Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 604

Archive 600

←

Archive 602

Archive 603

Archive 604

Archive 605

Archive 606

→

Archive 610

Linking an English page to a Spanish page

Not sure what to do. I'm editing the page Florida Historical Society to include information about the History of Florida Library. I will add a citation for the book La Florida del Inca. But there is a Spanish entry for that book in Wikipedia, but not an English version. Do I not use a link and simply give the proper citation for the book?Momofbeagles (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Momofbeagles. I do not recommend linking to the Spanish Wikipedia article about the book in your reference. An alternative is to link to a Google Books page about the book, displaying the relevant page, if Google does so. If you use Template:Cite book, there is a place for a URL. Provide complete bibliographic information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Momofbeagles, if the book citation includes the ISBN you should not include a url. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Roger (Dodger67). That is new to me. They seem to serve serve different purposes and most book citations, including in FAs, display both URL and isbn, if available and I always include both. Off the top of my head, a URL to an online hosting allows immediate access, even if the source is in snippet/limited view. By contrast, an isbn makes it much easier for some to locate an procure/borrow the book itself. Is this advice captured anywhere in help or guideline pages or has it been discussed?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, someone told me years ago, when I was still a newbie. I don't remember where, it could have been an article talk page or even in an edit summary. The gist of the advice was "don't cite the bookshop, library, or a google search, just cite the book itself and use the ISBN 'magic word' instead". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for getting back to me. Well, I don't think it's really a sound concept for the reasons I started listing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: there are some great video tutorials on citing sources at Wikipedia:Meetup/UMassAmherst/Intro to Wikipedia. I don't know of anything better and it other dandy useful stuff. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Dodger67, I agree with Fuhghettaboutit on this matter, and routinely include both the ISBN and a Google Books link in my references. If Google Books displays the specific page that verifies the assertion I have made in an article, more the better. That makes verification vastly easier for the reader. I have taken six articles through Good article review and no reviewer has ever objected to this practice. Doug Weller, thanks for the video recommendation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 and Fuhghettaboutit thanks for your feedback about the bad advice I was given back then. What's the consensus on including links to book sellers (Amazon etc) in book cites (as opposed to Google Books), is it considered to be WP:LINKSPAM? -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Dodger67, as a general practice, I tend to avoid linking to Amazon and similar sites since they are in the business of promoting sale of that book. Google, instead, is in the business of providing information, supported by advertisers. I think I linked to Amazon once or twice when referencing books of local interest that Google Books lacked a page for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Dodger67 Everything depends on context but I think they should be avoided in general. I can't think of a situation where such a link would provide any extra transparency, and yeah, it kind of smacks of linkspam (especially in an article about the author or the book).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikibooks help

Hello,

There is no Wikibooks:Teahouse and consequently I'm posting here.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Oberon currently ends with these lines.

{{subjects|operating systems}}
{{alphabetical|O}}
{{status|0%}}
[[Category:Oberon]]

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Categories states, "A common practice is to place {{BookCat}} ... directly at the bottom of every page in a book."

Therefore {{Oberon}} should be added to the front page so that it ends with these lines. Correct?

{{subjects|operating systems}}
{{alphabetical|O}}
{{status|0%}}
[[Category:Oberon]]
{{Oberon}}

Every other page in the book should end with these?

[[Category:Oberon]]
{{Oberon}}

For a novice the general explanation is inadequate. There should be a recommended initial practice or example.

Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi PeterEasthope. You can ask questions at Wikibooks at Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance. I m not saying no one will answer your question here, but it is a bit out of scope for this page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Will do; thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Kith and kin

Is Kith and kin a valid article? It does not provide any content and references and is just a soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry. Should the article be kept or deleted? TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

That the redirect was accomplished via a a well-documented template specifically for that purpose inclines me to believe that there either was a discussion supporting such redirects at some point, or else it has been so in-line with policy that no one has questioned it before (silent consensus, as it were). That template links to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which has a section "Pointers to Wiktionary". At this point, I can really only assume it's kosher and should be kept (though I can imagine the possibility that the page could become a proper article). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheGeneralUser: {{Wiktionary redirect}} has 1294 uses. Template talk:Wiktionary redirect shows it was nominated for deletion in 2005 with no consensus. With no further nominations in 12 years, a page shouldn't be deleted merely for using it. Pages can still be nominated for deletion for other reasons. "kith and kin" is a little known expression with many occurrences in Wikipedia so the Wiktionary redirect seems potentially helpful even if it doesn't have incoming links. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson and PrimeHunter: Thanks for the information. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

how to create a wikipedia project

hi, As I know from there. Everyone can create or edit the article on wikipedia. Here i want to know the different between creating a wikipedia with create a article page. As the requirement said in creating a article pages : do not post articles you would not find in an encyclopedia. Then I want to know where should I post a new word or ideas through wikipedia, can i do that through creating wikipedia project? And I want to know how to create the wikipedia project? ZANGMEIMEI (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You have asked the same question at the Help Desk. Please do not ask the same question in multiple places, as it wastes the time of volunteers answering a question which may already have been answered. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Question from User:Deer76

Why are you removing my good work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deer76 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason for the removal is stated here. Maproom (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec)I'm sorry Deer76, you are mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. The page Espoona, which you created twice, was deleted as a hoax. Wikipedia does not accept content that is simply made up fiction. See WP:NOT for our policy on unacceptable content. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Page Lock Request

How do I request for Wikipedia Page Lock?

