the existence of an acceptable Wikipedia article. If you believe that you have "proof" that a person is notable, and want to add them to such a list, then the solution is obvious: Write an acceptable Wikipedia article about that person and then add them to the list. There should be no Wikipedia articles about non-notable people. If such articles exist, then they should be deleted and removed from such lists.

This standard prevents these lists of alumni and faculty members from growing to a bloated state, which they most certainly would it we did not limit inclusion on these lists to people who are already the subjects of acceptable Wikipedia biographies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for your quick response. Can you point me to what policy states that a WP article is the requirement for inclusion in "notable" lists? Also, then as a specific example, are you saying that all red-linked people on this List of Boston Conservatory people should be removed? Before, I go ahead and do that, I would like to make sure that I cite the correct policy. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 07:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Cohler. Our editing is guided not only by formal policy, but also by behavioral guidelines, consensus and good sense. I have just read the discussion that led to your recent topic ban. I therefore feel obligated to warn you to refrain from any form of tendentious or disruptive editing. In my opinion, you are skating on very thin ice here, and would be well advised to stay away from this area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Why? The topic ban is on Jonathan Cohler. I'm allowed to edit other things right? Boston Conservatory is not related to "Jonathan Cohler" other than I am a notable faculty member there. As long as I don't edit anything about myself there, isn't that allowed? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 08:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Writing about the faculty where you work is a conflict of interest. Since you have been topic banned from writing about yourself for COI reasons, this seems like a particularly bad idea. Pinging User:Doc James who should have the definitive answer on this. Meters (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hum. Yes do not edit about your work or the people you work with either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Cohler, I agree with Doc James. In my opinion, you should stay a long way away from any article or list where you have even the slightest trace of a conflict of interest, even if they are outside the narrow confines of your topic ban. Your edits are subject to heightened scrutiny because of your history. You should defer to the opinions of the many experienced editors lacking any conflict of interest about these articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi TheClarinetGuy. I think what Cullen328 is trying to say is that there was probably something about your editing at "Jonathan Cohler" which led to the community deciding to topic ban you from editing that article. So, if you try and use the same approach on another article, then your editing their will probably come under scrutiny as well.

As for "Notable alumini", I think what you're looking for is WP:LSC, in particular WP:CSC. Individual entries of such a list do not have to have a stand-alone article written about them, but that is typically the basic criterion for inclusion. If all the entries in the list have stand-alone articles, then you can assume that is probably the consensus for inclusion established for that particular article. If some of the entries don't have stand-alone articles but are supported by a citation to a reliable source, then you can assume that is probably what is needed in such cases. There is no one "common selection criteria" that applies to all article across Wikipedia, so often times you have to check the article's talk page to see it the subject has been discussed before. If not, then you can start a discussion yourself, or you can simply be bold and at the name to the list. If you're bold and reverted, then follow WP:BRD. There is no automatic inclusion for such names, and like other article content you may have to reach a consensus for it on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you for all the clear, informative and substantive answers. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 14:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I add (copy, insert, paste) a photo (picture) into my draft article?CableHut (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I have looked all over the Help features but cannot find any instructions on how to do this!CableHut (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, CableHut, and welcome to the Teahouse. Image must be uploaded first (usually on Wikimedia Commons). The most important thing to keep in mind is copyrights. Most images you'll find on the Internet, in books, and magazines do not meet the strict licensing requirement: the copyright holder needs to have explicitly stated that they allow anyone to use the photo for any purpose, including commercially. Images are not the most important component of Wikipedia articles; they are the icing on the cake. I'd suggest you improve your draft Draft:Jean Jepson: Dancer; Choreographer; Teacher. in other ways first. You should, for instance, put the references right after the content they support (the list at the end will be created automatically): Help:Referencing for beginners#Test it out. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi CableHut, Help:Files gives you the basics of adding images to articles, images and sound files are both types of file so it is almost logical to hide those instructions there. I have a training module on this at User:WereSpielChequers/image_adding which is ready for beta testers, feel free to check it out. ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

