Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 730

Archive 725

←

Archive 728

Archive 729

Archive 730

Archive 731

Archive 732

→

Archive 735

How do I add myself to a category

I am a noted New Zealand female singer, am listed on wikipedia as Tina Cross, singer, however I have just noticed that I am not listed in the the New Zealand female singer category - specifically female pop singer category. How can I be added to this?

Many thanks for your help.

Kind Regards Tina Cross Cross.sullivan (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your enquiry. You do appear to be listed here, under C: [1]. Is this correct? FrankP (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cross.sullivan: The article Tina_Cross is already in the category New Zealand female singers. You can read about how to use categories at WP:CAT. We usually recommend that you don't edit articles about yourself, see WP:COI. RudolfRed (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, now added to Category New Zealand female pop singer, as this is verified by sources in the article. FrankP (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

put "efn cite news" into Harvard style

I just added a sentence to Ruth Crawford Seeger#Family. All the citations in the article are in {{harv}} format, which I am not at all familiar with and do not have the time to learn; later, hopefully, but not now.

Rather than drop the effort entirely or add this cite as the only entry in References, I've made it an efn| cite news, joining the efn that was already there. But it really should go into the Harvard style used throughout the rest of the page, since

Explanatory footnotes or Efn are footnotes which give something more than just a reference (Template:Efn/doc)

Will someone please make it so? And please {{ping}} me in any comment or reply. Thanks. --Thnidu (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, @Thnidu: I'm happy to do this, but just need to check something. Your footnote in fact is "more than just a reference", so I can move the source detail into sources as Robin (2017) but is it important to keep the info that the children "had little knowledge of their mother’s former life as a beacon of American ultramodernism"? FrankP (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, I've just given it a go, I incorporated the footnote detail into the text, thought that seemed to work. Anyway the citation is ok now. If the section can be improved then by all means edit it some more. Thanks for your addition to the article. FrankP (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, FrankP. I'm a bit concerned on two points, though.

• SOURCE
  Subsequent collections of folk arrangements published under Crawford’s name gave her national prominence, and the Seeger clan — which included her children Mike and Peggy and her stepson Pete — became a crucial force in the American folk revival. But the children, who called her “Dio,” had little knowledge of their mother’s former life as a beacon of American ultramodernism.
• ARTICLE
  Their children, including Mike Seeger, Peggy Seeger, Barbara, Penny, and older stepson Pete Seeger, knew their mother as "Dio". Several of the children as musical artists themselves became central to the American folk revival, but they had little knowledge of their mother’s former life as a beacon of American ultramodernism

1: The source credits the [whole] Seeger clan with major influence on the folk revival, but the article only says Several of the children.

2: The last clause is a direct quote from the source. Maybe it's short enough to not require quote attribution.

Again, please {{ping}} me to reply.

--Thnidu (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Understood, you're probably right. It's best if you edit it and not me, because you know the subject matter. I just made my best guess, I was concentrating on the citation format for you. But now you can edit the paragraph how you like. If it's a direct quote (sorry, I should have realised that) then not ok to leave it as article text, either (1) paraphrase it or (2) make it a quotation with the inline reference straight after it. I'll help with finishing it if you want, just ask. Further discussion on the details should probably go to Talk:Ruth Crawford Seeger now. FrankP (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@FrankP: Got it, will do, and thanks again. --Thnidu (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Google Play Store Description

Hi, I am planning to write an article about a mobile game. Am I allowed to use the Google Play Store description of the game as one of my sources?

Thank you.

Peterye2005 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Peterye2005. Thanks for coming to the Teahouse with your question. The answer is a very qualified 'maybe'. First, you will have to ensure that the game or app you want to create an article about actually meets Wikipedia's criteria for "Notability". If you can do that and show it definitely meets the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (software) then, and only then, may you use a limited amount of information from Google Play Store to verify key facts. The problem is that we regard Play Store entries as promotional material and thus a "primary source", which isn't acceptable to prove a product is notable. This is clear stated in that link as follows: "Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content". Does this make sense? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you mean. I will read through the notability guidelines before I start writing my article. Thank you so much your help.