Lady olympia (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lady olympia, if this is about recent edits to Alimodian, Iloilo, I'm afraid you are mistaken, the edits are not vandalism, so there is no valid reason to request page protection. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No this has nothing to do with Alimodian, Iloilo and not only about Alimodian there are some other pages I want to request a page lock as there has been vandalism in the past in those pages so there is always a need to re edit those pages. So how do I do that with other pages? Lady olympia (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lady olympia: Usually you do this at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (or WP:RFPP for short). You can type "WP:RFPP" in the search bar to get there quickly. Before you request protection it might also be a good idea to have a look at the protection policy to see what kind of things pages are usually protected for. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This is helps much better. I just want to have more idea on protecting articles and policy about it so I know which pages will I request for protection next time. Thanks

Lady olympia (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Doubt:Article creating tool

Hi! I am an active Tamil Wikipedian. We wish to create many articles without the help of bots. So, we need a tool which collects data and construct simple sentences according to the given data. Like, Name:-_____ Birthdate:-_______. Then it should make sentences like. _____ is an astronomer. He was born on _______. Is there are any tools like this? Or is this possible to create any tools like this. If yes, then we can create many articles about people, places, films, rivers, etc. We are eagerly waiting for your reply as a community--Shriheeran (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shriheeran, Wikidata may be what you're looking for. It contains basic, machine-readable information about a topic. For example, an item on a person would contain information such as his name, birth date, occupation and more. However, I don't believe there is a tool to automatically incorporate that information into prose in Tamil, so that might be up to your community to develop. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 06:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Darylgolden, Thank you for your reply! But my wish is to create articles like bot. But user account should do this. Can anyone design a tool like this. As, a wikipedian said that it is easy to build up. I don't know scripts and I am unable to make such tool. Please help me. If you wish to help me then let me know through my talk page. Thanks again--Shriheeran (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Shriheeran: Unfortunately I am unable to help you with that as I know neither a Tamil nor the programming necessary to create such a script. As your idea would require someone with a good knowledge of Tamil's sentence structure to develop, I think the best place to look for a person to work on this would be the Tamil Wikipedia. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 09:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

DarylgoldenI know tamil well. But who can design l=such a tool like this? Do you know?--Shriheeran (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shriheeran I suggest you file a request at WP:Bot requests, they are used to getting requests from other wikis there. As long as you can get consensus on Tamil Wiki and build the spreadsheet or equivalent that the data is in, there are people who do such bot runs. ϢereSpielChequers 18:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

How to create a redirect?

I am trying to alter a redirect, Novolin, which currently redirects to Novo Nordisk, to get it to redirect to the insulin (medication) page. I've tried going to the "redirected from Novolin" link, but when I try to edit that it just returns me back to the Novo Nordisk page. Thanks!! Aglo123 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aglo123 and welcome to the Teahouse. Click on the link to get to the redirect. Once at the redirect page edit the redirect. It seems to work for me with both the source editor and the visual editor. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Problems with numbered lists

1. In desktop view, The numbers appear in different sizes for no reason I can find. See User:Deisenbe#Major improvements

2. I need to know how to add a visible remark to a numbered list without making the numbers reset. See User:Deisenbe#Smaller improvements

Thanks for any suggestion. deisenbe (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi deisenbe - I've moved your post to the bottom, because, since earlier this morning, this page became the "same-way-up" as all the other pages (new posts on the bottom) - whereas it was previously the only "upside down" page.