removing template messages in an user space draft

I've been adding citations, they are numbered, yet don't show on the list. I'm afraid to leave the draft's page (superstition...) in order to read the related info. Can you please help? שוחרתשוחרת (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, שוחרת, and welcome to the Teahouse. Without saving the draft, it's really difficult for us to guess what's wrong. Here are the instructions for citations anyhow: Help:Referencing for beginners – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, שוחרת. I agree with Finnusertop. Other editors cannot evaluate any unsaved changes that you may have made. Based on the last saved version of your draft, those tags should not be removed, because the problems with the draft have not yet been resolved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi שוחרת. Unfortunately I do not read Hebrew, so I am not sure how to read your name. It's OK to use non-Latin script characters in your username per WP:UN#Usernames with non-Latin characters, but it might make it a bit easier for others to communicate with you and help you if you added some easy to type characters to your signature as explained in WP:NLS. Not every editor is using a keyboard which can type Hebrew script, so they may not be able to address you by your username. You can customize your signature so that the Hebrew characters show when you sign your posts per WP:CUSTOMSIG, and then change your name to something a bit easier for more editors to understand if you want.

Finally about your draft, its seem from User talk:Kudpung#Dear Kudpung you are trying to writie an autobiography. If you are the same he:קורינה_הסופרת, who is the subject of your draft User:שוחרת/Corinna Hasofferett, then I suggest you read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia's Law of Unexpected Consequences and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Hebrew Wikipedia and English Wikipedia are part of the Wikimedia Foundation family, but English Wikipedia probably has a lot more people from around the world editing it and sometimes some of these people do not do so with the best of intentions. Being the creator of an article or the subject of an article does not give you any final editorial control over any edits to the article per Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, so it's important to understand that right from the start. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all good people, Cullen, Marchjuly and Finnusertop. I'm indeed working intenslynon this article, as the perfectionist I am in all I attempt to do. It is still work in progress and will for sure take me a while, but I love it and am sure will continue to write missing articles for wikipedia, now that thanks to your continuous help I'm starting to grasp the handles and the behind the scene dramas. What I like most is the transparency. I wish we could import it into our daily political life. I will relate in good time to some of the issues you raised. Right now what baffles me is the fact that while inserting citations, they got numbered alright at the specific location, yet they do not add up to the single citation at the bottom list for citations. My question is why is that so and could it be remediated? In Thanks, שוחרת (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרת שוחרת (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרת

Hi again שוחרת. I am a bit confused. The draft you've been working on has no citations included in it at all. In a way, this gets back to the questions I answered yesterday, where I prefaced one of my comments by saying "[i]f the latest saved version is the version you are talking about..." Based on the above, it seems it is not. If you don't save your edits to the draft, then (still on the question from yesterday), you will lose that material if you log off and don't save (unless, of course, you save it offline, in a Word document or the like). Anyway, because it seems you have not saved the edits where the citation issue has come up, it's a bit opaque what the issue actually is. Have you included a dedicated references section with a {{reflist}} template in it? Viz:

==References==

{{Reflist|30 em}}

Here's some links to pages that might help: Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1; more involved: Wikipedia:Citing sources; there are numerous others, and each I've linked contains see also sections linking to additional help, guides and tutorials. Also, there's a visual guide to placing inline citations through <ref> ... </ref> tags that I am posting below (just click show). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Visual inline citation guide

Formatting references using inline citations

All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the "cite.php" form of inline citations, using the <ref></ref> elements. Using this method, each time a particular source is mined for information (don't copy word-for-word!), a footnote is placed in the text ("inline"), that takes one to the detail of the source when clicked, set forth in a references section after the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <ref> tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a </ref> tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: <ref name="name"> followed by the citation text and a closing </ref> tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: <ref name="name" />. In order for these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code <references/> or, most commonly, the template, {{Reflist}} which can be modified to display the references in columns using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. Per our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.
Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'	What it produces when you save
Two separate citations.<ref>Citation text.</ref><ref>Citation text2.</ref> Multiple<ref name="multiple">Citation text3.</ref>citation<ref name="multiple" /> use.<ref name="multiple" /> == References == {{Reflist}}	Two separate citations. Multiple citation use. References_________________
Templates that can be used between <ref></ref> tags to format references {{Citation}} • {{Cite web}} • {{Cite book}} • {{Cite news}} • {{Cite journal}} • Others • Examples

Template:Z3

Thanks dear Fuhghettaboutit. I have so much more to study - tomorrow - as it is 2 am in Tel Aviv. 