Peterye2005 (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

For entertainment only

A redacted version of a recent discussion, a candidate for some sort of Wiki Darwin Award perhaps?

Hi there. I'm trying to remove the advertisement tag on FizBuz and I've already edited it. If it's not much of a bother, would you be willing to look at it and give me some pointers? Thank you very much. EditorName

Still looks like {{advert}} to me, and also as perhaps failing WP:NBIO. I'll have a look. WP:CANVASSing may sometimes bite you in the ass. Narky Blert (talk)

(47 minutes later) Any further discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FizBuz, to avoid WP:CONTENTFORK. Narky Blert (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

citing

How would you go about citing a musical score? I mean old time printed sheetmusic...music composed by x, words by fx and sung by wx, etc. I've had a look at WP:CT but cant seem to see anything there. Curdle (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Curdle. I am having a hard time thinking of a good reason to cite sheetmusic. That would be a primary source, and our articles should be built by summarizing what independent secondary sources say about the topic. That being said, you do not need to use standardized citation templates. You can just include comprehensive bibliographic information within the opening and closing ref tags. Templates mostly serve to prompt you to enter the common types of bibliographic information for common types of reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:2600:1:9200:50F8:15E4:CE2:1BE7:B5EF

I am trying to leave a level 3 vandalism message on this Ip's talk page. However after Clue Bot NG left a level 2 message It did not show but it saved the same thing is happening to me. How do I fix this? Thegooduser Let's Chat 02:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to remove the unterminated comment tag (<!--) which you included at the end of your first edit to the page. While that is unterminated it prevents the display of any subsequent text. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

edit test — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aigle001 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Now Instead of Clue Bot's Signature it has my signature I did not save the changes yet. But how do I fix this? Thegooduser Let's Chat 02:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've done that for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Why are some drafts flagged for review and other drafts are not?

My students authored some Wikipedia pages, and I've noticed some of them have flag "Review Waiting" (like Draft:Amanda Cox) while others do not (like Draft:Mark Hansen). Is there a reason for that? Is there a way I can add the ones without the flag to the review list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmeliaMN (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi AmeliaMN, welcome to the Teahouse. A draft can be submitted for review by adding {{subst:submit}} to it. Abbygirlrose did so here (the code automatically changes when it's saved). The code hasn't been added to Draft:Mark Hansen. If drafts are created via Wikipedia:Articles for creation then the original edit box automatically gets code which creates a box with a submit button and some advice. I guess your students didn't use that method but I cannot be sure since some users remove the code before saving the page the first time. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this field, but:

1. There are something like 300 new page patrollers and something like 400 editors who review submitted drafts.
2. Well over 500 new articles are added to English Wiki every day. Those volunteer editors also have other priorities (like waking, sleeping, and interacting with their families). Reviewing a new or draft article requires serious work (and is not something I do, because it takes a lot of work, and I do other editorial things). Just give it time. Good articles will get accepted. Narky Blert (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you PrimeHunter and Narky Blert, that's very helpful! I know the queue is long (and I want people to be able to wake, sleep, interact with their families, etc), I just wanted to make sure my students' pages were actually in the queue. AmeliaMN (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at the two drafts, AmeliaMN. My general comment is that both rely far too heavily on primary sources and sources that are not independent of the topic. Independent secondary sources are the backbone of acceptable Wikipedia articles. A more specific comment is that this sentence is a bit jarring to a San Francisco Bay Area resident: "Hansen was born in 1964 in Petaluma, California, where he attended Fremont High School in Sunnyvale, California." It probably takes about three hours to drive from Petaluma to Sunnyvale during rush hour, so I assume that he had moved away from Petaluma before attending high school. Also, the Fremont High School link is to a disambiguation page. Instead, that link should lead to the correct high school. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen³²⁸, I've edited that particular sentence and tried to remove some of the primary sources. I know my students (and I!) are still learning about appropriate sources for Wikipedia, and how to determine notability. Practice makes perfect! AmeliaMN (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

How can I retrieve my deleted version of page?

