From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Teahouse  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TH/Q)
Jump to: navigation, search

Question forum »Host profiles »Guest profiles » Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.


WP teahouse logo.png

How do I send a Message to other editors[edit]

Hello I would like to send a message to another editor specifically (as opposed to a general article issue) -- do I click their USERID and then click "Talk"? Then what do I do?

Ridge wiki (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ridge wiki, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you go to a user talk page (e.g. yours is User talk:Ridge wiki and mine is User talk:Cordless Larry and then click the "new section" button at top. That will open the editing window and you can type you message to post. Note that user talk pages are publically viewable, so it's not a private message to the user concerned. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Error message when trying to add content[edit]

I am trying to add information to the General table for the following page; however, I keep getting error messages about too many external links (I am only including two links, just like the other entries) and am unable to save the page. DATA180 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

DATA180 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Do any of the external links violate WP:EL? Any link you add must provide substantial information about the topic of the article that for some reason cannot be included in the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I am attempting to add an entry to the table with two external links, as others have done. DATA180 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not see that others have added additional information. Am I required to do this, and if so, where or how? Thank you. DATA180 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
What are the links you are trying to add, DATA180? (If you get the same error message when trying to post them here, just describe them to us instead). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to examine the edits and comment but will just note that the attempted edits can be seen by clicking "filter log" at the top of Special:Contributions/DATA180. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please check my wiki & commons contributions[edit]

Hello, I created an article yesterday and there's a few things I've tried to do that I think need double checking, I found some images on (with OS licence) and added them to wikimedia commons and then created the page. Anywho, could you kindly check and give me some future tips about how to add pictures to/from the commons etc to biographical articles. Thank You! Pippathecat (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not all of your images were free. I have tagged them for deletion. I also changed the license tag from the public domain files to {{PD-author}}. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Pippathecat hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I suspect anything you got from is not suitable for Wikimedia Commons, and if I am correct the photos will be removed for not having the proper license.
But I noticed you used imdb as a source in the article Joshua Ferdinand. Imdb is not considered a reliable source since in many cases anyone can add content, just like here. For anything you got from imdb, you should be able to find another more reliable source that provides the same information. Otherwise you probably can't use the information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
That's not correct about Flickr, Vchimpanzee. There are plenty of photos on there with compatible licences (although there are some issues). See Commons:Flickr files. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Once you've got the copyright issues sorted, Pippathecat, you'll find instructions how to embed images on this page. The basic format is [[File:image.jpg|thumb|caption]] (replace caption with the text you want to appear under the image). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Vchimpanzee , aww okay I was using imdb as I saw a similar biography article. I think the other wiki editors must have been reading these tea rooms as some have helped out but they're kind of adding and deleting each others content, could you please tell me what the right thing to do is?
Thank you Pippathecat (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
One more thing. I noticed you created Commons:Category:Joshua Ferdinand, but that you added images to it in the wrong way. Rather than adding links to the files to that page, you need to add the text [[Category:Joshua Ferdinand]] to each of the image pages. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cordless Larry, I'm not sure how to make it appear for media in category like:
But I just followed the W icon at the top of each image page, the commons is a bit different and I'm not really sure how to align everything just yet. Pippathecat (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Just edit each of the image pages and add the text [[Category:Joshua Ferdinand]] to the bottom. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have mastered it now. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Cordless Larry. I suspected that at least some of the images might have a problem. What I meant to say was that many flickr images wouldn't qualify, but some would. My wording didn't really communicate that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with first article getting accepted[edit]

How can I edit my first article so it will get accepted? Here are the specifics:

The rejected article is titled: MaestroConference

The reason it was rejected: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

My reason for writing the article: There is no wiki page about this company. There are other wiki pages about companies that have similar offerings -for example, WebEx, Zoom and GoToMeeting. As a user of MaestroConference they are AMAZING! The company has a heart and is committed to social good. Many transformational leaders such as Marianne Williamson, Depak Chopra, and President Obama use this platform. Additionally, progressive and social changing organizations such as Occupy, the National Science Foundation and the Sierra Club have used their conferencing service. I think it is a loss to the world for this impressive company to not have a wiki page.

Can you please help me make the changes needed to my article?

THANK YOU!!! Gina Maria Mele, M.S. Gina Maria Mele MS (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Gina Maria Mele MS: and welcome to the Teahouse!
You seem to have the wrong idea about what Wikipedia's purpose is. We are an encyclopedia that presents content that third party reliable sources have found worthy of discussing. We are not here to provide a promotional platform for AMAZING! things. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
For the first step, you should remove any phrase that would drop from a marketer's tongue, like " the market leader", "much more engaging ", "and inspire one another to action and change" . We present content in a dispassionate, neutral point of view as the reliably published sources do with any analysis and commentary specifically attributed to the professional critics who have made them, both AMAZING! and SUCKS EGGS!. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Gina Maria Mele MS! I'm afraid that it is unlikely that you will be able to create that article. As TheRedPenOfDoom says, you appear to have the wrong idea about the purpose of Wikipedia: it is not an advertising platform. You seem to be here to promote one of your clients, and Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind. Please advise the company to wait until someone not connected with it thinks it is interesting and important enough to have an article here. Please read:
  • Our copyright policy
  • Our conflict of interest guidelines; and, most particularly,
  • Our policy on paid-contribution disclosure; specifically, please note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact; it is an obligation, not an option.
Please don't be discouraged from contributing here – we have almost five million articles, and many of them need improvement. Your contributions to almost all of them are welcome – but please avoid those about companies with which you have a professional relationship. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

User with 2 accounts[edit]

See User_talk:10redmoe#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_User:LindseyH140.

10redmoe added themself to Wikipedia:Typo Team/Members as both User:10redmoe and [[User:10redmoe|LindseyH140].

I deleted the latter from the page while fixing the alphabetization.

I think this user was probably in good faith, but there are user pages for both names; "10redmoe" is on all or almost all of their contributions.

I nominated User:LindseyH140 for speedy deletion, leaving a note at User talk:10redmoe#Wikipedia:Typo Team/Members. GB fan reverted the nomination ( ), with the reason

Decline speedy delete, not a valid speedy deletion criterion. (TW)

I currently have internet access difficulties and haven't taken the (significant) trouble to look up the proper reference for the restriction on multiple accounts, or I would've cited it. If I am right, can someone please expedite this? If I'm wrong, please tell me in what way. --Thnidu (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If you suspect an editor is using more than one account, and it is not a legitimate alternative account which is publicly acknowledged, you should file a complaint at WP:SPI, not place a speedy deletion tag on a user page.
But this is not a typical sockpuppet case, Thnidu. 10redmoe has only 23 edits and last edited 2 years and 1 month ago. LindseyH140 and the account was just created 9 months ago. So, the two accounts were never used at the same time. It is quite permissible for an editor to stop using one account (completely) and then create a new account later and use the new account. Sockpuppet cases are when an editor has multiple accounts and is using them simultaneously. So, in this case, filing an SPI complaint is unwarranted. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Account[edit]

I just read the MIT report about the "Decline of Wikipedia". My negative experience as a newcomer was that an article writer is bandied about by various intransigent editors with various agendas and biases. This experience confirmed the truth of the MIT report. I do not find anywhere in Wikipedia on how to cancel/delete my account. Lorzendel2 Lorzendel2 (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Lorzendel2. I'm sorry you feel that way. That particular report is a few years old, and this very Teahouse was created in response to such issues. I would hope we could persuade you to stay.
However if you wish to disappear, the simplest method is to just stop editing and leave your account alone. If you wish to take things a step further, then there exists a process called Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. --LukeSurl t c 16:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Accounts are never deleted as they are required for attribution - but as LukeSurl stated, the account name can be scrambled and you can choose never to log in again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Update of German Wikipedia articles on Roland Berger[edit]

Dear Wikipedia-Team,

Roland Berger has recenetly rebranded its business. Therefore, there are many deviations in the Wikipedia articles as they still contain the old firm name/ logo etc. I already proposed changes on each "Talk" page of the relevant Wikipedia articles. The english articles were alreay edited. Could anyone be so kind and assist me with the implementations of the changes for the German articles? ( , and

Thank you very much in advance.

Kind regards, Franziska PoszlerFranziska Poszler (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid we cannot help you with the German Wikipedia. Please ask at their Help Desk.--ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Page content[edit]

Hi! Could you please check this page Airy and let me know if it contains any mistakes which influence on its approval?Karen Douglass (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Karen Douglass (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you meant to link to Draft:Airy your draft article and not the existing disambiguation page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Karen. The draft is very light on citations to reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the topic. I was going to explain that further but then I discovered that the entire release history appears to be a copyright violation (which mean I would want to look further to see that nothing else is). I don't have time to address this right now. Please remove every single part of the content that was not written in your own words.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

how do i add a picture[edit]

i wamted to a picture and more infoShenek (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Shenek, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Adding an image to a Wikipedia article is not too complicated. The image needs to be uploaded, and there is an Upload Wizard to help with that. Or, if the image is already used in another Wikipedia article or is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, it does not need to be reuploaded to put it in an article. There's just some Wikimarkup you'll need to use to position an image in an article correctly.
However, you should be aware that most images found on the internet cannot be used on Wikipedia. In order to help you further, we would need to know who created the image and whether that person (or persons) gave permission for it to be used on Wikipedia. Knowing which article you want to add the image to would also help. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Attributing public domain text[edit]

Hello, Teahouse, and welcome to my question. I noticed that much of Devotional medal appeared to have been copied from a public domain source, the Catholic Encyclopedia. There is a note mentioning that some content in the article comes from that work at the bottom of the article, but there is no attribution in the body of the article. WP:PD says that a notice without text attribution in the body is insufficient, but I'm not sure how to format attribution on very long passages — would "According to the Catholic Encyclopedia," followed by use of <blockquote> be good enough? Some of the passages have inappropriate tone and need to be rewritten anyway, but I think some large chunks can probably be left, if I can figure out how to attribute them properly. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 12:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Do any of the templates at Category:Catholic Encyclopedia templates help?--ukexpat (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, where are you reading that, GrammarFascist? What I see is "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required in order to comply with relevant policies". At Devotional medal, that attribution is provided by the {{Catholic}} template at the foot of the page. Whether Wikipedia should incorporate content from a non-neutral source from over a century ago is a different question, of course; but I don't see an attribution problem here. If there is one, it affects about 4500 articles. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we're interpreting the "proper attribution" differently in the statement "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required in order to comply with relevant policies", Justlettersandnumbers. It seems to me that it would be helpful to readers to know which material in an aricle came from a specified public domain source, and a single catchall notice at the bottom of the page doesn't accomplish that. If Wikipedia policy really does unequivocally state that all that's needed to attribute any amount of public domain text in an article is the single simple notice at the bottom of the page, I'm curious why it was decided that was sufficient. Thanks for replying.
Thank you too, ukexpat. I'm going to replace the template I had added with one of those. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

How to fix article Scarcity[edit]

The preamble of article Scarcity says:

A common misconception on scarcity is that an item has to be important for it to be scarce, or vice versa. This is not true; for something to be scarce, something must be given up, or traded off, in order to obtain it.