As for the draft I'm working on, can you see it indeed? It does have already 3 citations, more to come. I wish I could send a screen pic via email as I'm not sure it is possible to post a link here, or allowed. I've just discovered that the citation links appear at the very bottom of the draft format, not where they should. I'll try to decipher the problem tomorrow. In short, I'm working on this draft that upon completion should be approved for publication/saving. It might take me a while. Right now it is online and shown. Thanks a lot, Good Night, שוחרת/Renica 00:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרת שוחרת/Renica 00:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC) שוחרת

Hello, שוחרת. I don't understand why you are so nervous about saving your work. Until you save it, Wikipedia cannot see it: it is some information in the browser on your device, not in Wikipedia. The worst that can happen if you save your work is that somebody thinks you edit is inappropriate and reverts it. (Well, if it is something really contrary to Wikipedia policy like a personal attack, you could get blocked, but anything you do in good faith will be accepted as such). We really can't help you if you don't show us what the problem it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

how does one insert photos and can photos be considered a source reference?

how does one insert photos and can photos be considered a source reference? AvaAva Bianca 01:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, User:Comfortscience. Pictures are welcome, as mentioned in WP:Image. Difficulties exist, and the biggest one is usually WP:Copyright. If you snapped the photo, you probably own the copyright and can license it for Wikipedia and the world to use. If someone else made the picture, the photographer is usually the owner. Whoever the copyright owner is, must make a statement to give up the rights. After the legal part has been done properly, the technical parts are easier.

Photos by themselves are usually not a reference for statements in the encyclopedia. They need to be backed up by a WP:Reliable source saying what they are, in which case those words are the source reference. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

how to edit

People educated at North Sydney Boys High School. How do I edit that article. If I click edit source, the items on page do not appear!Saki0710 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

We have articles called North Sydney Boys High School and List of Old Falconians. I assume you're trying to edit the second of those? Make sure you click on the Edit Source link in the tab marker right at the top of the page. If you click on the edit link next to the title, you're only editing the lead section, before the first section subtitle. Please don't add names of random ex-pupils to the list. Only those with existing articles about them are eligible. Rojomoke (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Updating page with PCD/COI

Hi all, I'm an employee of an NGO, and the page about the org is really out of date with regards to basic information about where the headquarters are, who the CEO is etc. It would be great if that were updated, and I made the suggestions with citations on the Talk page (including full transparency about my affiliation with the org), but it seems none of the editors are active. Where to from here? Do I wait for someone to see it and update it, or is this the kind of information it's okay for an employee to update?

I'm being very cautious and respectful of the whole PCD/COI thing so I don't want to barge in and make changes without knowing it's okay to do so, as it's a controversial page with controversial topics.

Here's the related talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society

Thanks in advance for any advice!

Tuberose87 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tuberose87. Can you please format the references that you have added to the talk page to include full bibliographic information, as opposed to bare URLs? You can find instructions at Referencing for beginners. In addition, you should write specific proposed language to be added to the encyclopedia. I will review your changes once you have done so. Leave a note on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

How to save a draft so it stays draftish...

working on a draft for a long time and yet not ready but so tired. How do I save a draft without having it published, just so that it waits for me nicely? שוחרת שוחרת (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Dear Checkingfax, Teahouse host

Please respond as soon as possible, I'm afraid to leave the draft so it won't misbehave and then so many hours of work might get lost.שוחרת (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC) שוחרת

Hi שוחרת. If this is about User:שוחרת/Corinna Hasofferett, it's already saved as an unsubmitted user space draft, and, barring out of the ordinary matters, should stay that way, undisturbed, for you to work on at your leisure. When you are ready to submit it, just click on the Submit Your Draft for Review! button.

If this is about another draft, one you have not yet saved, so long as you do so as a user space draft, or save it in the draft namespace, the same will apply. To save it as the former, simply preview anywhere (or save at your userpage) a link in this form: [[User:שוחרת/Intuitive Name For Topic]] → click on the red link revealed → paste your content → save. For the latter, do the same, but instead of using "User:שוחרת/NAME", use "Draft:NAME" as the title. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

May I ask for clarification?