I'm not sure what you mean by "The numbers appear in different sizes" - the list numbers in User:Deisenbe#Major improvements look the same as the numbers in the comment

To include a comment, without breaking the numbers, just continue on the same line and include a <br />, so

# first

# second

# third<br />This is a comment without breaking the numbered list

# fourth

produces

1. first
2. second
3. third
   This is a comment without breaking the numbered list
4. fourth

Arjayay (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Deisenbe. Your second list has smaller numbers because you are using ref begin/ref end to put the list in two columns. This is meant for reference lists and makes the font smaller. But it is also useful for long lists anywhere. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Tomjaycox: Difference between revisions

The article submitted was originally published in Computerworld magazine back in Jan 1981. It was written by my Father who died in 1985. We have the same name but I am not a Jr. I was simply wanting to link this article to the trade magazine. Wikipedia requested real content on this page, this is very real. Computerworld published their own prediction yearly, my dad sent them his own and they published it in 1981. I believe the article speaks for itself and those involved in computers will not need additional information. I can also submit my fathers obituary written and published in another computer magazine, TUG back in 1985. Thank you for reconsideration for my father that was a true visionary. Tom D Jaycox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8A00:B4C8:4135:C84E:67D3:8BCC (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess that your question may be about User:Tomjaycox/sandbox. Is that sandbox intended to become a Wikipedia article? Maproom (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Maproom - That sandbox was submitted to Articles for Creation for review, either because it was intended to become a Wikipedia article, or by mistake. It clearly isn't ready to become a Wikipedia article, and it wasn't even clear what the topic was meant to be. However, if it is to glorify User:Tomjaycox's father, then read the conflict of interest policy, to see that editors are strongly discouraged not only from writing about their employers but also from writing about their families. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference Troubles

So, I found this article, it can be found here. When I found it, I saw that a citation was incomplete, and when I went on the cited source, it's here, I found that that reference had all or most of its info from the Italian Wikipedia, and according to WP:CIRCULAR, nobody can use articles from Wikipedia as sources. Should this be deleted? This article is already a stub and this reference is the only source in the article.

Thanks, Zhangj1079 (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Zhangj1079, I looked at the Italian, German and Arabic WP articles, none had any references. A Google search found several hits in Italian, but as I don't understand the language I could not evaluate any of them. I suggest you ask WikiProject Italy to try to find suitable sources, and WP:PROD the article - which would give editors a week to prove its notability to prevent deletion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Zhangj1079 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What are the battles/wars in which Egypt took part in, under Cleopatra's rule?

?

Aeb1818 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Asked and answered at the Reference desk. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The big big Big BIG Cartoon Network Show

Have anyone heard of The big big Big BIG Cartoon Network Show (produced by Katapult Studios for Cartoon Network and Turner a year ago)? DarthonTheOverseer (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi DarthonTheOverseer, There is an IMDB page about it and I found several Youtube clips, but solid reliable and independent sources seem to be lacking. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest query

Hi folks,

I made some edits to a page late last night, and this morning I have a message from an editor suggesting there may be a conflict of interests. The page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_Corporate_Services

The company is a large UK based insurance company who have rebranded and changed structures in recent years. Prior to my edits, the information displayed for this company was incorrect and I updated content and company details to reflect this new brand restructuring.

I work in the UK financial tech industry, and I have a working knowledge of the company in question, however, I have no direct working relationship with them and I am receiving no financial reward for making these changes. I was made aware of the inconsistencies by a friend who does work with the company, and I was reminded of the inaccuracy from a recent Google Home search, but at no point were the changes requested or commissioned.

To remain 100% transparent, I do a lot of work in the field of entity classification, schema and information retrieval systems (I also contribute to Wikidata) so many of my Wikipedia edits I make are in relation to my observations and interest in these areas.

I have tried to ensure all contributions are 100% impartial and are backed up with publicly available references.

How do people usually handle the COI query?

Thanks in advance

Mattinertia (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Two suggestions, Mattinertia: you could post the same text you placed here (or something like it) on the talk-page of the article, Talk:Vitality Corporate Services; or you could post at the conflict-of-interest noticeboard. You are a lot more likely to get a response if you do the latter. Whichever you choose, you should make clear that you didn't just happen to correct a mistake, but created the article in the first place. You might also like to ping Blythwood, who left the conflict-of-interest enquiry on your talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

is there a place to suggest merges?

Like the "articles for deletion" page? The Verified Cactus 100% 23:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Verified Cactus. See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 00:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing Denied

Hello! I'm new to editing Wikapedia, but not new to using it! I'm working on a page that has had dated and inaccurate information. Perhaps I should have submitted a little at a time until I learned the ropes, but I was on a roll and just continued to research and submit. Most of what I submitted was denied. I don't believe there is a conflict of interest and I certainly am not getting paid. I got good feedback so I think I know where I went wrong. Should I resubmit with appropriate changes a little at a time to see if it's accepted? Should I wait a bit? Should I just not bother? I'm looking forward to your suggestions! Thank you.Biometricsexpert (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Biometricsexpert. You began by adding copyrighted material to Biometrics in schools, which is a major violation of Wikipedia policy. Then, you added material not directly related to the topic, such as content about the early history of fingerprinting and the development of fingerprint scanning. We have separate articles about those topics. Your username strongly implies that you have a financial self-interest in promoting the use of biometrics in schools. This raises the possibility that you have a conflict of interest and policy requires that you disclose any conflict of interest, ideally on your now empty user page. Since your contributions have been contested, you should discuss your plans for the article on its talk page. I suggest that you begin by correcting indisputably inaccurate content, providing references to published reliable sources which verify the accuracy. Scrupulously avoid copyright infringement. This will help show other editors that your future contributions will be positive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Now I know how to proceed.Biometricsexpert (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Medusa wiki page .