I think something is wrong with this, but I don't know how to express what exactly is wrong and how to fix it. Could anyone help me with this? Thanks. SearchlightWindcharger (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SearchlightWindcharger, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks to me like the clause "something must be given up, or traded off, in order to obtain it" is incorrect. I would replace that with "it must simply not be commonly available" or words to that effect. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 12:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, GrammarFascist. Thanks for reply. I actually wanted to say that statements like "this is not true" were not common for Wikipedia. SearchlightWindcharger (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Referencing query[edit]

Hello - I created a page yesterday - and got this message today: Hello, Davidevitt, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Plus Architecture, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

I think it might have been because I copied some text from a website that stated that Plus Architecture was award winning without referencing those awards specifically. Is that the case?

If so I will do a bit more research into finding out what what awards they were.

in the meantime I've removed that text from the page. Does everything else I've done comply?

Kind regards David Davidevitt (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Davidevitt: and welcome to the Teahouse. The article's referencing appears to all be in order. There were several other minor problems with it: it hadn't been added to any categories: these are needed to improve navigability of the encyclopedia, and can be added by writing [[Category:Example]] at the bottom of the article. The article also did not contain many wikilinks: these are internal links to other articles, which can be added like [[this]]. Anyway, thank you for your contributions, you have done a great job so far. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 22:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello David, and welcome to the Teahouse. That notice was actually placed yesterday (as you can see from the signature) and referred to the first version of Plus Architecture, which was in fact deleted. The current version is not currently tagged for deletion. In general, copying text from other websites is not allowed, unless it is a quotation, marked as such, attributed to its author, and properly cited. Wikipedia is very strict on copyright infringement. Also, making a page about a person or company (or any of a few other categories) without indicating why that person is significant can get the page deleted promptly. See WP:CSD#A7. Additional independent reliable sources, perhaps supporting expanded relevant and neutral content, would further help the article. DES (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay great - thanks for the advice. Davidevitt (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Davidevitt! It appears that you may have a close personal or professional connection to Plus Architecture. You seem to be here to promote your company, and Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind. Please wait until someone not connected with the company thinks it is interesting and important enough to have an article here. Also, please read:
Please don't be discouraged from contributing here – we have almost five million articles, and many of them need improvement. But please refrain from editing the Plus Architecture article directly; you are always welcome to propose changes on the article talk page, Talk:Plus Architecture. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Reviewi of Ronen Shilo after article for deletion resolved[edit]


After Ronen Shilo was proposed for deletion, I created a re-draft with a bunch of new sources and information. User:BC1278/sandbox The article was not deleted and one of the admins involved said the redraft was an improvement. But the two admins involved in the review weren't interested enough in the subject to actually bring the nrew redraft live. I can't do it because I have a conflict of interest. This is such a waste of time and work and leaves the article, which isn't very strong, in the same weak state as before.

The Conflict if interest page lists the Teahouse as one forum where editors with a conflict can reach out. I wonder if someone might like to take a look? Many thanks Hi,

After Ronen Shilo was proposed for deletion, I created a re-draft with a bunch of new sources and information. User:BC1278/sandbox The article was not deleted and one of the admins involved said the redraft was an improvement. But the two admins involved in the review weren't interested enough in the subject to actually bring the nrew redraft live. I can't do it because I have a conflict of interest. This is such a waste of time and work and leaves the article, which isn't very strong, in the same weak state as before.

The Conflict if interest page lists the Teahouse as one forum where editors with a conflict can reach out. I wonder if someone might like to take a look? Many thanks BC1278 (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@BC1278: Nice job on that rewrite. I've done a history merge, meaning that if you look at the page history of the article, your edits are now in there. Your sandbox is accordingly deleted, and is now clean for you to use for another purpose – though you don't ever need to use "User:BC1278/sandbox". It's actually cleaner to use a dedicated sandbox for each article you are working on. For example, here it would have been either User:BC1278/Ronen Shilo or User:BC1278/Ronen Shilo, depending on whether you wanted to create it in your user or user talk space. Usually, if there's any shuffling of edits that will result from a history merge, I refrain, but it was minor here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I want my university electronic writing students to create an entry . . .[edit]

Following the guidelines, of course, I wanted them to write a short article for non-addressed topics.

1) What do you think of this idea?

2) How far out should they become logged-in users?

3) What would be your concerns to ensure legitimacy?

Thank you, Ian Punnett

Ipunnett (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ipunnett: Hello and and thanks for your interest. We have some guidance for people who want to help in this manner Wikipedia:Student assignments, and like the page says, "Student assignments can help improve Wikipedia, but they can also cause the encyclopedia more harm than good when not directed properly." Preparation and awareness of what exactly Wikipedia is and accepts for content are keys to having the project work and not blow up like a bomb.
oops -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Ipunnett. If you go about this the right way, it can be a very good thing. The Wikimedia Foundation has various tools and resources available to support teachers and professors who incorporate writing Wikipedia articles into their classes. Please read Wikipedia:Education program/Educators. Personally, I recommend Your first article as recommended reading for your students, followed by the Primer. Legitimacy is assured by following our policies and guidelines scrupulously. Please let your students know that they can ask questions here at the Teahouse any time. As for creating accounts, the sooner the better, and they should all try to make at less ten simple but useful edits over a period of four or more days, before getting into serious new article editing. This will give them autoconfirmed status. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello, Ipunnett, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would advise that you read Wikipedia:School and university projects and Wikipedia:Student assignments for some very good suggestions, and that you consider registering your course with the education project promptly. (This is not required at all, but is IMO a good idea.) I would also advise that you encourage your students to register accounts asap, and suggest that they take Wikipedia:Training/For students and perhaps also Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. A course page is a very good idea, and students might want to link to it on their user pages or mention it on the talk page of the articles they edit. If they are going to be creating new articles, I strongly urge that they create them in Draft space, possibly with the Article wizard. You or an experienced editor or both should review the available sources that a student has gathered on the topic before the student starts the actual article. Article creation is one of the tougher tasks for new editors, but I ahve participated in Editathons where brand new editors were able to create acceptable articles in a single full-day session, so it can be done. DES (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
If you want, I would be happy to work with you in such a project. I'm already an approved volunteer with the Education project. Let me know if you are interested. DES (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
TRPoD and DES have given you good, and officially approved, advice. I will be more blunt. I think the idea of encouraging people who have never edited Wikipedia before to start by trying to create articles is crazy. Creating a new article is really difficult, compared to routine work like correcting spelling, improving grammar, restructuring messy paragraphs, and adding citations. I had registered an account and made around 1,800 edits before I felt capable of creating a new article. Please reconsider. Maproom (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Maproom does have a point, Ipunnett. But I still disagree. I created my first article with my 24th edit, and it is still live (although I just went to look at it, and it needs improvement, it would not pass muster as a new article today). I agree that simply tossing someone at Wikipedia and saying "Go, create a new article" is a recipe for frustration for both the student and several volunteers here, and will probably have no positive result. But with lots of preparation and a fair amount of hand holding, I think it can be done and done well. As I said I've seen it done (and helped) at edit-a-thons. But if the preparation and assistance are skimped or skipped, your students will probably hate you and surely hate Wikipedia. So consider well. DES (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I created my first article, Dirk van Erp, starting with my 16th edit, and have never had an article I started go on to be deleted. I have now created over 60 articles. So, it is possible for new editors to create articles successfully. However, I had been a published freelance writer for decades, and spent a few months studying how to write Wikipedia articles before I started. It is possible for new editors to create new articles, but it is not at all easy. It takes complete dedication to complying with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Giving an assignment to "create" an article when the 5 million most easy topics have already been created might be something to consider as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Also to consider is the fact that most classes a stress as feature of good writing the promotion of your thesis statement but that type of writing is absolutely contrary to any Wikipedia writing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
True, but there are lots and lots of notable and perfectly accessible topics left. Also it might be good to teach purely descriptive writing that is not also argumentative, but this difference would need to be made clear to students (and to the instructor, perhaps) before the start of any such course. But the Education project has had many successful courses to date, and quite a few of them did involve article creation. So it can be done. DES (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
All sides of this question are measured and informative.

Let me be more specific about my expectations. I was thinking about filling in some stubs, nothing big, nothing requiring a structured article of any length.

For example, I have a student who is writing about healthy eating and a spice reference might just has a stub. An article in this case might be ten to twelve sentences, judging by the other pages.

Some of these students are more talented than others, so I wanted to keep the expectations simple. Even filling in a stub requires thoughtful, competent work to be worthy.

Given that, would Maproom, Cullen328 or DES suggest that editing existing entries for grammatical errors be a better goal?

Please advise. I make all these suggestions with great respect for all that y'all do.

Ipunnett (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to get the students to click on "Random article", fifth item in the menu at the left of this page. They will find some well-written articles, with no obvious need for improvement; many articles on subjects that do not interest them; and some articles on subjects that have some interest for them and an obvious need for improvement. Even if all they can do is correct a typo or grammatical error, that will be an improvement and they can then move on to another random article. If they try to create new articles, it is likely that they will come up against Wikipedia's notability requirements, the article will get rejected, and they will feel aggrieved. (I wonder if there are statistics for what proportion of first articles by registered users end up getting accepted? I doubt that my first article would be accepted now, standards were lower then.) Maproom (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Ipunnett! That's quite an ambitious project for an editor with 13 article-space edits, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Your first step would probably be to acquire a much broader experience of editing here, and a good understanding of our policies and guidelines (which unfortunately are of almost Kafka-esque complexity) . After that, I personally would suggest that you ask your students to edit exclusively in draft space (the page name would be of the form Draft:Foo) where their work would have a better chance of survival than in mainspace; and that you impress on them again and again and again that they may not violate copyrights or personal privacy. As for topics, I suggest you ask them to choose a red-linked entry at Wikipedia:Requested articles, in an area that interests them. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
If I might add one more suggestion to the excellent advice my Teahouse colleagues have already given, Ipunnett, have your students read questions and answers at the Teahouse. Many of the mistakes new users make show up here in the form of people asking why their edit was reverted, or their draft rejected, or their article nominated for deletion. Perusing the Teahouse archives isn't a substitute for the reading suggested above, but I would at the very least make it recommended reading for your students. Being familiar with how the Teahouse works before they need to ask their own questions would also be helpful. Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia, and good luck with your project. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 20:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

how to protect a page from edits[edit]

how to protect a company page (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user at, and welcome to the Teahouse. If a page is vandalized on a recurrent basis, an administrator may place it under what's called "semi-protection", meaning that only logged-in and auto-confirmed users can edit it.
You should understand, however, that a company about which a Wikipedia article exists does not "own" that article and has very little say over what information is included in it. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources report about a topic. So, if a newspaper publishes information unflattering to a company, that information will probably go into its Wikipedia article even if the company doesn't like it. Similarly, flattering information about a company cannot be included in the Wikipedia article unless a reliable, independent source verifies the information — we can't just take a company's word for it that they have a million customers or won a particular award, for example. I hope this addresses your question. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 19:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello IP user at Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, companies are not permitted to "host" pages on Wikipedia. Pages are only to be protected (have the ability to edit them restricted) to prevent vandalism (deliberately decreasing a page's quality), edit warring (otherwise helpful editors continuously reverting each other), and disuptive or otheriwse problematic editing. Page protection is done to prevent damage or disruption to pages, not to restrict access based on an editor's opinions. A relevant policy to this is the neutral point of view, meaning that Wikipedia presents information without taking sides. For future reference, page protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 19:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What qualifies as a good reference when trying to back up a statement?[edit]


Are only links to webpages viewed as a good reference or is there some other form that is acceptable (ie. photographs, scanned material)?