Thanks you for your response, Fuhghettaboutit. So, I have nothing to worry about? the draft will stays undisturbed, it won't disappear and I do not need to click any saving button, even if I close my computer for the night?שוחרת (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC) שוחרתשוחרת (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC) שוחרת (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרת

Hi again שוחרת. If the latest saved version is the version you are talking about, you may log off, shut down your computer, go to Tahiti for a week, and when you come back, there should be no problem (generally for six months). Of course, the reason the draft was userfied for you upon request was because of a copyright issue. One of the "out of the ordinary matters" is where a draft contains a copyright violation. That will result in deletion immediately once discovered "even" as a draft. But since that has already been addressed for this page, and assuming you added back no copied content, yes, go to bed!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Tahiti too far, almost as far as my orphaned bed of rose thorns... Grateful,שוחרת (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרת שוחרת (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Not Wiki Specific: Proper nouns as adjectives

So, I made an edit where a previous anonymous editor changed the capitalization of a wrestling move called a "Samoan Drop" so that it read "samoan drop" instead of "Samoan drop." I restored the original capitalization (with good faith, of course), but now I'm wondering.

Obviously, "Samoan" is a proper noun, but when used to describe something else not directly relating to the original country, does it become non-proper? Kind of like "North Carolina" vs. "I'm heading north from here." I'm hard pressed for a more specific example, but I would assume something like a generic culinary dish named after a region like "New Mexico tacos" would preserve its capitalization instead of becoming "new mexico tacos."

Any guidance?

Thanks, KNHaw ^(talk) 19:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@KNHaw: Since "Samoan" is always a proper noun, it should always be capitalized. "North" is not always a proper noun, so it's case can vary. hope that helps! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me! Thanks. KNHaw ^(talk) 20:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@KNHaw, Nihonjoe: Not always. We generally do not capitalize nouns/noun phrases that incorporate place names where the name has become highly generified as everyday English vocabulary: french fries, french toast, french doors, english (sidespin in billiards), plaster of paris, etc. But I don't think this has happened for Samoan drop. The issue occasionally arises at requested moves and the answer is always the same: check for usage across reliable sources—and don't use a web search but a search that tends to concentrate reliable sources, such as using Google Books—where here, the results strongly support using the uppercase ess. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: So, in essence, "Samoan" is currently always a proper noun. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will keep my edit as capitalized. KNHaw ^(talk) 22:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, not "generified/genericized" yet.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

How to handle reliable sources only available w/ UN/PW or by PDF

For an entry I'm writing on an entrepreneur, I'd like to use a profile that Businessweek did of him. Unfortunately, it is not available online except as a PDF via Ebsco which I access through my library (NY Public).

The PDFs are scans of the hard copy magazine, so you see the magazine name and date in the footer. I can include link to it in Ebsco, but the url comes up as a "proxy" which is some kind of red flag to the editors, and probably won't work because you need a library card with a UN/PW.

I have downloaded the PDF's and could archive them somewhere (archive.org, say), but I don't want to go the trouble only to find out that against the rules.

I'm sure this problem has come up before and am hoping someone can direct me to the right info -- or give it to me direct.

Sam Perkins (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sam Perkins. Sources do not have to be available online. See Wikipedia:Offline sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey Sam Perkins. Template:Cite includes a parameter |url-access=subscription which indicates to other readers that a paid subscription is required to access the material. Otherwise, sources behind paid subscriptions are allowed under Wikipedia's verifiability standards, even if they're less than ideal. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

WOW! That was fast. Thanks for such a speedy reply. Checking out your solutions now.

Sam Perkins (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And for completeness, Sam Perkins, I'll point out that uploading a PDF of a reference is hardly ever useful. Often it would be a copyright violation anyway, but even if it is freely licensed, it will hardly ever meet the requirement of reliability: even if it was downloaded from a reliable source, it could have been altered. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin -- Just to be clear, the pdf shows a scanned copy of the magazine itself -- like a photo of the magazine, showing the print on the paper -- like referencing a page or a chapter in a book via Google books, where you see the scan of the actual page.