I am trying to edit this page. Specifically citation 13 which is fictitious/mistaken. Being an occasional editor I managed to screw it up and somehow embedded previous citation in text. So tried to undo it via view history, edit, save. All appears well; but when I go back to edit function I am in the hell of messed up text. Much appreciate help. Fake citation needs to be changed. Servant5602 (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I've undone your edit. Sometimes when an internet connection has slowed down (the neighbor's kids are downloading movies after school) things I see on the screen are not what is really there. Maybe that's what happened. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeking expert help: I am concern that my draft could be rejected out as belonging to "Fringe theories"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The draft above discusses a grand problem in Biology "The species Problem"... The draft is titled 'Species Branding Hypothesis' and (as I believe) has the solution to this age old problem.

I am concern that my draft could be rejected out as belonging to "Fringe theories"... I need help from Subject Matter Experts who are Biologist dealing with Taxonomy, systematics, Evolutionary biology etc... to validate the draft and add support...

Kind regards, Joseph J.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jayabalan.joseph. The problem I see is not the issue of a fringe theory but rather our strict policy against publishing Original research. When I search Google for "species branding hypothesis", all I find are writings by J. Joseph, who I am assuming is you. In order to have a Wikipedia article about a scientific hypothesis, we need references to significant coverage of the specific topic of the "species branding hypothesis" in peer reviewed scientific publications written by people other than J. Joseph. This is a very strict Wikipedia core content policy, and is not negotiable. In this matter, you do not need help from subject matter experts, but rather from experienced generalist encyclopedia editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jayabalan.joseph. I agree with Cullen, and having looked at the draft, I am quite sure it has no place on Wikipedia and should be deleted. This is not because it lacks merit but because of what Wikipedia is. An encyclopedia is by its nature is a compendium of mainstream knowledge, already the subject of direct and substantive publication out in the world by people unrelated to the subject, and never the place to announce new subjects not yet having that status. That is, if it was 1905 and Albert Einstein had just published "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (later known as Special Relativity), if Wikipedia was around then it would properly have no place for an article on that subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Can you give me the Link to the "Core content policy" you had mentioned.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Cullen already did above, Wikipedia:No original research.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I read it and find that the material should not be "Self Published". But my book was not a self published content it was "Books published by respected publishing houses"

Pl comment back... Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

All our core policies and guidelines function together. That is you publishing your theory, not the world taking note of your theory by people unrelated to you publishing substantive content directly about it. Please read WP:PRIMARY and Wikipedia:Notability. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I received your links... But what you say is Clearly confusing... Can you be clear.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I first looked at this draft on 29 March, when I moved it from the author's sandbox to draft space. I did not at the time notice that the author of the draft was the proponent of the theory. I advised that a review should be requested at WP:WikiProject Biology. I also said that the draft should discuss the comments of other researchers on the hypothesis. Since then, the author has not taken my advice to report on the comments of other researchers. I am beginning to conclude that this is because other researchers have ignored the hypothesis. The hypothesis may be correct anyway, or it may be incorrect, but it isn't mainstream science at this time. I then advised the author to come here. At this point I will caution the author that it isn't useful to insult the Wikipedia community, and have told him to stop posting to my talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Jayabalan.joseph, the policy I cited, available at shortcut WP:OR, says "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

Your own published writings about your hypothesis are primary sources for Wikipedia purposes. Secondary sources would be other scientists discussing your hypothesis in detail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I could not find any book that was published by an academic publisher. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

>>"Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.

You have policies imprinted in your organisation (links endlessly) pointing back and forth; that help you to easily push this draft aside or favour it to be published.

As people of the organisation you have a better grasp of it than me. As an advocate would know the laws and can manipulate them with his client.

In the end it totally depends on how Genuine you are (as an org) which determines your ability to help people or to hastly trash hard worked drafts, as you people did today...

I dont see this work culture at wiki as fruitful or in anyway optimistic. And this is not good for the Free world.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Jayablan.joseph It was explained to you time in, and time again why your draft was unacceptable, both here and on the draft it's self. If Wikipedia were to use unreliable sources, there would be in no point in up-keeping, as any unverified, false material can make it's way into the encyclopedia. This is why these policies and guidelines are in place. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 08:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree but...

>>Secondary sources

No wonder there are companies offering paid services, with teams of people dedicated in generating secondary sources thus complimenting each others...

Remember that if you have a policy of looking at just secondary sources and not content value, then there are scores of people who are waiting to just deceive you... and they sucessfully Have as I know it.