How can I retrieve my deleted version of page?

Smziqbal 03:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafbwp59 (talk • contribs)

Ask the admin who did the deletion to Userfy it for you. See:WP:USERFY. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft Submission declined

What can I do to make my draft accepted for submission? Could someone please help me?  — Preceding Pinkmittens 11:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC) comment added by Pinkmittens (talk • contribs) 23:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Pinkmittens, welcome to our Teahouse. It's very hard to offer you any advice which hasn't already been given to you when your draft article was rejected. This might sound rude - but I don't mean it to be - you simply need to read it and go through all the links given to you in that rejection, and act upon them. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or self-promotion. So my main advice would be to go and find some independent, reliable newsmedia reporting about this person. If those sources don't exist, then he does not warrant an article here. It's as simple about that. A second piece of advice is to delete every single sentence in that article which cannot be supported by an independent reference (ie, that's not in any way connected with that person). Stuff they've written is of no interest to us whatsoever, and should not be included at all. You need to do these two things before trying to resubmit anything. As a courtesy to all our volunteers, please dont ask the same question at more than one help forum, and please, in future, sign all your posts by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The draft in question is Draft:Khaldoun Aziz Sweis. Nick Moyes gave you very good advice above, Pinkmittens. In addition, I recommend that you read our core content policy, the neutral point of view. Your draft is very far from neutral in tone, and needs a total and radical rewrite to meet that policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

How to search for my own questions here

I cannot figure this out and would appreciate help. deisenbe (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Deisenbe: questions posted here get archived after a few days. Near the top of this page, below the contents box at the right, there's a list of links into recent archive pages. The most recent is to 727. If you click on that, and then search in the archive page for your name, you should find items like this. Maproom (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There isn't any way to search all the Archives with one query? deisenbe (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, just put your username into the archive search box. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Content Removal on BLPs

Hello. I have a quick question. I've noticed a BLP article where someone keeps removing the birth date of the person. This person has been outspoken (on social media) in their crusade to keep their DOB off of their own Wikipedia (despite it being readily available elsewhere online). Their DOB has been added and removed back and forth several times. What is the policy/guideline regarding this? Having someone decide what factual information they do and don't want to appear about themselves seems... un-encyclopedic (for a lack of a better word). Landonrules (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Landonrules: Don't engage in an edit war. Some sources such as IMDB are not acceptable, because they have user generated content. Is the date published in a reliable source? Discuss this on the article's talk page and if you can't get consensus, follow the guidance at WP:DR RudolfRed (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: I for sure know not to engage in editing wars. I've actually never edited it myself, just watched it get torn back and forth.Landonrules (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Landonrules, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources speaks about this. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thank you. I will take a look. Landonrules (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What's the article? Ravenswing 01:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: This one - Ingrid Michaelson Some edits can be found here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Then she talks about editing herself on her Twitter. https://twitter.com/ingridmusic/status/967644280289308672 and https://twitter.com/ingridmusic/status/967687504227790849. How does this also not scream WP:CENSOR? Landonrules (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Landonrules: - well, this IS a BLP article, and as such, any challenged statement is liable to be removed at once if not properly sourced. Reading over the information available, I agree that far from being someone who shuns publicity, Michaelson is an entertainer who willingly puts herself in the public eye, and as such she or her fans shouldn't have the ability to censor sourced important facts from her article, just because she's got a bee in her bonnet about people knowing her age. But the key element is "sourced." As long as dates without solid sources are posted, they're going to be reverted. Ravenswing 04:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Got it. I have the dates with solid sources, but the page was semi-protected shortly after asking about it here. I'm unable to add the information, but will do so once I'm able to. Thank you for your help, I learned quite a few new things. Landonrules (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is the relevant language from one of our most important policies governing biographies of living people: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." This policy is mandatory and not negotiable. Please be aware, Landonrules, that neither a Google Knowledge Graph nor IMDb are reliable sources, and we now know that the subject objects. So, unless you can find multiple reliable sources of the highest quality that have published her date of birth, please drop this subject and move on. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I indeed have reliable sources, but as mentioned above, cannot add them due to the page now being semi-protected. Landonrules (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You can use an edit request template on the article's talk page - X201 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