Site in production: John Donald Barton

Thanks Alan AlBarts (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, AlBarts, and welcome to the Teahouse. Scanned material should almost never be uploaded to Wikipedia, nor should scans usually be linked to from Wikipedia, because that would violate the copyright of the material scanned.
That said, material which is not online can absolutely be used as a reference for a Wikipedia article. Newspaper articles, magazine articles and books are all good sources; they may have official copies online, in which case they're fine to link to, but such sources can be cited even if no legitimate online copy exists. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 18:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
To give you a bit more insight into what you need to do before Draft:John Donald Barton can become an article, AlBarts, all but one of the sources currently cited in your draft are what we call mere mentions. These are useful for substantiating individual facts, such as Barton having interviewed Phyllis Diller, but cannot establish his notability... and without proof of notability, no subject can have a Wikipedia article. This policy is summed up in Wikipedia's Golden Rule: every article must be supported by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.
You may have an uphill battle with this article if offline sources about Barton are as scanty as online ones seem to be. But I would be remiss if I let you think notability is the only issue with the article; it also has some tone issues, not being neutral enough in places. Any praise of the subject of an article must be cited to a reliable source — this includes description of Barton's apparently pleasant speaking voice, for example. I also suspect most if not all of the images you have added to the article will have to be removed, because the people or organizations which hold the copyrights to the images have not licensed them for use on Wikipedia. Tempting as it might seem, you cannot simply use any image you find online. Finally, you will probably be expected to format your citations properly. But I wouldn't worry about learning citation format until we're sure there are any sources worth citing for the proposed article.
Sorry if this is discouraging. I have seen many articles fail AfC review multiple times (as yours has) yet still go on to be accepted as articles, though, so don't lose heart. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 19:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Expanding on GF's point, you can't refer to unpublished material. So, for example, say you have a scanned copy of his degree certificate. You can't upload that and refer to it, as you're not a reliable source. But neither can you refer to it in an offline cite, as, although it exists, it's not been published in a manner that would be verifiable by others. If, however, that certificate had been reproduced in a book that you've got, you can refer to the page number as, even if hard, it's then possible for others to verify. Bromley86 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
But if his PhD thesis is available in a university library it can be cited, because it is accessible to other people. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I have some published brochures which I had planned on scanning.

AlBarts (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"Brochures" are almost certainly not going to count as reliably published sources with a reputation of fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight. And the scanned documents would be copyright materials which you would not be allowed to upload to the Wikimedia commons and most likely not be able to provide a valid WP:FAIR-use claim for uploading to Wikipedia. Wikipedia wants secondary sources where knowledgeable authors, scholars, reporters have analysed materials and presented conclusions and analysis, not Wikipedia editors developing theories, premises, or conclusions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

true facts being removed[edit]

How do I get information on here to stay when I know them to be fact, and they are being removed over and over again. (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. On Wikipedia, all additions must be cited to a reliable source. Even if you know something to be true, Wikipedia will not accept it unless you find a reliable citation for it. We have this policy so that each person will not be inserting their own unsourced version of "truth". --Biblioworm 15:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
True facts, you say? If you could let us know what the material you are trying to add is, and to which article(s), it will be easier to give you advice. According to your contributions history, this post is the only one you have made from this IP address, so I presume that you either have an account but are not logged it, or have a dynamic IP? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
As an example of what the others say, I've edited a biography page where someone I'm 99% sure really was a relative maintained that the newspapers had got the chap's place of birth wrong (i.e. papers say Scotland, person says Kenya). Given where his parents lived at the time, Kenya makes a lot more sense but, because we have multiple newspaper article which all say it's Scotland, it stays as Scotland. Bromley86 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Formatting Guidlines[edit]

Hello fellow tea drinkers.

At each of the bus and bus-train interchanges around the Australian city of Perth, there is a list of connecting bus routes. When the format for the table was originally established a few years ago by a particular user, |the destination and the route number were always written in bold. However, in recent months, some experienced users have edited some pages so that |there is no bold in the table. I think that the bold should remain, as it makes the table look more visually appealing and draws readers' eye to the final destination (the most important piece of information). My question is, does a Wikipedia policy or guideline exist that suggests that the bold should be removed, or is this just the personal opinion of a few experienced editors (in which case I will alert other users of my intention to edit the formatting so that they have a chance to respond and we can reach a consensus).

I know I'm being a bit pedantic and very long winded on such a trivial matter. Thank you in advance for your help.

102 at 1625 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia house style is described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Boldface. --Boson (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

can't add external link[edit]

I'm trying to add an external link to a web page and it keeps giving me a warning dialog "Your edit has triggered a filter designed to warn editors, organisations and companies against using Wikipedia as an advertising medium."

The page I'm trying to add a link to is not a commercial page and has content not in wikipedia.

I can't find a way past this error dialog. What can I do? Unixnerd (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Unixnerd: - Wikipedia is not a link farm. The criteria for appropriate external links are pretty limited. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The link I'm trying to add is just as valid as the others already on the page. The site the link goes to has been running for almost 20 years and is non-commercial. It has been used as a reference on other Wikipedia articles for years.

Unixnerd (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If the link really has information relevant to the article in question, then some of that information should be cited in the article, and the link cited as a reference. Without knowing which article you're trying to edit nor which url you're trying to add, however, I can't evaluate whether it would in fact be an appropriate reference by the standard Wikipedia uses. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
that there may be other inappropriate links does not mean that one more inappropriate link should be added. Does the link you wish to add meet the criteria for appropriate external links? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This user has been FORUMSHOPPING and has been warned about COI and Username policy at WP:Help desk#Trouble linking an external web page - Arjayay (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lists to columns?[edit]

Hi guys. Say I'm editing an article with a big list of awards with 20 items, minimal text (just a person's name). There's one a year, and at the moment it's just a tall, skinny list within its own section. Is it possible to force it into columns, a la reflist|3? So:

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010


2015 2013 2011 2014 2012 2010

Or something similar. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bromley, the easiest is probably with {{div col}} and {{div col end}}
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010

or like

  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010

You can pipe a parameter in the opening to say how many columns. (and use bullets) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
nowikied TRPoD's div col tags for clarity —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks TRPoD. Bromley86 (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Bromley86, I like:

enter list items here on separate lines

You can also use a width like:
instead of a set number of columns. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Checkingfax! Bromley86 (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

My article got rejected because it doesn't fit the notability requirements but I think it does![edit]

My article submission for Martial Arts Unlimited Association because it doesn't meet the notability requirements. I have lots of sources and have cited several parts of the article. What do I need to do? Lkirkpatrick89 (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

To cut and paste from the rejection note on the top:
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. (emphasis added)
Basically, you want multiple mentions of MAUA in national newspapers or martial arts mags. These may be Japanese. That establishes notability. For example, that Brazilian JJ article in the Black Belt mag would be perfect if it mentioned MAUA, but it doesn't. As it stands, that's a junk cite, as it doesn't help anyone reading the article confirm anything (other than the existence of BJJ, I suppose, which is covered by the wikilink to its own article). Bromley86 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Just saw your AJ wip, and that's going to suffer from the same problem. Every statement needs to be supported by a reliable source and it also needs to be neutral (so no "desiring a fast paced life", etc.). Bromley86 (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Lkirkpatrick89: There are many links, but press releases or pages of co-partners or wiki pages are not the reliably published independent sources that are required. see WP:RS-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Translated german article[edit]

Hi There,

we would like to create an article about a german guitarist. It's a simple translation from german to englisch. Nothing changed so far, except ob missing links to other articles.

But the draft was not accepted.

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

The german article is about "Reentko"

Thanks in advance

Niceland studio (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Niceland studio, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've taken a look at Draft:Reentko. The relevant policy guideline here is Wikipedia:Notability. The notability requirement can be summarised as meaning that articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. It may well be the case that this is applied less strictly on the German Wikipedia, or just that the German article has slipped through the net there and not yet been flagged for notability concerns. Anyway, what you need to do is demonstrate that Reentko has been the subject of significant coverage in third-party sources such as newspaper articles or books. I've looked through the sources cited in the current draft, and there are some problems. YouTube isn't really considered a reliable source unless the video in question is posted by a reliable publisher rather than just a regular user. The Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing source states that is a mirror of something from the World Heritage Encyclopedia, which itself incorporates material from Wikipedia, which means that it isn't reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Niceland Studio! I'm afraid you are trying to do something that can't be done. You are here to promote your artist, and Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind, so I think your attempt is (or at least, should be) doomed to failure. Your best option is to wait until someone not connected with Reentko thinks he is interesting and important enough to have an article here. Some other things you should be aware of:
I'm afraid that's a lot of reading and a lot of "rules". Please don't allow any of it to discourage you from contributing here – we have four million articles, and many of them need improvement. But for artists connected with your studio, please refrain from editing articles directly; you are always welcome to propose changes on the article talk page. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Rerouting Pages[edit]

Hello users of Wikipedia! Small question: I was wondering if someone could help me in learning how to redirect a page to a different one. I have currently begun translating a page in Spanish that I just found out is available in English already & was given this #REDIRECT [[pancake]] to work with. Thank You!

CoolInu43 (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's all it needs to act as a redirect. I've deleted the rest of the text from Tortita, and it now redirects simply to Pancake. - --David Biddulph (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Falsely accused of being a sockpuppet[edit]

Hello again. Yesterday I posted here asking how to deal with three accounts I suspected were operated by the same person, not naming any names. I received good advice (thanks again), but haven't yet taken any action.

Well, it seems a user has been through my history and decided I was talking about them (I probably shouldn't say if I was or not), and responded by reporting me as a sock puppet of a user they apparently encountered in the past. Needless to say I'm not a sock puppet, I genuinely am a new user, and as a result am completely stuck how to deal with this.