But then with me you are missing out some good content and a genuine user.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Jayabalan.joseph Well, I guess that sucks for us then. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 08:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It certainly does...

and to me too... when you dont publish valued content just because of Falied (& failing) Policies...

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Jayabalan.joseph: I have some comments unrelated to any of the above. I have some interest in the subject matter of the draft.

It seems that the draft was written by someone too close to the subject, who assumes that readers already know what the "Species Branding Hypothesis" says, and is keen to tell them interesting (to him) things about it. The article should start by explaining

• what the hypothesis says. Is it about use of protein markers in detecting speciation events? Or does it propose that the appearance of a new protein causes, or triggers, speciation?
• who proposed the hypothesis, with a link to the published work in which they proposed it.

I have looked at the first six sources cited, and none of them even contains the word "branding". If there are no reliable published sources which discuss the hypothesis, it is a no-hoper for a Wikipedia article. If there are, they should be cited in a way that makes them easier for the reader to find. Maproom (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Maproom: Thanks Maproom, Your suggestions are really valube to me... I will make the changes (within the next 12 hrs) as to

1. what the hypothesis says. Is it about use of protein markers in detecting speciation events? Or does it propose that the appearance of a new protein causes, or triggers, speciation?
2. who proposed the hypothesis, with a link to the published work in which they proposed it.

The hypothesis having been proposed by me, is it Ok to include my name when I am the writer of the draft...?

>> I have looked at the first six sources cited, and none of them even contains the word "branding".

The sixth citation as you would see is linked to my book in Research Gate... If you would go through the book you would find that it deals entirely with the concept of Species Branding and you would find the name through out the entire book (or atleast the acronym SBH)...

As you would understand, one can propose a Hypothesis with the name 'Species Branding Hypothesis'; but requires a more general title for his Book like 'Rethinking Evolution'. I hope you understand...

PS: The first citation points to the PhD thesis published by the University, and it was the very first publication that contains the Hypothesis... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayabalan.joseph (talk • contribs) 11:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"PhD thesis published by the University" - Which is the standard practice for every PhD thesis and does not mean anything with regards to notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Jayabalan.joseph, if this theory had been published in reputable scientific journals and those publications had in their turn been cited in other articles in reputable journals by other, independent researchers, this search would give us a measure of the number of those citations, from which we could evaluate whether or not the theory is notable (here's a similar search for a notable hypothesis for comparison). Unfortunately the search for your theory yields no results at all at the moment; there's really very little point in trying to make a Wikipedia article about it until that changes substantially. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers::

>>if this theory had been published in reputable scientific journals and those publications had in their turn been cited in other articles in reputable journals by other, independent researchers

Yes I agree and to publish in those reputed scientific journals needs money and what if you don't have that...?

Further more you are solving a complex (cognitively demanding) problem that has existed for very long (The Species Problem)... And you would need to explain the hypothesis step by step while offering the solution to the cognitively complex problem, and you need at least a book to do that...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PKGEYHO

https://www.amazon.co.uk/RETHINKING-Evolution-J-Joseph-Ph-D-ebook/dp/B01FW9R0M4

More than 5000 copies have been downloaded... I can provide screen shots of the download graphs if there is some way I could upload pictures to talk pages...

PS: The articles below could give you some sense of the cognitive Complexity of the Species Problem: http://cogprints.org/9956/1/Bartlett_The%20Species%20Problem%20and%20Its%20Logic.pdf http://www.reed.edu/biology/professors/srenn/pages/teaching/2007_syllabus/2007_readings/a4_Hey_2001.pdf

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jayabalan.joseph: This is getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Your self published book is useless for showing notability. Please stop wasting the time of other editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

NeilN::When there is a policy that permits to publish "Books published by respected publishing houses"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

If you don't have the time to spend/waste you may refrain from replying, but pl don't disrupt other editors from voicing their opinions...

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jayabalan.joseph: You're confusing the publisher (you) with the seller (Amazon). Amazon would sell my weekly grocery lists if I published them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spam on the talk page for Gulp.js?

The current content of the talk page for Gulp.js looks like (internal) spam to me (it has nothing to do with the actual content of Gulp.js). Where is the appropriate place to report this? --Mortense (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mortense. I recommend that you discuss your concerns with The Transhumanist, who added that lengthy invitation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, Mortense, and for this opportunity for clarification (also feel free to contact me anytime about my edits on my talk page — I'm always enthusiastic to cordially address any problems I may have caused, or help with any concerns you may have about the state of the 'pedia on any subject anytime — there's also a cup of tea there, to remind you to join me with a cuppa of your own; everything is better with tea, don't you agree?). The notice mentioned above was posted within the subject scope of the JavaScript WikiProject, and in addition to information relevant to JS in general, includes information pertinent to the Gulp.js article: it informed where to seek collaborators to work on the page if wanted, where to report it if it ever needed attention, where to comment on the state of coverage (of this and other JS articles), and an announcement that "At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely." That template is definitely there, awaiting someone interested in Gulp.js to fill it in. If you need further clarification or assistance, please let me know.   I'm glad to be of service to you and the Wikipedia community, as always, The Transhumanist 06:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Admin powers