how do i change the look of my account name in the talk pages such as this page

I want to know how to do this so that i can personalize my account CanadiaNinja (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

i know i am commenting on my own question but i have noticed that some people have a highlight and/or colored letters and i am wondering if anyone can have it or if it is for specific users? CanadiaNinja (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey CanadiaNinja. Those are customized signatures, and for more information on how to change yours, see our tutorial here. GMG^talk 17:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@CanadiaNinja: Click on "Preferences" up at the top of the page on desktop. Go to "Signature", and type in your preferred signature. If you are altering the color, use a format like this - <span style="color:red">Place text here</span> and click the link which treats the signature as wiki markup to format correctly. Hope this helps, and feel free to reply for assistance. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't click on the link to treat the signature as wiki markup unless you have the correct markup to give links to satisfy WP:SIGLINK. Many editors try to customise their signature but haven't read the instructions at WP:CUSTOMSIG carefully and by ticking the preference to treat the signature as wiki markup they end up without links and thus violate WP:SIGLINK. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Can you send me a link with highlight and text colors please thanks CanadiaNinja (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Can u also send me the template for a signature as i am not good with script codes

CanadiaNinja (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@CanadiaNinja: Please detail what exactly you would like your signature to look like, and I will set it up for you. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a test for my signature CanadiaNinja (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

CanadiaNinja (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

CanadiaNinja (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

CanadiaNinja (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

How do you save the signature so that other people see it when editing it CanadiaNinja (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the signature that i want/ dark red user name/bright red user talk CanadiaNinja (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

CanadiaNinja

Thanks for the signature it is very much appreciated (talk)

please ignore the how to save question as i found the button

CanadiaNinja talk 17:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@CanadiaNinja: you are welcome to ask questions here at the Teahouse, but if you want to experiment, posting to see what your signature looks like for instance, please use your sandbox. You'll find it at User:CanadiaNinja/sandbox. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 17:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixing "please add full citations" rejection

Hi! My page of Blair Aldridge Ruble "Draft:Blair Aldridge Ruble" was rejected for "please add full citations" Are they saying that the References section needs to have additional details or there are problems in the body of the copy. The bio information comes directly from Blair. I am at a loss as to how to move forward with getting this corrected so that it can be published. I would appreciate any help you can give me. Noreen Banks2601:C8:4101:1E6C:9568:19ED:8F67:4F5E (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

My guess is that what the reviewer was looking for was fuller information on each reference to enable future reviewers and readers to verify the source. It would help if you were to fill in relevant information in a template such as {{cite web}} or {{cite book}}, for example an ISBN is helpful where a book is used as a reference. In asking a question it is helful if you give a wikilink to the page in question, in this case Draft:Blair Aldridge Ruble. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Are portals dead?

Greetings, for the second time now (different articles & different editors) my edit adding "Subject bar" was reverted with comments that Portals are dead and have no importance for the article anyway. When I check "Template:Subject bar" it says nothing about not using portal. Wondering if "dead" is just someone's opinion and not a consensus? Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, JoeHebda it's just someone's opinion, though my gut tells me they are not alone. Whether or not an article should link to any portals or a specific one is ultimately a question of local consensus. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"Dominion" movie-2016? "Dominion" documentary-2018

While looking for information on the upcoming Australian documentary "Dominion" I came across an error on the "Dominion" movie page. Two different dates of release are listed (2016 and 2018). This will perhaps cause confusion for readers as the documentary has not yet been released (as of February 2018).174.25.80.93 (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I will fix it for you CanadiaNinja (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

i have looked and i could not find the article can you send me the link or check if you made a mistake CanadiaNinja (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Article is Dominion (2016 film). No idea what the correct date should actually be. The more recent sources used on the article don't specify. GMG^talk 17:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link