Once again, any help will be greatly appreciated. Uk55 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to add: The user mentioned my post here in his report, that's why I'm making the connection. Uk55 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhtpbank It will be closed with the Checkuser confirming no relation between you and the suggested sock master. When there is an accusation of sock puppetry, about the only thing the accused can do is be able to offer a valid explanation for why behavioral evidence should be viewed in a different manner. (In relation to some of the evidence in this case it might be "I was invited to the Teahouse by a message on my user page. When I got there, there were two postings about edit warring, and 3 about socks, and so I read up about them.") -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom:Hmm, ok. I hoped I wouldn't need to defend myself against such a transparent accusation. But what am I to do about this user? They've made accusations as a means of intimidation before (eg. accusing me of an edit war when I hadn't made an edit in 3 days), and have been very aggressive since they appeared. Thanks for your help, once again. Uk55 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Italicised title after Italic title template removed?[edit]

I removed a recently placed italic title template on Abyei (per WP:ITALICTITLE). So far, so good. However, something else is forcing the title into italics (which begs the question as to why the editor thought ato add the template in the first place!), and has been for a while. It seems to have happened during this edit: this is what the article looked like before that edit, and this is what it looked like after. It's not a big deal, but I am curious to know what's going on. Any ideas? Bromley86 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bromley86, and welcome to the Teahouse. That page currently transcludes Template:Infobox court case which by default causes the page title to be shown in italics. To avoid this include |italic title=no in the parameters used with {{Infobox court case}}. Normally that infobox is used on a page that is entirely about a court case, so the italics are appropriate. I'm not sure that its use is a good idea in this case, but I don't know of any rule against it. DES (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks DES! Bromley86 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What does "Blacklisted" mean?[edit]

I have been working with a professional wiki writer to create a wikipage for our company. The writer drafted a page online and submitted it for comment. He was told by the Wikipedia staff that "we are blacklisted and no further page can be created". We have tried several times to create pages which were decline due to Neutral voice issues, but our most recent submission resolved all of that.

I am completely confused since we are a standard company like the thousands of other companies that each gave wiki pages. We make IT solutions, are a well known private company, etc.

What should I do? Markharris2000 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Markharris2000, and Welcome to the Teahouse. One thing you should do is not attempt to use Wikipedia as an promotional platform for your company . You have a conflict of interest that apparently blinds you to advertorial phrasing like " the innovation and economics " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Correct. Those earlier attempts were done by several people that did not understand this non-commercial concept.
Since those early attempt, I hired a professional team to write an information-only

version of what we do and who should care. What I am confused by is that team has indicated that someone at Wikipedia staff indicates that we are blacklisted and can NOT even TRY to write a page that conforms to all of wiki's guidelines.

I am still confused.
Markharris2000 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Markharris2000, There is no "Wikipedia staff" (only volunteers) and any "professional wiki writer" should know that. I can't find any place where this term has been used on Wikipedia in reference to you or your firm. The term could have two meanings in regard to Wikipedia editing. First, a source site or domain can be blacklisted. This means that it is added to a list, and the software will not accept any edits with links to that site. This is done in regard to spam sites and notoriously unreliable sources that might be mistaken for reliable sources. Neither seems likely to apply to you. ee Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. The other is what is more commonly known as "salting" (as in "sow the earth with salt"). If an invalid article is created and deleted multiple time, it may be creation-protected, so that only admins can create a page with that title again. I don't see any indication that this was done for any title associated with you or your firm. I would like to ask your "professional wiki writer" who exactly said this, and where, with diffs. I would also like to know the user name of this "professional wiki writer" to be sure that this person is complying with the terms of service. DES (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
There's certainly context that is sorely lacking. Another possibility, is that this regarded the writing company being blacklisted. For example, as part of the Orangemoody sockpuppet case. It is actually possible that Wikimedia staff could have corresponded, though it's more likely it was a volunteer.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, the mainspace has been salted Pluribus Networks, which is effectively "blacklisted." I don't know if that was because of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pluribus Networks (seems rather aggressive after only 1 recreation although it was created by another self admitted COI editor User:Pbgalvin) or one of the paid editing scandals with Orangemoody or Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia or similar. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
If Draft:Pluribus Networks were ever brought to a condition where it was acceptable as a Wikipedia article (specifically, not containing promotional wording or content, and also meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:VRS), then the accepting reviewer would seek unprotection ("unsalting") of the article name Pluribus Networks so that the accepted Draft could be moved there and become an article. Salting is not necessarily forever, just like Carthage#Roman Carthage became the second largest city of the empire even despite the supposed former salting of the city. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to create company page about my Company, I am confused about my limitations of introducing my company[edit]

I took reference from company articles like EXL, CampusEAI Consortium and I would like to create an article for my company.

One of my articles got rejected within 30 min of creation.

Any tips while writing a company article?? 18:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackBeltHelp1 (talkcontribs)

Hello @BlackBeltHelp1:, in order to have an article, the subject must meet the requirements of having been substantially covered by reliably published sources that are not related to the subject. You should also be aware of the conflict of interest policy and the fact that content must be presented in a neutral point of view because we are presenting an encyclopedia and not a free promotional platform. Also be aware that the Terms of Use that require you to identify if you are being paid to edit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I would like to someone review my article before I submit it to Wikipedia. Can anyone volunteer to HELP!!!

BlackBeltHelp1 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

See Articles for Creation for information on how to have an article reviewed by a volunteer reviewer before submission. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, BlackBeltHelp1. I think you are probably wasting your time trying to create this article, but I may be mistaken, and I'll do what I can to advise you. The important thing to realise is that every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be individually cited to a reliable published source; and that nearly everything (and certainly anything in any way evaluative) should be cited to a source unconnected with the subject.
So, looking at the beginning of your draft:
  • "BlackBeltHelp is an international Contact Center outsourcing company headquartered in downtown Cleveland, Ohio, USA". This is unreferenced and should be removed or cited to a published source. Because it is (presumably) uncontroversial factual information, it is acceptable to cite this to a non-independent source such as the company's website.
  • "The company is best known for its IT help desk and student services call center solutions,..." This is evaluative, and must be cited to an independent published source which explicitly says that that is what it is best known for; if one cannot be found, then the statement must be removed.
  • The word "solutions" is meaningless marketing puff, and is almost never appropriate for a Wikipedia article.
  • "which as of 2015 have been provided to 200+ Higher Education institutions by BlackBeltHelp." is a promotional claim, which must be cited to an independent source which says it explicitly (that BBH has provided services to more than 200 institutions). A non-independent source is not acceptable (companies have been known to exaggerate their customer base).
and so on. Not a single statement is individually cited to a source: please see Referencing for beginners for how to do this. It's probably OK to list the major products (though they still need to be cited to a published source) but it shouldn't say anything about them that does not come from an independent review or other writing about them.
My advice to you would be that, after carefully reading your first article, WP:CORP and WP:COI, you find several published sources unconnected with the company, and then throw away everything you have written and start again, using only information in those sources, and being careful not to add any information, and especially any evaluative language, that is not in them. If after that you have a substantial article, you may add a little factual information from cited to the company's own publications.
Finally, I'm afraid that your username is invalid under Wikipedia's rules: a username must not suggest that the account is editing on behalf of an organisation. Since you have made very few edits, it is easiest just to abandon that account and start a new one with a name which does not suggest that you are editing on behalf of an organisation; alternatively you can go to changing username. --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing a Declined Draft[edit]

Hello, I recently had a Submission rejected due to incorrect usage of Footnotes. When I click on the Edit link to edit the references there is nothing there to edit. Additionally, there is no Edit link to edit the main body text so I can re-do (or delete) those footnote links to the Footnote References. Lastly, I thought *some* footnotes were to be used to substantiate a claim(s) made in the main body of text. Perhaps I'm a little confused and am placing these in the wrong category. My draft can be found here:

Thanks for any help you can provide. Everything that my client has asked me to provide is there, I just need to complete whatever needs to be cleaned up and fixed before my Submission will be accepted.

Palacenewmedia (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and see if I can help. -- KeithbobTalk 17:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi PalaceNewMedia, I understand you are new to Wikipedia (WP) and it takes time to understand the WP guidelines and culture. For this reason you have misunderstood the comments from the reviewer. There isn't anything wrong with the formatting of the citations/footnotes but rather the quality and substance of the sources cited in those footnotes. They are not acceptable sources per WP standards (WP:RS) and the article you have written does not meet the standard of WP:notability. Unless the subject has been covered in depth by notable publications its very unlikely any article on them will be accepted for publication on WP. Sorry to bring you this news but that is the reality of the situation.-- KeithbobTalk 18:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Also the content and tone of the draft wreaks of self-promotion. In case you are able to find acceptable sources to meet WP:notability the draft will need to be completely rewritten to be much more succinct (shorter) and to have much more a dis-interested tone.-- KeithbobTalk 18:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hello, Palacenewmedia, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am going to address several of your concerns.

First, it is normal for the references not to be editable under the references section when editing an article. Each reference's details are at the place (or at least a place) where that source is cited in the article. So you need to edit the body of the text to correct footnote formatting, even though the references display in their own separate section in article view.

Second, "[e]verything that [your] client has asked [you] to provide" may not necessarily be able to remain in the article. As currently written, the article is heavily promotional (even if some of it is promoting a particular variation of Christianity rather than Schimmel himself) and will not be accepted until the tone is much more neutral. I have not removed much of this promotional language, because taking all of it out would require severe pruning of the article and I wanted to give you the opportunity to try doing that yourself.

The note left by MatthewVanitas when he declined the draft is very important. If a subject (whether a place, thing or idea, or a person like Mr. Schimmel) is not "notable" by the Wikipedia definition, then no amount of formatting references or listing accomplishments will permit the draft to be approved as an article. Every article on Wikipedia is held to the notability standard.

To get you started on finding independent publications by reliable sources that make more than a mere mention of Mr. Schimmel, I have found and added two sources to the article. Neither of them is sufficient on its own to establish his notability, nor would they suffice taken together. But they should hopefully point you in the right direction. You should ideally find two to three sources that discuss Mr. Schimmel or his work for at least a few paragraphs. Remember that the sources for establishing notability cannot be connected with him, such as someone he has worked with or a publisher of his work. As always, feel free to come back to the Teahouse if you have any further questions. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think I am starting to understand most of what is going on. I am simply attempting to add information in the same way that, say, the following person has been added on Wikipedia: Mr. Schimmel falls into almost the exact same category, and yet there seems to be no problem with Dave Hunt being acceptable. Any other suggestions would be helpful. If I need to remove several sentences, references, External Links, etc., I am happy to do so in order to make the article acceptable. Also, I am a COI non-paid contributor, so do I need to place this code at the beginning of my article and/or anywhere else?