Thanks again.

66.108.182.251 (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Sam66.108.182.251 (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Any final checks recommended?

I'm working for some time now on an article on an international technical conference. I do my best to be as precise in terms of facts and neutral in tone as possible and to give ample references for my statements (mainly to the conference's web site). ProveIt shows no errors. Is there anything you would recommend to me before I shall submit my article? WolfgangSchi (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi WolfgangSchi and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read Wikipedia:Notability before going any further. Wikipedia requires that subjects already be well-known and written about in reliable sources independent of the subject before having an article here. None of your references show that about the conference. Look for independent sources about the conference itself or the sponsoring organization. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

One reference does talk about the course in depth, but are there others? StarryGrandma (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Should I put in an EPPO code into a Taxonomy box?

Hello. Just wandering if I should put the EPPO code for the genus Kalaharituber on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalaharituber. And, how do I link articles on the same topic but in different languages? AWearerOfScarves (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Links to corresponding articles in other languages are made through Wikidata. See either the "Wikidata item" link on the left-hand toolbar, or the "Edit links" item at the foot of the "Languages" section at the bottom of that left-hand toolbar. There are two other languages there already. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Help with article

Hi, fellow Wikipedians. Earlier this month I created an article, Elisabeth Brichet case. I have been working on it and have managed to add a lot to it, but I'm a bit stuck. I think the article has potential to reach at least B-class, but there's a lot of info I still haven't added. Most of the references available are from Le Soir (around 50 pages of news articles; not all of them are usable, though), a French-language newspaper. I'm not fluent in French, and so there's an awful lot to read through and translate, and there are some parts I can't translate right. I've read through and translated many of them, and cited the ones I could use from those in the Wikipedia article. It would be helpful if others could help expand the article to include the missing info. It would be ideal if any of you know French, but don't worry if you can't; there are also links to news articles on the talk page, including a number of English ones, that you can use. I think this article has potential, but I can't do it all on my own. Any edits made to the article would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. Linguist^talk|contribs 17:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Linguist111: You may try asking for help at WikiProject France. It's likely there are fluent speakers there who can help. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: Thank you! Linguist^talk|contribs 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

how to write well?

How will I write a paragraph more structurally?I mean how I move from one paragraph to another by keeping a nice distance.how will I add pictureBaruaanik (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Baruaanik, separate paragraphs with just one blank line. Read the Picture tutorial and if you still have questions please come back here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hos to create an inset

How to I create an inset such as the one you see on the right of this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Calder

Acelentano2016 (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Acelentano2016, and welcome. I'm guessing you mean the infobox - the code to create these varies depending on the subject matter. You can find the code and instructions for your article at Template:Infobox artist, but let us know here if you need a hand. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Improve Content for a page that is labelled as deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjusha_Chaughule

Hello team,

The above link created by me has got a tag for deletion. I would like to improve the content quality so as to better meet the wikipedia norms and regulations. Can you please tell me as to what are the errors on the above page so that I can help improve the article and avoid its deletion.

Acpp555 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Acpp555. One option available is to request that the article be moved to a draft, where it will not be easily accessible to the general public, but will not be deleted, and so you can have additional time to work on it and seek advice from other editors. Since this is your first article, it would probably be helpful to consider reading through our tutorial, and (if you request it be made into a draft) consider submitting through our Articles for Creation board, where it can be reviewed by experienced volunteers prior to publishing, and who can hopefully offer helpful advice.

Otherwise, the deletion discussion will progress normally, usually for about a week or so, and if the community decides to delete the article, you will have to ask for an administrator to restore at WP:REFUND. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Acpp555. I've made a request of the editor that nominated the article for deletion to move it to draft for you and withdraw the nomination. This is possible because no one else has entered the deletion discussion. It's 100% up to him, but if he agrees it will save you some wait. John from Idegon (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Acpp555, You're article is now at Draft:Anjusha Chaughule. I'd suggest you submit it via Articles for Creation when you think it's ready so you can get a second, more experienced opinion before it is put back in the encyclopedia and at risk for deletion again. Best of luck. John from Idegon (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please improve my draft!