CanadiaNinja talk 17:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I also fixed the article although it did not change the title. Can someone change the title or tell me how to save changes to the title of the article Thanks CanadiaNinja talk 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems like the movie that the article is about was released in 2016. There is an upcoming Australian documentary called Dominion, but that is different. Currently if you search "Dominion", the top results all say 2018, but they are all referring to the documentary. A second article would need to be made for it if it meets notability guidelines. Dairy {talk} 22:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft to published

Hi there, I have created a draft article and hit publish, but I'm not sure it's live. Is there a process that it has to go through before that happens?Jtwalker (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jtwalker: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia recently changed the wording of the button you clicked; "Publish" means "Save" and not that your draft was "published". It is saved but not formally part of the encyclopedia. I can shortly add a template to allow you to submit it for review. 331dot (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: That wording change seems real wrongheaded to me. Why on earth was the button label changed to something that it exactly does not mean? Where is the discussion archived, please? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thnidu (talk • contribs)

@Thnidu: As I understand it,(and I warn you I might be a little off here) it was thought by the powers that be that "save changes" was confusing as it suggested to some that it saved what they did but didn't actually post it to Wikipedia. By changing it to "publish" they hope to make it clearer that clicking that button posts whatever is written to Wikipedia. One problem is that most of the instruction literature has not been updated yet. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jtwalker:. I can understand your confusion and frustration at this name change. You are not alone. However, we must live with it. The Wikimedia Foundation made global changes to this on legal advice, basically because even edits made to your sandbox or to a draft article are online, so are actually published somewhere, even if not immediately retrievable by users of the encyclopaedia. Hence Save changes is now Publish changes. The act of converting a draft article into one that is approved and indexed in the main body of Wikipedia is a different form of publishing. You can read the discussion about it here on English Wikipedia and especially here on Wikimedia. The key rationale given by WMF is as follows: The main reason for this change is to avoid confusion for new editors. Repeated user research studies with new editors have shown that some new editors believed that “Save page” would save a private copy of a new page in their accounts, rather than permanently publishing their changes on the web. It is important for this part of the user interface to be clear, since it is difficult to remove public information after it is published. We believe that the confusion caused by the “Save page” button increases the workload for experienced editors, who have to clean up the information that people unintentionally disclose, and report it to the functionaries and stewards to suppress it. Clarifying what the button does will reduce this problem.

I think a lot of us here and at other help desks (not to mention many new editors) find the change and most especially the failure between WMF and English Wikipedia to coordinate the implementation of these changes with updating help pages quite frustrating. I believe we've now managed to update virtually all the help pages (with the except of those that transclude templates, so the blue button colour has not yet been fully implemented in some help pages, even if the wording has) So, should ANYBODY encounter ANY main help or guidance pages on English Wikipedia that still use the term "save changes" or "save page" or has out-of-date images, please ping me with details, or insert the link on my sandbox page where I'm trying to resolve the few outstanding issues that still remain. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)  

@Nick Moyes and 331dot: Thank you for your explanations. Would it be feasible to add a small info button next to the Publish button (the icon of a lowercase "I" in a serif font, in a circle), which would bring up a brief explanation? I don't mean the reasoning or the history -- the pop-up could have a link for that -- but something like

This "Publish" button will save the page, with your changes. The saved version will not be private; anyone will be able to find and see it.

And if the text is for a draft article, add some newbie-friendly version of your (Nick's) The act of converting a draft article into one that is approved and indexed in the main body of Wikipedia is a different form of publishing. You can read the discussion about it here on English Wikipedia and especially here on Wikimedia.