Palacenewmedia (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Palacenewmedia - I'm not that confident about the Dave Hunt article, its referencing looks rather thin to me. Take a look at its talk page, there's been some pretty hard discussion about the article. It also is only rated "Start class" so probably not a good idea to use it as a benchmark, in fact comparing articles is generally a bad idea, because there is a lot of junk on Wikipedia that has not been pruned or culled yet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

References of Letter/ Notes[edit]

I'm Lorzendel2. May letters and/or program notes, etc. from prominent or famous musicians or symphonic organizations be uploaded on Commons as references about composer Delton Lorenzo Hudson? Also, got a BOT message about a reference error that was made in the article. Don't know how to fix it?! Could someone help? (Already asked this question at the Help Desk, though.) Lorzendel2 (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the referencing syntax error by this edit, and another editor fixed some more ref errors for you. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Lorzendel2, and welcome to the Teahouse. In general, letters may not be cited as sources unless they have been published by a reliable source. Letters found in a published "Letters of So&So" could be cited, or letters published in a book dealing with the topic. But not ordinary personal letters. Program notes can be cited if they were published, perhaps in the organization's newsletter. If a source needs to be uploaded to commons to use it, then it shouldn't be used, and therefore there is no reason to upload a source as a source, ever. Moreover program notes and even letters are subject to copyright, and so could not be uploaded to commons without a free license from the author or copyright holder. DES (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, there would be copyright issues that would likely prevent them from being suitable candidates for Commons. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Does his mean I could return to my Sandbox to Source and resubmit the article? Thanks Lorzendel2 (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
You could, Lorzendel2 but I wouldn't pass it as it now stands. You need to source some unsourced statements, and remove unsourced opinion and puffery. Several points:
  • An exact birth date should not be listed unless it is sourced, and has been widely published or published with the consent of the subject, see WP:DOB.
  • should not normally be used as a source, nor any other vendor page.
  • shows that the score is online, but it doesn't show how many people have viewed or listened to it. To say "The full score with complete realization in MP-3 sound has been previewed, (viewed/heard)_ by thousands of opera lovers online" needs a source that explicitly says that or gives a more precise number.
  • "It is transcendental is nature and influenced by N.A. spirituality-- the Great Spirit,Kachina spirits, etc. as well as by Eastern and Western metaphysical concepts. Yet, it could be called a "magic opera" also, in view of the story line." is analysis and opinion, and must be cited and attributed inline to an independent critical source or removed.
  • I have added some {{cn}} tags where I think additional sources are needed.
I hope all this is helpful. DES (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


I'm Lorenzodel2 and I just typed a question about references. When I typed the first wavy thing, it disappeared. Lorzendel2 (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason that your signature, and the rest of the text of your edit, disappeared, is that the editor of the previous section had a <ref> tag without the corresponding terminating</ref> tag. The rest of his text (and yours) was therefore treated as part of the ref. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

How can I make my article acceptable?[edit]

I've put a fair amount of time in to make a small article on BillionGraves. It was rejected because it looks like advertising. I used a similar company Findagrave as a guide. Even though this company seems to be growing (about half the size of findagrave) and is making connections with several bigger companies, it hasn't been around very long (4 years) and I could not find much from the news sources. Is there a simple way to make this acceptable? or should I give it a few years and maybe try again at a later time? Or is there a way to make it a stub and pass it on to someone else to flush out and improve?

It took me about a day to research and put this article together. I'm sure most of you are much much faster, but I'm slowly learning. Thanks kerfuffle (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The best thing to do is probably just let it go for a couple of years until your subject becomes more notable, if it does. Or you could write the article in your sandbox and work on perfecting it for a while before you launch it to public space. Remember, articles are supposed to be neutral in tone--you can't write like you're promoting that company, and you must have reliable sources (an article about the company in the New York Times would be seen as a reliable source, a blog post on it would not?. You can put a sandbox draft up for review and get it checked out by others before you launch it to public space, if you choose to go that route. Happy editing. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 16:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Thanks for the advice. I wasn't trying to promote the company so much as demonstrate it's relevant enough to merit a wikipedia page. I'll give it a year or 2 and continue to poke away at it.

In the meantime I'm taking the training thing to help better understand NPOV etc.

Cheers kerfuffle (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

kerfuffle, the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia isn't relevance, or size, or turnover, or importance, or fame, or influence, or popularity. It is solely whether people unconnected of the subject have written enough material about it, published in reliable places, to provide the basis for an article - we call this criterion 'notability', but it's a somewhat unfortunate name, because people often mistake it for some of the qualities I listed. Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a company says about itself, or how it want to be presented. --ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know that. I'll finish the training and try to create a different article that is more notable in the future.

BTW I don't represent the company, I simply noticed that findagrave had a page but billiongraves did not. Thought this might be a good opportunity to move from editing to creating. I see now that it isn't about 2 companies or people or things being equally popular, but notable in reliable and published sources. Thanks for the info. kerfuffle (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, would the article on Danaher Corporation also fail in this regard? It seems to have mostly internal company references also.
kerfuffle (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ryancormack the references for that article are mostly independent, from what I can tell. It's not a great article because it's mostly lists, but its references are better.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding a show/hide able "Combo Box" for user box. (or something which remains tight & left-aligned)[edit]

Greeting people. Im looking for a "combo box" code for userboxes.


(( userboxtop

| toptext =

| align =

| left =

| backgroundcolor =

| bordercolor =

| extra-css =

| textcolor =





((userboxbottom)) => put {}s instead ()s. ;)

The one which have Show/hide button.

The default code dosen't remain align for the right side of text, below the infobox. if anyone knows how to make it remain, Please tell me. i'll use the origin one.

forget about [last question], and thank you User:W.carter.

Appreciate you, all. Amir R. Pourkashef 13:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir R. Pourkashef (talkcontribs)

Hello again Amir R. Pourkashef. First of all please sign your post with the four ~~~~, otherwise the 'ping' will not be made. Second, you can try to use the table system for sorting your boxes. I use it on one of my subpages, see the code on User:W.carter/my WP. As for the hide function, that one is also used on my user page where you can see it and copy it. More about that option can be found here. Third, please don't use all caps when you post, that is seen as shouting here. I've fixed that in the heading. w.carter-Talk 14:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
wow, thanx a lot! Amir R. Pourkashef 16:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir R. Pourkashef (talkcontribs)

Cry For Silence[edit]

I cannot find any more evidence online that this band played the festivals which I saw them play with my own eyes back in 2007. I do have physical published magazines that review this bands live performance that day?? can I upload these as evidence? also the link that needs a better reference refers to Download Festivals Wikipedia which clearly states this band played on Sunday 15th June 2008 (Tuborg Stage), plus the actual profile picture of them is on stage at this festival!!

Some please help me! Majorityverb (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Majorityverb. Offline sources are perfectly acceptable, so you can cite print magazines without needing to scan them in (which might breach copyright, in any case). Another Wikipedia aren't isn't a reliable source, but the photo is obviously pretty good evidence that you're not making this up! Cordless Larry (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Majorityverb. To be more specific, not only do we not need scans, we do not want scans. As Cordless Larry says, these would breach copyright, and, with the widespread use of Photoshop, scans don't "prove" anything in any case. If you use the standard toolbar, use Cite > Templates > Cite Journal and fill in the fields, especially issue date and/or number, and page number - assuming these magazines are "reliable sources" not self-published fan-zines, they are fully acceptable. - Arjayay (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
As for the pictures, Majorityverb: you can cite the article, as Cordless Larry says, but you probably can't do anything with the pictures. They are almost certainly in copyright, so unless you can find the copyright owners and get them to license them, they may not be uploaded or used. --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Err - when saying "the actual profile picture of them is on stage at this festival!!" I think Majorityverb is referring to the picture already used in the infobox of the article, which Majorityverb took him/her-self, not one in a magazine. - Arjayay (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Sorry. It was the word "profile" that threw me. I forgot that people who are not used to Wikipedia think that we have things called 'profiles'. --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

How to create a Wikipedia page for my organisation?[edit]

Hi there,

My name is Kunal Sehgal. I'm the digital marketing manager of QiK Stay (, which is a chain of branded hotels in India, just like Oyo Rooms (

Could you please let me know how to go about this?

Thanks! (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a secret way to get that done that is so easy, you will not have to do any work!
Step one: Do not do anything on this site.
Step two: Ask QiK Stay to do their job so well that people who do not work for QiK Stay will write about QiK Stay in newspapers and books.
Step three: Wait for more people who do not work for QiK Stay to write a Wikipedia article based on those newspapers and books.
See how easy it is? You do not have to do any real work!
If you think I'm joking... Well, if you or anyone else who works for QiK Stay tries to create articles about QiK Stay, we will delete the article and block the account. It's nothing against QiK Stay, we do not want anyone writing about themselves or companies they work for, and we have very little patience for anyone who is paid to edit the site. See WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO for more details. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ian.thomson, while in general your advice is good, you go too far. If that user creates an article about QiK we will not necessarily delete it and we probably won't block the account. Original poster: as Ian says, you are strongly discouraged from writing an article about your own company; but you are not forbidden. If you decide to try, I would advise you to use the Article wizard to create it in draft space. It must be almost 100% based on what people who have no connection with the company have published about it - Wikipedia has very little interest in what any company (or anybody) has said, or wants to have said, about themselves. If you can find several substantial items about the company by independent writers (which rules out anything published by the company, and also most interviews, and pieces based on a press release from the company) and published in reliable sources (which excludes social media, forums, wikis, and most blogs) then it is possible that there can be an article on the company; and while you are likely to find it hard to write satisfactorily because of your conflict of interest, it is not impossible. If those independent sources do not exist, then it is impossible for anybody to write an acceptable article on the company at present (the Wikipedia jargon for this is that the company is 'not notable'), and you should not spend time trying. One final point - if you do go ahead, you must disclose your interest as a paid contributor: see WP:PAID. --ColinFine (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


Please check the notability of Rahul Dalal. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Playing cricket for a first-class team is prima facie evidence of notability.--ukexpat (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Capankajsmilyo, just to note that the Teahouse is primarily a place to learn about editing Wikipedia, rather than somewhere to make requests for action. In many cases, Teahouse regulars will be willing to help out, but the best thing would be for you to learn about how to assess notability with the help of the Teahouse, rather than requesting that someone else assesses it. You can read notability guidelines for cricketers at WP:NCRICKET. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


Please check out Faridabad and List of education facilities in Faridabad. Should they not be merged? Further please guide on Wikipedia guidelines for educational institutes. Is it necessary to list each and every school of the city without any source? Also please guide on the layout of the article related to cities. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Capankajsmilyo and welcome to the Teahouse. Even if this is a place where almost anything regarding editing can be discussed, the best place to propose mergers and the content of an article is on the talk pages connected to the articles. You will find the talk pages if you click on the "Talk" tab right over the name of the articles. As for a guide on layout, there is none. The best way to see how an article about a city should be made is to look at some other articles about other cities that are about the same size, preferably in the same country as the article you are editing. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding a "Userbox" combo box code. do you know how?[edit]

Greeting everyone. There were some quite relief time i've spent. but now, i decided to collect my own Userpage and i need a pattern which makes a combo box for userboxes.

there is a Persian one:

Template:پاک کن Template:بالای جعبه کاربر

Template:پایین جعبه کاربر Template:پاک کن

Do you know what english version is? I am Ameteur in wikipedia.