Hey, if any editor is vacant can you please help me wit improving the styling of my draft?? Please repair its structure, template. I know the content. I just want a good structure. I have basic knowledge. Please help in improving my articles here :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clash-a-Rama

HighnessAtharva (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi HighnessAtharva, I have taken a look but I can't figure out why the episode table is being rendered after the references. While we wait for someone who knows how to fix it, you need to look for better sources to reference. The subject's own website, Youtube and a blog are no good for proving notability. I'm not sure of the reliability of toucharcade.com. Look for quality sources such as reputable websites that review games. You could also as WP:WikiProject Video games, as that's where the topic specialists hang out. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Error: Mary Tyler Moor Show..How fix?

The page states "first show to..." The given footnote does not say that, and the That_Girl factually contradicts the assertion.

Would "an early show" or "at the start of the trend" or so,me such be appropriate edits?

TIAC.o.o. (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, C.o.o.. Simply edit the article to more accurately summarize what the source says. If your edit is reverted, discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome. The sentence in question is above the editable portions of the page. (See: The Mary Tyler Moore Show ).

This suggests to this newbie that such a change is a case of "above my pay grade". C.o.o. (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@C.o.o.: There are no edit restrictions on the article at this time, so the entire page should be editable. The introduction (above the table of contents) does not by default have its own edit button like the other sections do, which may be a source of confusion. To edit it, click either the "Edit" or "Edit source" button at the very top of the page, which will open up an edit page for the entire article. clpo13_(talk) 23:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 and Clpo13 If the idea that the absence of a specific "edit" link implies that editing the lead is "above the pay grade" of newbies, is a common belief, then we should probably do something about it. I've opened a discussion at VPI about this issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Foreign births in country year pages?

During an unrelated cleanup I noticed a great deal of actress births on pages like 1988 in Turkey are actually born in Germany and don't appear to have any presence/recognition in Turkey.

The biographies don't look notable and sometimes removing the birth makes the page an orphan. This is mainly affecting actresses and singers - other kinds of profiles look fine, which makes me think these biographies are being added by paid publicists.

Is there a policy on this? Are the edits below OK or is this overzealous?

See: [[4]] [[5]]

Cybela (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Cybela, and welcome to the Teahouse! If they are not notable, you ought to pursue deletion and worry about other things only later. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Finnusertop. The biographies I've checked aren't sourced and notability is questionable but I've found deletions a little confusing so I'm looking for smaller cleanups to help with for now. So I'm still interested to know if these edits are on the right track, if you put notability aside. The UK and US year pages look strict about this, but Turkey year pages not so much, so I couldn't be certain. Cybela (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

So, I did some more checking to see if there's a precedent but even the most notable biographies of people with international ancestry don't get listed this way (1) Donald Trump isn't in listed in births on 1946 in Scotland and (2) Barack Obama isn't in 1961 births in Kenya for example. Based on this I'm feeling more confident to go ahead and clean up inconsistent births on year pages. Cybela (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cybela: I judge those edits to be legit and not at all zealous, since the information on these performers's pages clearly state that the births did not occur in Turkey. Notability is probably a concern, but it's quite likely that the entries are added by interested fans.

And what's going on with the styling of Kizil's page name? Within the article, it sometimes uses lower case "i" characters and sometimes uses whatever Unicode character that's used in the page name. Whether Kizil is popular/notable in Turkey is unclear from her article, but Evcen is shown as appearing in a couple of Turkey-based television shows.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh:@Finnusertop: Thanks jmcgnh. I went ahead and did some fixes for obvious cases, added a few tags for other pages with issues and have tried to find sources for the rest as you and Finnusertop suggest. My guess is that some of these pages were added when Wikipedia was less strict. I noticed that the Top Model international franchise wikiproject may be responsible for generating a large number of biographies for people who appeared on TV approximately once or twice to participate in the contest's cycles and franchises across the world but otherwise have no discernible modelling career. Cybela (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Being asked to rewrite but don't know why