How can I become admin ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHARMEO (talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, CHARMEO. Before being nominated as an administrator, editors are required to gain experience of Wikipedia's policies and processes, and of article development. Most current admins had made at least a few thousand edits over the course of several years before they were nominated. There is some advice for editors who aspire to be administrators at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Naming editors

At Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, there have been RfCs and other posts re support or opposition to wording choice. Various claims have been made about the count of those in support or opposition. For sake of counting voices on the different sides of the issue and for that purpose only (and not to invite further discussion), would it be ok to identify editors by name listed by 'support' or 'oppose' in order to obtain a more accurate account? Or would that violate No naming editors? Thank you for your guidance. Humanengr (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr, I'm not sure that I fully understand the issue here, but just to note that Wikipedia:No naming editors is a proposal, not an adopted policy or guideline, created almost four years ago and never edited beyond the page's creation, so it holds very little force. That's not to say that there might not be other policies that might be relevant here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

thx, my concern was whether I had missed any policies or guidelines that address identifying editors in a list of the form of "editor x supported proposal y" or "editor x said such-and-such". Humanengr (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see any such policies. Is there somewhere else I should ask? Humanengr (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr, I would just suggest being careful not to do anything that could be construed as canvassing. Also remember that it's not just about numbers of editors on each "side" of a discussion - see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hollyoaks actor Luke Jerdy

Hi. I just noticed that there isn't an article about actor Luke Jerdy who plays Jesse Donovan in Hollyoaks. I was wondering if an article including his date of birth and age and all of his details could be added please? This might help people find out more about this brilliant actor, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasquith (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Lasquith. I've had a search for sources, and I think that Luke Jerdy meets our notability guidelines for articles. If you want to have a go at writing an article yourself, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Your first article and then starting from Wikipedia:Articles for creation. However, you would need to maintain a neutral point of view in writing such an article for it to be accepted. If you wanted to ask someone else to create the article, you could list it at Wikipedia:Requested articles, although there is a huge backlog there. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hollyoaks might be a better place to find an editor who would be interested in creating an article on a Hollyoaks actor. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new page

Hi, i hav ecreated a new page with the name SUPERGAS, but that page was deleted by you, how can i cretae a page for SUPERGAS Shvenergy (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

What was the page about? Was it the brand owned by SHV Holdings? Maproom (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

There is advice on your talk page about the page that was deleted because it was advertising (not allowed in Wikipedia). There is also a link to the administrator who deleted the page. Dbfirs 08:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

abuse filter

Hi! I'm trying to publish a translation I just did from an article in Portuguese but I keep getting the message "Error: Hit AbuseFilter: Content Translation Edits" - what should I do? Thanks! Louize5 (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Louize5. You should be seeing MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-cx when you get the message. Without being extended confirmed I think you can translate to draft pages with "Draft:" in front of the name, and then submit it with {{subst:Submit}}. Please translate the whole page and don't leave "Ligações externas". Wikipedia languages have different requirements. The current version may be declined without better sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). PrimeHunter (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I need some mayor pages from Wikipedia to get a reference.

I want to edit the last and current mayors of São Paulo, but I need some reference material to do it right. I know there is the portuguese version of these wiki pages, which I will use, but I want to provide as much information I can with reliable english sources, so future readers can get the references properly.

I see Michael Bloomberg is a well-edited one. Is there any other mayors pages that are worth taking as reference? Tetizeraz (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tetizeraz. Here is are ten good articles about mayors: Ken Livingstone, Neil Goldschmidt, Cory Booker, Rahm Emanuel, Richard von Weizsäcker, Gavin Newsom, Richard M. Daley, Samuel Turell Armstrong, José María Caro Martínez Mduvekot (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

why an article has so little information

why does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeny have so little information. Is there really nothing else to add?Laurelpeter122 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure that there's plenty more that could be said about a region larger than Massachusetts. It just needs a volunteer with access to the information, to add it to the article. Maproom (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Company No Longer Exists