Amir R. Pourkashef 07:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Amir R. Pourkashef and welcome to the Teahouse. The codes you are looking for are {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}}. You can read all about it on this page: Template:Userboxtop. Happy organizing, w.carter-Talk 10:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

How to create a talk page for RMOS Consultancy ?[edit]

Hi I want to Create a talk page for RMOS Consultancy in my wikipedia account but not able to do so plz guide.

(RMOS Consultancy)RMOS Consultancy (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rajnitsharma. Here is a step-by-step guide for you:
  1. Stop using "RMOS Consultancy" as a signature, as that implies this is a company account rather than an individual account. We do not allow company or organizational accounts. Each account must be for one individual human being, acting on their own behalf.
  2. Start the article as a draft through the Articles for Creation process.
  3. When you write your draft article, do so in full compliance with our three most important content policies, which are the Neutral point of view, and No original research and Verifiability. This is essential, and any deviation from these policies will result in your draft article being declined. Build your article by summarizing what Independent, reliable sources say about this company, not what it says about itself.
  4. Once you have started your draft article through the AFC process, there will be a talk page associated with it. You cannot create a talk page independent of an article, user page, draft article, template, or Wikipedia page. Talk pages back up other pages.
  5. If your draft article is accepted into the encyclopedia, and if you are paid by this company, you should then limit any further input to suggestions and recommendations on the talk page. It is a violation of our Terms of use for you to edit such an article directly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank You for your sane advice mam. I will follow the steps suggested by you (Rajni)RMOS Consultancy (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Credible Sources / Bibliography[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and I am a student editor in Human Factors in Aviation at UWO. I was wondering if these are good, credible sources to back up what I will be writing on some articles?

Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

Please leave messages on my talk page. Thank you in advance.

Sincerely. Hseong2 (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(answered at talk page as requested) —GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

African Archaeology Project[edit]

I am an archaeological graduate student at California State University San Bernardino and am serving as a research consultant for an African Archaeology class where the professor, a respected archaeologist who conducted decades of excavations and surveys throughout East and South Africa, has noticed a severe lack of Wilkipedia information on many sites and technological industries from the middle Stone Age to the late Iron Age. As a consequence, he has tasked the students in the course with completing a fully researched and fully cited Wikipedia-ready article for approximately 30 of these sites and I am serving as the coordinator for this endeavor. How would I go about requesting volunteer help to turn their finished product into respectably formatted Wikipedia articles at the end of the Fall Quarter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaeologyhunter (talkcontribs) 01:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Archaeologyhunter. See WP:Education program. Generally, we give better answers than just a link, but the education program is a rather obscure corner of Wikiland that I know nothing about. Seems one of our other hosts works there sometimes tho. Pinging Cullen328, ColinFine. John from Idegon (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Archaeologyhunter and John from Idegon, that's not an area I know about either. It sounds like a very worthwhile project. You should certainly look at the Education program(me), but I suggest you also approach WP:WikiProject Archaeology. --ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Archaeologyhunter: This sounds like a great project. I'm Ryan from the Wiki Education Foundation. We're a non-profit that runs the Wikipedia Education Program in the United States and Canada, providing support for instructors and students as they improve Wikipedia as part of a class assignment. There's interactive training, brochures, a system for coordinating student work, and staff to help out and provide feedback. I would encourage you and the professor to check out our website for more information, and in particular this page for instructors has a good overview of materials available. If you tell me the name of your professor, I'd be happy to reach out to start a conversation.
For a fall 2015 class, I'd recommend moving quickly to get started. Almost everybody underestimates the amount of time it takes to produce good quality Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is easy to edit, but hard to edit well.
One more thing: We have another program that might be of interest. It's called Wikipedia Visiting Scholars. The idea is to connect experienced Wikipedia editors with educational institutions to give the editor remote access to the school library's research materials. In exchange, the editor agrees to use the resources to improve articles in an area of mutual interest. Writing Wikipedia articles can be difficult, but there are lots of people who do it all the time anyway. If you give one of them who happens to be interested in archaeology access to university library resources, you can work with them to improve areas of the site where you see coverage gaps or opportunities for improvement. This is unrelated to the classroom project, but another way to address the shortcomings the professor notes.
I'll watch this page for responses, but do feel free to reach out by email (ryan at wikiedu dot org) or leave a message on my talk page. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View[edit]

How do I keep a neutral point of view in a wikipedia page I created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VSK1008 (talkcontribs) 01:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, VSK1008. I have moved your question from the bottom to the top. Briefly stated, a Wikipedia article should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.' You can find the complete policy at the shortcut WP:NPOV. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
can you check my page if it is in a neutral point of view? VSK1008 (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, VSK1008, welcome back to the Teahouse. Yes, the article was suitably NPOV as you edited it. However, I noticed some other problems with the article, some of which I fixed.
Wikipedia articles should use complete sentences. I have corrected this for you. Also, exact dates should be given — "this is my advice as of 7 October 2015", not "this is my advice currently" which would quickly become meaningless. At least the year, preferably the month and day, should be included, as you will see from my edits to the article.
Sources published before an event happens cannot be used to prove it later happened! Only one of the sources you cited for the inspection having been completed was published after completion of the inspection. (Even then I am concerned that the article is misleading, as it will be several weeks yet before the official report on the inspection is completed and the track is opened for service along the whole route.) I have marked the sources which were published too early with {{failed verification|date=October 2015}}, which displays as [not in citation given] in the article. I didn't simply remove those sources from the article in case there was other information that could be cited from them.
If you have any further questions, feel free to come back here and ask. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 12:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

How to handle apparent copyright violation[edit]

Hello, Teahouse colleagues. I am one of several editors who have been trying to fix up Kadam (clan), which was (and remains) a mess of formatting and grammar errors. In the process of copy-editing the article, I discovered a paragraph which appeared to have been copied from elsewhere. I have marked it with a copyvio template, hiding the suspect section from view.

Normally when I find copyvio, I simply rewrite the plagiarized text so that it is properly paraphrased. In this case I don't feel qualified to paraphrase, as the paragraph in question is highly technical and I don't fully understand it. At the same time it seems to be serving as a necessary segue between the preceding and following paragraphs, so I'm loath to just delete it. Could I get some suggestions for what else I can do? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

When does company history become too long?[edit]

Hi! My name is Irene and I have been hired by a company that is trying to post on Wikipedia but has been rejected twice. I am a translator with no personal WIKI publishing experience, so basically I am just following the hints given by Matthew Vanitas, namely

"for a company existing over a half-century there are much more serious discussions of its long-term career and impact to use. Here's just one example of a section of a book you could cite, and you can find more by checking out GoogleBooks, and skip over the basic tour-guide stuff and pick out serious books discussing the history of the Galapagos, international touring business, Ecuadorian economy, etc" (VAnitas comment)

So I have researched on the history and expanded the sources, and I have reached 900 words in history alone. Is this too much? Would this be a reason for rejection? Irene from Ecuador186.46.18.215 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Irene from Ecuador. I highly recommend that you open a Wikipedia account and declare on your user page that you have a conflict of interest as a paid editor. Our Terms of use require that you refrain from direct editing of articles for which you are paid. You can work on draft articles or make suggestions on article talk pages, but you must disclose your paid status. Please provide a link to your draft article. The length of a company history section is a matter of editorial judgment that needs to be determined by consensus among all interested editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I love how people make contracts to do work in areas they know nothing about! Capitalism at its finest!
You need to read and follow the Terms of Use regarding paid editing [1] .
But in general, other than a very few companies like Coke or Ford. will there be sufficient third party content about the organization's history that would be WP:TOOLONG . In an article about a company that is padding its article with paid promotional bloat, 2 sentences is too long. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding RMOS Consultancy[edit]

Subheading added by Colin Fine, because this is another question from another editor.ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Irene we are RMOS Consultancy and facing with the same problem. every time i am trying to create a user talk page regarding my company RMOS Consultancy, it gets rejected so feeling helpless kindly help ?

RMOS Consultancy RMOS Consultancy (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rajnitsharma. There is no such thing as "a user talk page regarding my company" - a User talk page is a page which any editor may use to communicate with that User. What I think you mean is that you want to create a Wikipedia article about your company, in which case the advice given to Irene is relevant to you, as is the information already on your user talk page. One more point: it is forbidden to have a User name which suggests that you are editing for an organisation. I see that in fact you do not have this, but a personal user name. But if you continue to make your user name display as the company name, you are likely to get many editors annoyed with you, because it looks as if you are here purely for promotional purposes. Please don't do that again. --ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
This question is related.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Article denied because of references, wondering if someone could take a look?[edit]


I am currently working on the article Phekoo (musician), the article was denied 3 days ago because my submission references did not show the subjects notability. There was was also a helpful bit of text that stated that I needed to add citations.

At the time that it was denied I was just referencing the URL and nothing more. After going over the article on citations and learning that my references required them, I cleaned the article up and learned quite a bit in the process.

Would someone mind looking over the article and letting me know if there is anything that I need to correct?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time.

Justinstripling (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The only reliable source I see (note tho that I do not read Japanese) is Billboard, and the article cited there only mentions your subject in passing. Justinstripling, are any of your Japanese references books, magazines, newspapers, or trusted academic journals that discuss this fella in detail? If not, then I am afraid you have not shown notability. John from Idegon (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello Justinstripling. I took a quick look at Draft:Phekoo (musician). It seems that you added citation metadata (title, author, publisher, date, etc.) to all or almost all the citations that had previously been in the draft. That is very good and helpful, but it is not quite what is meant by "adding citations". The reviewer was saying that additional sources needed to be cited to show a greater depth of coverage. It doesn't look as if any actual sources had been added since the review. If there are other relaible sources that discuss Phekoo in some detail (at least a few paragraphs) and do not simply duplicate the sources already in the draft, adding them might help. Also, most of the sources cited appear to be in Japanese. That is fine, but it makes it harder for a non-Japanese-speaking editor to evaluate. Could you supply translations of article titles and publication names? {{cite web}} includes the |trans-title= parameter for this purpose. It also includes the |language= parameter to explicitly indicate what language a citation is in. Please consider using these. Documentation will be found at Template:Cite web. There is even an example labeled "Foreign language and translated title" in the Examples section there.
If you can find an experienced editor who reads Japanese to take a look at this, that editor might be able to provide further assistance. I hope this is helpful. DES (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I added another indent to DES's comment above for clarity. Justinstripling, I might add that if your article is approved, the parenthetical "musician" is unneeded as a part of the title. There is no need to disambiguate as there is no other article titled Phekoo. John from Idegon (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User page?[edit]

My account does not have any real user page. When or how will I get one?*bite* 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaterViper (talkcontribs)

You do have a user page, it is right here. If you would like to style your user page, see the UPDC. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 20:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

How does one determine possible sock puppets?[edit]

I have read the help pages on this, but I'm struggling to gauge the significance of the 'clues', if that makes sense.

I have 3 users taking turns to argue with me on a talk page and claiming consensus (and another who I'm sure is genuine). A new one each day, like clockwork. All have fairly short editing histories (though of course, so do I), all appear to be British, all are making the exact same points, all are very hostile, and all have an uncannily similar writing style.