It would be helpful if someone could give me an example from my attempt, that indicates specifically why it needs a 'major rewrite' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Digital_Literacy_Coach eg, you have written this "...", which is unacceptable because "..."... please? I've modelled my post on other Wikipedia articles and asked friends to proofread, and can't see how to move this forward. Having already committed many hours to this, this is now extremely frustrating. :( Mistermchugh (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mistermchugh and welcome to Wikipedia! The reason your draft was rejected was primarily one of WP:TONE. As reviewer David.moreno72 wrote:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

That is good advice. Following the advice on the pages WP:NOTESSAY, WP:TONE, WP:MFA and WP:SMOS will help you get your article approved. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Mistermchugh. Your draft does not read as a neutral encyclopedia article about the topic of a "Digital literacy coach" but rather a review of the literature discussing the topic and also as an advocacy piece more or less arguing that this job title is a good idea. It comes off almost as a manual for implementing the position within an an organization. There are stylistic issues as well. We do not use the formula "Smith and Jones (2005) argue that . . ." Instead, we provide full bibliographic information in footnotes (also called references), rather than shortened bibliographic information in the body of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've already rewritten the article in a neutral tone, this seems like an extremely subjective matter, so I'm asking if someone could illustrate exactly how the tone of my article is inappropriate with a specific example. I've read the pages you've linked to, but I feel the text confirms these expectations. Specific feedback would be far more helpful than generic criticism.

Mistermchugh (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen that's more helpful, I used the text in this Wikipedia article as guide, who use exactly the formula you've described.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formative_assessment For example where they say, "Kluger and DeNisi (1996)[26] reviewed over three thousand reports on feedback..." So it's acceptable in that post but not in mine? This is the subjectivity I'm struggling with. Again, a specific example would be far less ambiguous and far more productive. Mistermchugh (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The use is just as wrong in that article as it is in yours. Generally, if you want a guide from which to base your article off of, you should use a featured article. Some new users choose to create articles themselves after having become auto confirmed rather than via the WP:AFC process, or articles are simply updated by newer users who don't know the proper way to WP:CITE; thus some sections of Wikipedia receive more scrutiny than others. But the existence of a problem with one page does not justify the existence of a problem on another. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable in that article either, Mistermchugh. That article should be copy edited to remove that type of prose. We have well over five million articles and probably one to two million of them have glaring problems and need work. That does not mean that we should add new articles that also have glaring problems. Instead, we want well developed new articles that comply with our core content policies and at least approximate compliance with our Manual of style.

As for a specific example, consider this sentence: "Attempting to provide technical skills training onsite to teachers in the use of technology has been found to be insufficient, and teaching skills in isolation can be ineffective in ensuring that teachers develop this kind of knowledge, for example, how to use technology to teach content in differentiated ways according to students' learning needs, or technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK); how technology can be used to support the learning of specific curriculum content, or technological content knowledge (TCK); or how to help students meet particular curriculum content standards while using technologies appropriately, (technological pedagogical and content knowledge, or TPACK) in their learning; this is where employing the services of a dedicated DLC has been found to be useful." With all due respect, that sentence is excessively long and convoluted, uses excessive jargon and acronyms, and is confusing to me even after I have read it several times. Instead, we want neutral, descriptive prose that is concise and clear, and avoids any trace of advocacy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, this is much more helpful. Trust me to pick an article as model that is flawed. This gives me the direction I needed, your time and specificity is much appreciated.

MisterMcHugh (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's another issue, unrelated to those described above. The writer is too close to the subject, and "can't see the wood for the trees". The article appears to be addressed to readers who already know what a DLC is. many readers won't know, and the article doesn't tell them. For example:

The first sentence says that DLCs are employed at schools that have "a 1:1 provision of devices". It says nothing about what kind of device. A fountain pen? A cricket bat? I guess it means a personal computer; if so, the article needs to say so.

The second paragraph preaches aboout how schools don't employ enough DLCS. But while the reader has no idea what a DLC does, it is unclear why they should employ any at all. There's a mention of "expensive hardware": maybe the DLC's job is to prevent the pupils from stealing the "devices"? Maproom (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I can understand your confusion. While I cannot say with certainty that the duty of a DLC is not to assure that devices aren't stolen, I believe that the main job of the DLC is to help teachers learn about and use the technology that the school is paying for. I agree that this absolutely should be stated in the article. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Maproom as hard as this is for me to admit, you've probably hit the nail on the head with the 'wood for the trees' comment, now there's way too many idioms in this thread. Part of the reason for wanting this post on Wikipedia is that I'm hoping it will open this up to a wider audience, but for now, despite my arboreal proximity, I'm the only one who is prepared to write this, and also knowledgeable about the role. My hope if it ever gets published is too put out to a wider community to invite a wider discussion.