P.S.: Sorry about not signing my previous comment here. I think that's when my smartphone overheated or something and refused to open Firefox for a while, and by the time it cooled down I had forgotten about it. --Thnidu (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, Thnidu - possibly one for the community to discuss at the village pump someday. I think it's probably worth letting it bed in a bit longer first now we've nearly got all the help pages updated, but I have taken the liberty of adding it to my own personal wishlist of useful changes I'd like to see implemented. Hope that's OK with you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User boxes

Is there a user box for someone who focuses on grammar corrections? because it is hard to promote a high school with just grammar corrections and I need to convince someone that I am NOT on Wikipedia just to promote my high school. Caleb The Wipper (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Caleb The Wipper

@Caleb The Wipper: Hello and welcome. I don't know if there is a specific userbox for that(I might peruse WP:USERBOX for more information) but merely posting an infobox will not convince people that you are doing what the infobox says you are. Anyone can post an infobox that says anything. What matters is what you actually are doing; so, if you want to focus on grammar corrections, I would go and do it first before worrying about a user box. 331dot (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Caleb The Wipper. You might try Template:WikiGnome topicon or Template:User wikipedia/WikiGnome, but, as pointed out by 331dot, adding a userbox is not going convince anyone that you're WP:HERE if the actual edits you're making lead them to believe you're WP:NOTHERE. Basically, Wikipedia editors are assessed by the quality of their editing and how they interact with others. If you find many of your edits being reverted/undone by experienced editors, then perhaps you should take a step back and reassess your work. If you find your user talk pages be filled up with notifications related to your behavior, then perhaps you should take a step back and reassess how you are interacting with others. Eveyone is going to make mistakes when they edit and everyone is going to get frustrated when they edit; how you respond when those things are pointed out to you by others is where problems often happen. The Wikipedia community is going to be willing to cut you some slack and assume good faith when mistakes are made, but it's patience will run out if the same mistakes or same behavior is repeated over and over again despite being advised to be more careful. Please note that this applies to all editors since we are all expected to do our best to edit and act according to Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

How to reference print articles.

I want to document newspaper articles about my subject, but they are all in Wikimedia Commons. These are articles scanned from German and Irish newspapers. I don't know of another way to document these events. I'm not sure what Robert means by "printed reliable sources." The scans don't qualify?

Any help would be appreciated.

Rasadeva (talk) RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marlis_Jermutus Hi Robert, thank you for your review of the proposed page. I've edited the article and will resubmit. The heavy reliance on WikiCommons articles comes from the lack of digital references to events in Germany and Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s.

Some artists have their art on permanent display in museums, some artists have displayed their work in museums for exhibitions. Most artists exhibit their work for a period of time in a gallery. The references here reflect that reality.

I wanted to put in something about her notable life, but I have yet to catalog her interviews online. I'm guessing that kind of 3rd party source is acceptable. Thanks again.

Rasadeva (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Rasaveda - Wikimedia Commons is not a reliable source. If there is a lack of digital references to events in Germany and Ireland in the late twentieth century, then printed reliable sources may be used, but not unreliable digital sources. If you have further questions about what sources may be used, or other questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Rasadeva (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rasadeva:, welcome to the Teahouse. The problem here is mainly with how the references are written. The source is the printed newspaper article, not Commons; use Template:Cite news for the purpose. Help:Referencing for beginners has some good info on how to format references. --bonadea contributions talk 07:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Rasadeva. In a case like this, the original newspaper article is the source, and you do not need to mention any scanned versions you used in your research. You can cite the article just like any other newspaper article, being sure to provide as much bibliographic information as possible. Give the full title including subtitle. Give the author's name(s), date of publication and newspaper name. Wikilink to the Wikipedia article about the newspaper, if there is an article. Provide page numbers. Give the city of publication if the city is not part of the newspaper's name. You can also include a one or two sentence quotation from the article that backs up the claim you are referencing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Rasadeva. In addtion to what @Bonadea and Cullen328: pointed out above about referencing, I noticed something else about your draft. You've uploaded quite a number of files to Commons for use in the draft. Some of these file's you've claimed as "own work" and others you've credited to the painter or her studio. There are two possible problems with your uploads: (1)you can only claim things you have actually created yourself as your "own work" and (2) you can only upload things under a free license when the copyright holder has given their explicit consent that it's OK to do so. The original copyright holder is for photos and paintings is generally considered to be photographer who took the photo or the painter who painted the picture. If you are neither, then you cannot claim someone else's work as your own. The original copyright holder's explicit consent is needed because a free license basically gives anyone permission in the world to download the image from Commons and use it for any purpose, including to make money. A free license is also non-revokable one it is granted. For these reasons, Commons needs to be 100% that copyright holder understands and agrees to the terms of the free license. This is usually done by copyright holder emailing Wikimedia OTRS and giving their explicit consent for the files to be released under a free license. Files which cannot be properly verified will be deleted from Commons. Please see your Commons' user talk page for more details. Finally, you also seemed to have uploaded quite a number of newspaper clippings, etc. to Commons under a free license. Unless you are the newspaper reporter who wrote the article or the company who publishes the paper, you shouldn't really being doing this for the same reasons I've given above. You can save people quite a lot of clean up if you do through all of these files and nominate those which you are not the copyright holder for deletion. The easiest way to do this is to go to the file's page, click on "Nimnate for deletion" (look on the left side of your screen) and follow the instructions. It really appears that you do not have a very good grasp of what kind of images Commons accepts and Commons licensing requirements, so it would probably be a good idean to not upload any more images until you do. Mistakes are OK to make, but you've uploaded so many inmages that any further mistakes is may lead to your account being blocked by a Commons administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Help with draft.