Hello, This company no longer exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BA_Merchant_Services&action=history It has become a very different entity, Bank of America Merchant Services, that has no clear link to the wikipedia page for BA Merchant Services. What's the best way to getting a page for Bank of America Merchant Services? Do I attempt to make this obsolete company page an outdated page? Thanks. BColeKid7 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The editor Stevietheman has restored the article BA Merchant Services. Wikipedia should not delete articles just because their subjects are defunct: see Napoleon, Roman Empire, Dinosaur. Maproom (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think BColeKid7 wanted the article deleted, Maproom, but rather renamed. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This should be discussed on Talk:BA Merchant Services. Note that this was reverted because no hard reliable sources were given, and we just don't remove the history of a company in the process of its renaming. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of history when a company changes name or ownership is an issue I've been concerned about for some time. I think the best option is to create a new separate article, and link to it from the article about the former incarnation of the company. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I still don't know via RS that this even happened. But whether a new article is written should depend on whether it's the same company or not. It could be the same company but simply moved to a new location with an altered name. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A search throws up this, which suggests that Bank of America Merchant Services is indeed the correct name. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean RS that shows that BA Merchant Services changed to a new name. BA Merchant Services in Louisville, KY is still showing up in Hoover's and Bloomberg. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Also there's this June 2016 SEC.gov source showing BA Merchant Services in Louisville as a subsidiary of BofA. I think at any rate that there's a question of notability, with the article being tagged that way. Perhaps it should be sent to AfD -- if it's deleted, that would resolve this pretty easily. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Shoud Field Card be deleted

The article Field Card has no references and may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Can it be deleted? if so what is the best way to do it? Rogerx2 (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Rogerx2. There are multiple procedures for deletion, outlined in Wikipedia:Deletion. It is a complex subject that is hard to summarize, but in that particular case, an important point is that the article could maybe be rescued rather than deleted ("if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page"). I added a couple of refs; the topic may not meet the notability threshold, but it seems to be somewhat used around official websites of Connecticut town halls. If you want me to do so, I can nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD for you (meaning a full discussion will take place). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Hello Tigraan Thank you very much for your help. If you think it is useful and that maybe it can be fixed then there is no need to delete it. I will see if I can find any more refs. --Rogerx2 (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk Page accessibility?

How am I supposed to contribute to a certain article's Talk Page? LeslieSP (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse@LeslieSP:The tea house is exactly like a talk page (the only difference is that here you can ask questions about Wikipmedia itself where as in other talk pages you can ask questions on subjects relating to editing of the particular article).To contribute just press the new section tab(just beside the edit source tab) and ask your question just remember to be polite and sign your posts byadding the three tides FORCE RADICAL (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Except it's four tildes, FORCE RADICAL. — Gestrid (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question more specifically, LeslieSP, to contribute to an article talk page, click "Talk" up in the top-right corner when you are viewing the article concerned, and that will take you to the relevant talk page. You can then edit the page, or an individual section of it, from there. You might find Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines helpful here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

New user

Hi this is my first post. Jessoh (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessoh (talk • contribs) 02:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jessoh and welcome to the Teahouse. You are welcome to ask questions here. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Asking editor x for help in understanding editor y

Is this permitted if phrased in neutral language? Or does this violate the intent or spirit of Canvassing, Consensus? Humanengr (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr I don't completely understand what you are referring to but let's see if this helps: if you asked editor x to interpret an edit made by editor y on an article or other venue at editor x's talk page, there is no issue. If you ask editor x to participate, knowing how they react or you nudge them in a certain direction, that is canvassing. Hope that helps!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Humanengr. By far the best person to ask questions intended to help you understand editor y is editor y. And if you feel obligated to discuss editor y with other editors, then please let editor y know. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

How do i be an extended user?

I am new to wikipedia, but how do i be an extended user? ZoriAlexandra08 (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @User:ZoriAlexandra08, To be an extended user, your account must be registered for 30 or more days and made 500 or more edits. This allows you to edit articles that are have extended protection. CubeSats4U 08:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparent error in coord template

Hi all, my first post in the Teahouse. I receive an error related to the coord template in an article up for FA status, screenshot here. Is this a known error and will it be solved? I didn't see this error before, nor on this article nor on any other. If there's something I can do to the specific article Eastern Hills, Bogotá, or if you could refer me to a more specific place for these kind of issues, please let me know and I will act accordingly. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The problem was created by this edit in January, where ndash characters were inserted into 2 of the infobox parameters. I've dealt with it in this correction. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks a lot. I never use those dashes, they were done by one of the reviewers. It seems strange that dashes in completely unrelated to coord templates have an effect on the coord template, but ok. Thanks again for solving the issue! Tisquesusa (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that it may be because Template:Infobox dim is used within that infobox to determine the size of the object. This is passed to geohack to make appropriate map sizes. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Page deleted and I'm not sure why

Hi,

The other day I decided to create a page for the 1971 Carla Thomas album "Love Means..." and for no apparent reason it was reviewed and it has been deleted. Now the link just takes you to the Carla Thomas main page. The album cover I put up through the creative commons wiki was apparently was copyrighted and that had to go - no problem, but I don't understand why the whole page was deleted. I filled in the whole infobox data based on data from the original 1971 record, including an AllMusic review which was footnoted and the full track listing with writers and track lengths. This took me a while, so I'm naturally annoyed.