Psiĥedelisto you hit the nail on the head, so there must be something in the article that makes sense. MisterMcHugh (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC) MisterMcHugh (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mistermchugh, wanting to "open this up to a wider audience" is a bad place to start in writing for Wikipedia. This is a bit paradoxical, because obviously people do write articles specifically because they think they should be there. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion: it reports on topics which have already been written about. If your purpose is opening up a topic to a wider audience, there are other places which fit that purpose better. --ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

ColinFine We can nitpick about the semantics and sensibilities about what you may or may not feel are my possibly nefarious motivations for creating this post—but let me assure you, I have one motivation, to add to the existing body knowledge; that is it. I have no agenda, I do not stand to benefit personally from this article, I created it because quite frankly I was/am amazed that there isn't already an article dealing with this, which is also more than a little ironic given the nature of the role. So, to clarify, as I see the whole point of Wikipedia in large part about opening up knowledge in general 'to a wider audience' ie not just those who are have paid for access to an online encyclopedia. That's it, is that so hard to accept? MisterMcHugh (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to suggest anything in any way nefarious, MisterMcHugh, and if I came across that way, I apologise. I absolutely recognise your good intent in writing this: I was trying to suggest a reason why you might be finding it a frustrating experience, that (from what you had said) I thought your intention was not quite in alignment with that of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if it came over any other way. --ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

Allee raza (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

allee raza

Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know what you were trying to achieve with this edit, but a semi-protected edit request needs to be placed on the talk page of the article which you wish to be edited, and it needs to specify exactly what you want changed. For example, you could say "Please replace "abc" by "def"", and you also ought to provide a reference to a published independent reliable source to support the change. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Allee raza, please read David Biddulph's reply, just above this comment.

@David Biddulph: Allee raza won't have been notified of your reply, because you just typed their username without [[User:...]] or any of the templates, like {{u}} or {{reply to}} (a.k.a. {{ping}}), that would trigger a notification. --Thnidu (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: If you look at who typed what here, you'll see that I didn't type Allee raza's username here, and you may wish to look at User talk:Allee raza to see the notification. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Ooops! I apologize for my misunderstanding here. Clearly, that "semi-protected" process has twists that I don't understand. --Thnidu (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Url for a citation linking to an archived copy of an article is not working.

Source #31 on the Timeline of the Virginia Tech shooting leads to "page not found" when clicked. So I used an archived version from it (archived in 2014) and used the citation that is used for archives. However, it's still leading to "page not found"? Depthburg (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Depthburg and welcome back to the Teahouse. I see you're still posting questions at the bottom of this page, but I'll answer it down here anyway.

It would be a good idea to clean up the URLs that you use in citations so they don't include unnecessary cruft. If the URL contains a question mark some parameters, try removing all of that and checking to see if the url will still work. Also, it's important to get the deadurl= parameter correct so the links will display appropriately. If "yes", then the archive link is presented first. If "no", then the archive-url is just a backup.

As of your last edit to that article Timeline of the Virginia Tech shooting, both the archiveurl and original url are the same, pointing to 404-space on Computerworld. The previous version looked to me like it was working, except for the extra url cruft and the wrong sense of dead-url. I suggest fixing these two things to see if you don't get something you're happy with.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing the unnecessary parameters and providing "deadurl" a "yes" helped, thank you. Depthburg (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Can I write an article about myself?

I want to write an article about myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashant Raut (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Prashant Raut.

Please read the policies on Conflict of Interest and Autobiography to see why what you are proposing is not such a good idea.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Limited knowlage

How can I become a better editor if I know very little about a topic Patrick69046 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your knowledge about a topic isn't really relevant. The content of an article is dependent on what published reliable sources independent of the subject say, so those sources are what you need to be finding and reading. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)