Hello. sorry to bother you again but i am not sure how to write about Prestige Economics without sounding promotional.

i am sure the company is eligible because it's the top rated in so many categories but i dont know how to write that in its wiki page and i dont want to risk my draft getting delete.

please help.

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

SMJ 06:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sarah312x. Your draft is very brief and poorly referenced. The way to prevent it from being deleted is to expand it properly and add higher quality references. Please read Your first article for plenty of good advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

thank you for replying. if you look at the history of the page, you can see that i had a lot of information on it but decided to delete it because i wa sscared it would get deleted after being rejected twice. is there a way to collaborate with someone on the page or ask for guidance? SMJ 08:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x (talk • contribs)

You were right to delete that information, as it wasn't about the company. It was about statements made by members and employees of the company. Wikipedia is concerned only with what independent sources have said about the subjects of its articles. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Chain of References?

I am curious the rule for the Chain of Reference for factual information for articles herein. This cannot simply be a huge repository of the opinions of people on various subjects. What constitutes the Chain of References before an article can be considered to be factual reference material?SocraTex (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the guidance on identifying reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SocraTex. We have three core content policies, Verifiability, the , and no original research. These policies are interrelated, and, taken together, give us guidance in writing content which is appropriate for the encyclopedia. Also worth reading are the Five Pillars, which can be considered the founding principles of Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will read the material you have suggested before I dare touch any subject matter here. I may be old-fashioned, but I would take any editing or additions, deletions, etc. to any material herein very seriously since so many people rely on this Encyclopedia. But that begs another question. I notice the italicized statement indicating Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I must ask- where is the other half of that statement? Who is validating the material herein to be verifiable or is that a matter of Honor?SocraTex (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You must read these links, SocraTex, and think about them carefully. The main policies and guidelines link together into a philosophical whole. "Validating the material" is accomplished through references to reliable, independent sources, as David Biddulph explained above. That is directly related to verifiability. Our articles should summarize what those reliable sources say, without original interpretation by Wikipedia editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Editors just like us, SocraTex. Tens of thousands of editors look over both new and old articles, and we're the ones who look up the references listed in an article to gauge whether it's a sound reference or not. Obviously we're not going to catch every mistake or omission in several million articles, but we do our best. Ravenswing 07:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

So yes, basically, its cumulative. You edit and add a citation. Someone else may disagree, revert what you added, and leave an Edit summary as to why. If you disagree with that person's reasons you can take it up in the Talk portion of the article. I suggest you look at a 'hot' topic such as autism, looking at the article, View history, and Talk, to get an idea of the process. On the flip side, obscure topics that require expert knowledge may accumulate content that is in error. And that persists. The only hope is that someone comes along who has the time and the will to improve the article. Last note for now - on the Talk page, articles are rated from Stub up to GA and FA. Quality of references factors into that. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Help to edit my first article