Thanks!

Jameskparry (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The editor who replaced the article by a redirect to Carla Thomas, Boleyn, gave the edit summary "redirect; doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Edit can be reverted if reliable sources can be added to prove this wrong." I agree with Boleyn. A single reference to a review is something, but not enough to establish the notabilty that is required for a Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, is it possible to source the actual physical album? Or does it need to be an online source? This is where I got all of the information.

Jameskparry (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Demonstrating notability requires coverage in independent sources, Jameskparry. These can be online or offline, but the album itself doesn't contribute to establishing notability - you need to cite some secondary sources that discuss it in some detail. You can probably cite the album sleeve for things like the track listing, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

hendrik kerstens (photographer)

Yesterday I received this message from MDuvekot :

Ways to improve Hendrik Kerstens[edit source] Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Idiaal, thanks for creating Hendrik Kerstens! I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. In its current form, the article reads like advertising copy. Please rewrite to represent a neutral point of view. The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Mduvekot (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This Hendrik Kerstens-page was the first Wiki-page I created all on my own. I plan to add some more Dutch and Belgian artists in due time, so I really want to have this piece first up to standards. It was far more difficult than I thought at first, because everything you mention should have some reference somewhere else. This left all the juicy details out, also changed the tone of voice, but then it was very difficult to make out of it a piece of text that was accessible and easy to read. I did not want it to become too dull or non-inspiring. Can you please have a look and give one example what could be improved ? Or mention to me an 'approved' artist biography, that I could have a look at, to see what MDuvekot exactly means ? Thanks

Idiaal (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Idiaal, first of all my apologies for not being clear. Thanks for asking for clarification. To see some examples of well-written articles, I would suggest looking at featured articles about other artists. Featured articles represent our best work. I know of three featured articles about Dutch artists: Jacob van Ruisdael, Vincent van Gogh and the photographer Jacobus Anthonie Meessen. Mduvekot (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Idiaal. The article in question is Hendrik Kerstens, and it has a lot of problems. Just as an example, the second sentence is "Fascinated by the master paintings of the Dutch Golden Age he photographs his daughter Paula." That is an overtly promotional sentence much more appropriate for a glossy brochure that the photographer might hand out to prosepctive customers than a sentence appropriate for an encyclopedia. Another example is "Over and over again the same starting point – portraying his daughter Paula – but every time ending up with a surprising new result, because of different circumstances, a variety of accessories, and a constant interaction between photographer and sitter. In addition to that Hendrik Kerstens photographs in such a way that the camera seems to be his paintbrush, almost in the same way how the great painters of the Dutch Golden Age, like Rogier van der Weyden, Johannes Verspronck, Rembrandt and Jan van Eyck approached their sitters." That is entirely promotional language and completely unjustified name-dropping. Please read and study the Neutral point of view, and remove every trace of promotional language from that article. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Cullen328 and Mduvekot : Re-reading it now, I now notice it too. Thnx for your clear example. I'll pick it up tonight or tomorrow, I'll again go through the full text, and will first mention my proposed changes here in the Teahouse, to you, if that is fine with you. Because I want to make sure I'm going in the right direction. Or, do you think, is it better to leave it to others to upgrade it(=neutralize) ? Again: thanks !! Idiaal (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A reply goes after the message to which it is replying, so I have moved your message and indented it. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

how to start

How does one make their user page? I want to know everything, from the basics first -Rekt. (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi -Rekt. For a baseline, please see What may I have in my user pages? and What may I not have in my user pages? After that, the Wikipedia:User page design center might be of help. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

-WeSans (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Are articles on the Independent Media Center suitable for reference?

The IMC is a website where people can post their opinions. Is an article on it suitable to cite as a reference on wikipedia or not?PatrickGuinness (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As with other sites that host user-generated content, it would not generally be considered a reliable source. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I agree.PatrickGuinness (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

However, if the people concerned are experts in their subjects, then their articles might be considered reliable sources, PatrickGuinness. They're certainly reliable sources about themselves (e.g. for the claim "Author X published an article on the Independent Media Center site") and could also be sources of opinion if WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Trying to expand/update an article

Hello! Just wanted to get some tips on where to start if I want to expand or update an existing article. Any tools that I can use to search for sources? Any things to keep in mind? This is because this will be my first attempt at doing an expansion. I've read about GA and FA, but those two look far-fetched at this point. Thank you. Teranair (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Teranair, to generate a number of links to relevant search queries, you could transclude the Template:Find sources noticeto the talk page of the article. Add this text:{{Find sources notice}} to the talk page. See Talk:Albert_Camus for an example. Mduvekot (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mduvekot, thanks for the reply. I'll see if I can use that. Teranair (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)