But obviously I'm biased, and it's perfectly possible they could be 3 separate people. Or possibly 2 separate people. They're also clearly already angry, and I don't want to antagonise them further by making accusations. I guess what I'm asking is: Can anything be done? Should anything be done? If so, what?

Thanks. Uk55 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for your question. To start a sockpuppet investigation, you must first have evidence. Below are some examples of valid reasons:
  • Similar usernames
  • Precocious edit history
  • Excessive support for one's cause 2.3.1 Excessive awarding of barnstars
    • Repeating the same disapproved activity
  • Editing identical articles
    • Edit warring
    • Deletion discussions
    • Knowledge that an obscure article exists
    • Connection to the article
    • Always there when needed
  • Chronology of edits
    • Days on and off
    • Accounts with occasional usage
    • Accounts used only briefly
  • Geography
    • Fictitious locality
  • Fictitious personality
  • Similar writing/editing styles
    • Common spelling/punctuation/grammar errors
  • Uploading of multimedia
    • IP sock puppetry
  • Single-purpose accounts
  • Behaviors on other sites
For more info, please see WP:SOSP. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 20:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I can also help you out with finding information for your sockpuppet investigation. If needed, just reply back on my talk page and we can get started. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 20:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Skyllfully: Hi, thanks for your help, but I was mainly looking for advice rather than information, as in, am I being reasonable in having suspicions in the first place? Though I get it's difficult to say without knowing the situation. Uk55 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Uk55: and yes, you were correct in thinking that you should be careful about where and how you accuse someone of WP:SOCK-ing. Doing so in inappropriate forums with lack of appropriate evidence is a form of inappropriate personal attack. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: Was that just a general comment, or are you saying this is an inappropriate forum and that I lack appropriate evidence? Uk55 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Uk55: Sorry that was confusing. It is perfectly appropriate to ask here about "How do I handle this?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: Oh good, thanks for your help. Uk55 (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

off track discussion[edit]

@Uk55: Just because 3 people are British, that doesn't make them necessarily the same person. As a result, I've redacted your racism. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I am confused as to how one could conflate nationality = racism. That edits are geolocating from the place/are presented with the same nationalistic POV/have the same background are all key features in determining likelihood of sock puppet.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It clearly isn't racism, nor is it harassment, Joseph2302. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The implication of their statement was "they're all British, therefore all the same person", which is racist. It's like saying every American Wikipedia editor is the same person. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Goodness me. I literally just meant they were from the same country. I'm stunned by your interpretation. Uk55 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Geographic proximity is one of a number of factors that might indicate sockpuppetry, so it is relevant. I have reported this incident at the AN/I noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Then say "they're all from the same place" or "they're in a small geographical proximity", not "they're British"- the nationality doesn't make them sockpuppets. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a gross simplification of what Uk55 said, but anyway, the place to discuss this now is at AN/I, not here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
So "they all seem to be from Great Britain" would be okay. JohnInDC (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, this is supposed to be "A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia", and we shouldn't be biting newcomers without very good reason. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This is very helpful.

MR1882 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Updating page for Nyack College[edit]

Any advice on how to improve this page?

I've added over 40 citations and new text but the indication box at the top of the article still says that the piece needs work. Advice? Thanks, MR1882 (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, MR1882. Template messages at the tops of articles are placed manually by editors like you, and only go away when other editors (or the same editor) remove them. If you believe you have added enough sources, then you can just delete the template. But be sure that the sources you cited are what Wikipedia considers reliable sources — there is a specific definition. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 18:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the tag, MR1882, but added a number of {{cn}} tags on specific points that i think still need sourcing. DES (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
As for how to improve the article, MR1882, I suggest striving for a more neutral tone. Sentences such as "Current President Michael Scales has crafted and honed a vision for Nyack to become a university committed to educating men and women to be Christians who minister to society in relevant and meaningful ways" and "This program has grown quickly and offers a rich and diverse context to study Christian leadership" are too promotional for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Please see WP:NPOV for guidance on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Writing about myself[edit]

If there is a historical significance to my accomplishments, how come I can't write an article about myself since one does not exist? GilbertGibley (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

GilbertGibley, It is almost impossible for anyone to view his or her own action or projects with sufficient objectivity to write about them neutrally, and to limit content to that supported by reliable sources. Please read our conflict of interest guideline, and our guideline on autobiography. If there truly is "a historical significance to [your] accomplishments" then someone else will write about them, sooner or later. There is no deadline. See also the golden rule of article basics.
If after reading all that, you want to go ahead, use the article wizard to create a draft that will be reviewed via the articles for creation process, please. Even so, you are apt to find it frustrating. DES (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
To add to DES's comments: Users are not forbidden from writing or editing articles about themselves, but they are strongly discouraged from doing so, because it's difficult for people to be objective about themselves. There's also the issue of forgetting that only facts which can be cited to a reliable published source should be included in Wikipedia articles; exact birthdates, for example, often cannot be included in Wikipedia even if users who know the correct date could theoretically put those dates in.
A very quick peek in Google did not turn up any results for "Gilbert Gibley" in news sources or books, which are generally where we look for reliable sources at Wikipedia. You should read Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources and then Wikipedia's policy on notability to determine whether you are eligible to have an article about you on Wikipedia. If you are sufficiently notable, another user may be willing to write the article; I myself recently wrote an article about another user at her request, which you can see here. If after reading the pages DES and I suggested you still feel Wikipedia needs an article about you, you can request help getting one written either here or at Wikipedia:Requested articles. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 18:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


Where is the log of nonconstructive edits used by STiki users? I have STiki and can't find it anywhere. Thanks, Rubbish computer 16:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You also asked this question at the Help Desk Please only ask in one place. RudolfRed (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rubbish computer. What kind of log are you looking for? I poked around in STiki and I also couldn't find any form of log or queue. In STiki, you review diffs one at a time; there isn't a list of recent changes you can pick from as there is in, say, Huggle. STiki automatically provides the diffs and presents them in the application. You then classify as "vandalism", "good faith revert", "pass", or "innocent". If you are not sure how to classify a diff, click "pass" to go to the next diff. I'm not sure whether STiki keeps a central log of all nonconstructive edits reverted with the tool—try asking at Wikipedia talk:STiki if that's what you're looking for. Best, Mz7 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mz7: Thanks. --Rubbish computer 10:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

sharing text from one wiki pg to the next[edit]

Heynow, I'm wondering if one can copy & paste bits of text from one wiki page to another (related) one without it being considered plagiarism(?). I'm careful in all other cases to put things in my own words, & hence the q. Cheers! EdFerrario (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi EdFerrario, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume that when you say "wiki page", you're talking about pages on the English Wikipedia? If so, this is covered by Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. You can copy material directly from one article to another, but in order to comply with the licencing requirements, you need to attribute the text. The easiest way to do this is to specify that you have copied the material from another Wikipedia article and to include a link to that article in the edit summary. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Beauty -thanks for the assistance! EdFerrario (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Linking mention of TV episode to article of same name explaining the concept[edit]

If (for example) there was a TV series with an article about it, including a list of episodes, and the title of one of the episodes was the same as a concept that also has an article about it (and there is currently no article about the episode itself), would it be acceptable to link the mention of the episode in the main article to that of the concept? For example, if there was an episode of Doctor Who titled Alien Space Bats that was actually about Alien Space Bats as a deus ex machina device for creating an alternative history (there isn't, AFAIK !), it seems reasonable to link the episode to the article about the "Alien Space Bats" plot device. If an editor later decided to make an article about the episode itself, it could be named something like "Alien Space Bats (TV episode)". Mungefuddler123 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question, Mungefuddler123. In my opinion, the answer is No: if a user chooses to follow a link apparently to an episode of a series, it is not usually going to be helpful to send them to an article which is not in the slightest about that episode, but just about something that the episode is called after. --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Using a poster as a source[edit]

Problem is back in 2007 people who went to gigs/festivals did not document them on websites. I was at these gigs and I even have actual posters of the festival which clearly states this band played! They even toured as main support for My Chemical Romance and again there is no documentation apart from posters I have! I have magazines that review the band at these festivals? surely I can upload that to use as evidence???? please help someone! Majorityverb (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Majorityverb, a poster is a publication so you can cite it. The {{cite sign}} template makes it easy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Authority Control[edit]

Hello, folks. Should we be adding Authority Control templates to individual works of fiction? If so, is the authority data the same as that of the work's author? Thank you for any help that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, NewYorkActuary, and welcome back to the Teahouse. I'm sorry no one answered your question sooner; I suspect that, like me, other volunteers didn't know the answer. I have now read Wikipedia:Authority control and Help:Authority control, and I could not find an unambiguous answer to your question. My best advice would be to go through the page history of Wikipedia:Authority control (and maybe look at its Talk page too) in hopes of finding a user who might be able to give you a better answer. You might also try Wikipedia:Reference desk, which is staffed in part by people who are librarians "in the real world" and might be familiar with authority control from that angle. Sorry I can't offer a more helpful response. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I, too, found those documents ambiguous. I'll try one of your recommendations. Thanks again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary: Are you familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels? I took a look at the article templates there (very helpful for creating new articles, by the way) and didn't see any mention of authority control templates for individual works. On the other hand, the infobox included in the novel article template includes fields for both isbn and oclc number, which provide authority control in a way, for example:The Sacred and Profane Love Machine. It might be a good question to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@HazelAB: Thank you for the suggestions. As things stand right now, some individual works have authority control, others do not. But the question seems to go further than just anything within the scope of WikiProject Novels. For example, United Nations Charter has authority control, and so does 0 (number). The thing that puzzles me is whether (and how) those templates get added when the documentation for the templates explicitly limits their scope to "people". I haven't yet asked at the Reference Desk, but I think that will be my next stop. Thanks again for the suggestions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Are children allowed to edit?[edit]

And,obviously, if they know enough about what they are editing and if they have a parent's permition. It does say Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Megaraptor12345 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Mostly yes. Anyone can edit, but they do not add what they "know", they merely summarize and WP:CITE reliable sources. I think we also discourage anyone under 18 from posting any personal information.
So, if a kid is capable of citing books (or just wants to fix grammar and spelling problems), then cool.
More information can be found at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Few, thanks Ian.Thomson. Megaraptor12345 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
While there's no Wikipedia policy on children editing if the child is under 13 and from the US the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act may apply to Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please check my article[edit]

Hi! I created an article today. Could you please check it. [2] DashaG11 (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I checked it and it appears to be OK. It can use more fleshing out, but it makes the inclusion requirements. It's comprehensible, referenced, and gives clear info. Overall, it's good enough to be kept, although you may need to find some info/references about reviews of this software, like whether it gets good or bad reviews, who reviewed it (did any major tech sites try it?) etc. That should be easy, since there are a lot of geek sites out there.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 14:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
Hi! Thank you very much! I will add some reviews information! The information although is already based on the reviews made by well known tech sites (they are indicated in references). But I will search and add more.
Thank you very much once again! DashaG11 —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi DashaG11, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry to contradict White Arabian mare, but I'm not so sure that this meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines at present. Put simply, these require that the subjects of articles have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I see a few sources cited in the Typeeto article, but I'm not sure that they constitute significant independent coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, DashaG11, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have made some corrections to the references already in the article. You should always include the author's name if one is listed in the work you are referencing, and you should also always include both the date the source was published (if one is given) and the date you accessed the source. If you are using the handy fill-in-the-blanks forms for your citations, which I recommend, there's a button that will fill in the access dates for you automatically. I also noticed that there were = signs at the ends of the titles in your citations for some reason. The title should be exactly as it appears in the source; I recommend copying and pasting to avoid typos or other errors.
If notable publications have reviewed the software, the article should state so rather than readers having to look for that information in the references section. For example, you might write, "A review in PC World stated that Typeeto was a rubbish product for a rubbish OS." Most notable publications will have a Wikipedia article already, like Lifehacker does. However, at least two of the three reviews currently cited appeared on blogs, which are generally not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's definition. You're looking for magazines or newspapers, or online publications that have editorial oversight and do fact-checking. CNet would be an example of a website without a print version that's still counted as a reliable source — though I don't know whether CNet has written about Typeeto. Good luck finding more sources, and don't hesitate to come back if you have more questions. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, GrammarFascist, Cordless Larry. Thank you so much for your corrections and advice. I made some changes, please check if possible and let me know what you think. DashaG11 (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, DashaG11. I have made some more edits to the page. The most important ones were to replace too-close paraphrasing with either looser paraphrase or direct quotations. I also added a new source, which is in German. I don't understand German, but I used Google Translate to get a sense of what that article said. There aren't yet many reviews of Typeeto in English other than Lifehacker and some blogs, but there are a number of reviews in other languages including German, Spanish and Turkish. (Note that some of the foreign-language results may be blogs too.) You can use the format of the example I provided to add other foreign-language reviews if you wish. Be careful that what looks like a review is not just a reposting of a press release from the developer, though, especially when dealing with machine translation. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I think GrammarFascist has covered everything I would have said. You're on the right track, DashaG11, so I advise you to just keep looking for sources as and when the app gets reviewed. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
DashaG11, you've now edited the article to specify which game consoles Typeeto is compatible with, and that's good; however, a source stating that those specific consoles are supported needs to be cited at the end of the sentence. If you can't find a source stating that, then a {{citation needed}} tag should be put immediately after the console names. Good luck with finding additional sources — I see you have added one already. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability requirements[edit]

I have edited my article Draft:AVS Video Converter, please check if it meets the notability requirements and can be resubmitted. Thank you for your help. NeviRom (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing that remotely shows notability, NeviRom. What do you think shows notability? John from Idegon (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I think this converter is notable for its usability and differs from many other converters: it converts videos, edit them with big list of effects, create disks, upload videos to web sources. Almost all the Wikipedia user can professionally process his\her videos for its user friendliness. Can this be the argument to the article notability? (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
No. Please click on notable to see how the word is used here. Maproom (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I have read there, but still cannot understand, could you explain in simple words why my article is not notable, and in what case it can be notable. Thank you very much for your help.(talk) 07:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The notability guideline can be summarised as follows: Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not the article that fails to be notable, it's the subject "AVS Video Converter". You have provided no evidence that it is notable, and it seems most unlikely that there is any. Maproom (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, NeviRom. To be acceptable, a Wikipedia article should be close to 100% based on independent reliable published sources. If there isn't enough content in independent reliable published sources to write an article entirely from them, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article. That, and nothing else, is what we mean in Wikipedia by "notable". --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


How do I correctly change my references for source 6, do I just delete the 'better source needed' entry with I also want to update 'source 7' with

This page shows both -

Can someone please help me :-/

The page is 'Cry For Silence (Band)'

Thanks in advance (Majorityverb (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Majorityverb, and welcome to the Teahouse. To replace a reference, you just need to delete the text of the existing one and insert the new one. There is some general advice on referencing at Help:Referencing for beginners. However, I don't think that can be considered a reliable source, because it is a site that anyone can edit (like Wikipedia). See WP:USERGENERATED for more information about this. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Working in Wikipedia[edit]

Hello forces of Wikipedia, I have a small question. When placing edit banners on pages, where can one find a more comprehensive page filled with them to utilize in diverse situations in articles that one may need to put them upon pages for further review by others? Thank you so much for your help!

CoolInu43 (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi CoolInu43, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is Wikipedia:Template messages what you are looking for? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, CoolInu43. To add to what Cordless Larry said, while it's true that Wikipedia has many template messages available to be placed on articles that need specific types of edits, it's generally preferred for editors to perform needed edits themselves if they are able. Adding template messages should be your second choice. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 14:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


Hello thank you for invite. May be a stupid question but should the cite number be included inside the quotes or parenthesis or outside ? Plasticisme (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Plasticisme: Welcome to the Teahouse. Usually, the citation is placed outside of the quotation marks/parentheses. Zappa24Mati 02:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
ZappaOMati is correct, Plasticisme, when it comes to quotations denoted with "quotation marks". Note, however, that when using <blockquote>, the reference should go before the blockquote's close tag:

<ref>(citation details)</ref></blockquote>, not </blockquote><ref>(citation details)</ref>

Otherwise the citation's footnote anchor (the little [4] number) would be pushed onto a new line. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 14:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

How can we propose new infobox fields/templates, and how are they implemented?[edit]

I'm asking this question mainly in regard to articles about urban districts or other neighborhoods in the larger cities.

In the past few years, the availability of detailed historic maps online has been increasing rapidly. Materials once accessible only in the largest university and public libraries, and in person, are now free to research online, or require only a library card. The Sanborn maps are provided free to cardholders by many public library systems, at least for the state where the library is located. The David Rumsey collection of online maps is free to access, including the Baist real estate survey maps. Together, the Baist and Sanborn maps offer a remarkable window into the history of a city, with innumerable clues about the character of neighborhoods 80, 100, or more years in the past.

The catch is, in the case of large cities the Sanborn and Baist sets comprise many hundreds of pages, and in the case of Sanborn across multiple sets for different years. It has taken me many weeks to find the right Sanborn and Baist pages for the Palms district of L.A., largely due to the fact the post-1910 maps for Palms are generally included with Culver City, even though it was L.A. that annexed Palms in 1914, not Culver City. With that in mind, shouldn't we have the option of adding this information to the Infobox for those articles where it's relevant? In the Infobox for Palms, it would be nice to add the following data points:

Baist Map page(s): 1921 Baist Real Estate Survey Atlas, plate 38 (recto) Sanborn Map page(s): Palms, California (1910)

                     Culver City (1924 p22 , 1929 p22)

Assuming it doesn't violate Wikipedia policy or intellectual property rights, I'd also want to provide URLs here. In general I think this would be desirable as a standard.

I've noticed that there are already previously defined attributes like postal_code_type and postal_code. How are those set up?Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pithecanthropus4152. I notice that the infobox for Palms, Los Angeles already has two maps. It is difficult for me to see how links to historical maps belong in an infobox. Please keep in mind that the section of the Manual of style on infoboxes says "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." The takeaway is that only "key facts" should be included. A current map and the ZIP code seem to be key facts, but I doubt whether links to historic maps are truly key. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Pithecanthropus4152, I agree with Cullen's comments above. Note that there is no reason why the page numbers for these maps couldn't be included in an appropriate section of the article body, and perhaps links to them in the External links section.
As to your nominal question, new fields are edited by editing the template page (and its documentation page, normally), such as {{Infobox settlement}}. However large infobnoxes can be comples and tricky to edit. New features would normally be proposed on the talk page, such as Template talk:Infobox settlement. There is a cost, both in implementation and in maintenance, to a change to a template, and it is higher for a widely used template, so an argument needs to be made that the benefits are worth while, and then someone with the needed skill has to be found who is willing to make and test the changes. DES (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I've probably done a bad job of expressing my idea. As with most geographic infoboxes, the two maps here show (1) the boundaries of Palms and (2) its location within L.A. The utility of historical maps is quite different. In the first place, I don't advocate adding a picture of the maps themselves, but only a citation to the correct volume, page, or plate to guide readers should they wish to delve into the area's local history. I also advocate that a link might be provided, especially if the website in question provides completely unrestricted access. By "unrestricted" I mean not only free of charge, but also without the requirement of a local library card or other credential. Keep in mind, also, that the Baist and Sanborn maps are not just one-offs that are relevant to only Palms or even all of L.A.; rather they exist for communities nationwide. What is the question asked by local historians--both professional and amateur--when they begin to research a locale, whether it's in NYC, Goldfield NV, or Melonsquashville TN? That question is this: "Is there a Baist or Sanborn set for this neighborhood?". It's for this reason that I thought the inclusion of citations to these maps would be useful, and that the implementation of a standard citation style and template labels would be of value.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The question remains, Pithecanthropus4152: Why do you think that this information belongs in the infobox in particular, as opposed to another part of the article? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
My thinking was that if a standard citing format were to be used, it would be a good candidate for inclusion in the Infobox, but only if someone comes along and decides to insert the information--IOW if someone wanted to add this optional information, then this is where it should go. However, the References and External Links sections can work just as well; I didn't think of it beforePithecanthropus4152 (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I was able to upload properly. Thank you.

Samuelcobalt (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


I have clicked to download STiki but I can't get it without purchasing an app. It is also unclear where the log of edits that are seen as nonconstructive actually is. Please advise. Thanks, Rubbish computer 22:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Rubbish computer: Are you trying to download STiki via the first link here? If so, did you manage to download and unzip the file? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs
@SuperHamster: Yes, I made a Microsoft account and got the app without paying anything, then unzipped the file. My computer was playing up, but this was as it initially scanned the file. --Rubbish computer 11:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the log of nonconstructive edits is? Thanks, --Rubbish computer 12:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

How do I contact my deleting administrator?[edit]

I don't think my article should have been deleted, and I'm looking to repost with more third-party sources. How do I contact the user who deleted the articles so we can discuss how to avoid being deleted again!


Johnsonclaire770 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Johnsonclaire770, and welcome to the Teahouse. According to the record, the administrator who deleted the Version One Ventures article was NawlinWiki. You can contact them at their talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
But while it may indeed by useful to contact NawlinWiki, Johnsonclaire770, the best way to avoid getting your draft deleted is to create it in Draft space: if you use the article wizard, it will help you do that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnsonclaire770 (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability being questioned[edit]

Hi guys,

I recently created a page Abe Burns and his notability is being questioned. I actually know him personally and he is one of the most powerful people in tech investing - he essentially runs all Ashton Kutcher's investing[1] and was on Billboard Magazine's "30 Under 30"... I'm just wondering how I can make that box disappear if anyone has any tips??

Thanks so much!


  1. ^