Hi guys ,, I done my first article in my sand box .. could u see it and tell my edits ? I am not sure about putting references correctly ..thx for ur help Zara st (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Convenience link: User:Zara st/sandbox. Maproom (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zara st: All articles on Wikipedia must be your own original work, not copied from somewhere else. Your article was identified as a copy of a copyright site at https://idesignawards.com/directory_users/user/Mahdi+Fakhimi. That is not acceptable, so your article has been flagged for deletion. You are very welcome to create articles, but please respect the copyright of others and only contribute your own material. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: yes your right but it just for my first paragraph,and i wrote on my own for other paragraphs...could i edit it to prevent deleting ? Zara st (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zara st: Yes, you did just the right thing by posting this information to the article's Talk page. And Theroadislong, who originally identified the copyright violation, has now removed the deletion flag. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zara st: your sandbox is pretty much identical to the sandbox page that User:Mohammad Mahdi Fakhimi asked about here at the Teahouse yesterday (that page was also deleted so I don't know if it was exactly the same, but very similar). Are you the same person who created a new user name? If so, please post a note on your user page mentioning that you had another user account previously, and keep in mind that you should use only one account to edit (there are very few exceptions to that rule). The advice given here is still true. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Image for David Meade (author)

I just went to the article Emma Gonzalez and I found this image of her uploaded on Facebook. Is there any image of David Meade on Facebook that has the same license as the Emma Gonzalez photo? If so, I’d like to use it for Wikipedia on his article. —LovelyGirl7 talk 13:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey LovelyGirl7 (also pinging The lorax). Umm... that's not the most slam dunk evidence of permission I've ever seen. It really should indicate who took the photo, as for example this image I uploaded yesterday does. Just because it was uploaded on an official Facebook page doesn't mean it was necessarily taken by a US Federal Government employee in the course of their duties. If this happened to just be taken by someone in the room (hey, do you mind taking a picture with my phone?) then this kind of rationale wouldn't really apply. GMG^talk 13:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Repinging LovelyGirl7. GMG^talk 13:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Can i add information about the newly hosted news channel to wikipedia?

Can i add information about the newly hosted news channel to wikipedia.The news channel covers world news and update it in minutes ROBIN CARMEL (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey ROBIN. In order to qualify for an article, subjects need to meet our standards for notability, which usually means having sustained in-depth coverage in published sources that meet our standards for reliability, usually things like magazines, newspapers and books, and excluding things like blogs, official websites or press releases. If the channel is very new, then it may be likely that it has not yet had enough time to receive this type of coverage, and we would need to wait until it does so that we have sources to write an article with. GMG^talk 14:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

My Draft Article is considered for Deletion

I had created a Draft Article of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shaadi_Teri_Bajayenge_Hum_Band and its a Bollywood Movie which is about to release in the coming month. How do I save it from Deletion? GTX45Ninja (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It hasn't been nominated for deletion, GTX45Ninja, what makes you think that? It was reviewed and declined by Dial911, because we don't include articles on upcoming films unless they are particularly notable. I suggest you take their advice and wait until the film is released. When it is, you can add more sources and resubmit it for review by clicking the button in the red box at the top of your draft. And please don't remove the box, it is part of the AfC process. – Joe (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd also tack on that you cannot use non-free media on drafts, and cannot upload them to commons at all. When the draft is published, file a request at WP:FFU and I'll help you re-upload the image properly. GMG^talk 13:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Joe Roe and GreenMeansGo for helping this user. Dial911 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

my second account question

Hi! I am posting a second question regarding how on other peoples pages they have special boxes showing what they like and follow Can anyone tell me how to make these and what they are Thanks CanadiaNinja talk 18:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess that you are talking about userboxes. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note also that yellow on white makes that part of your signature almost unreadable. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi CanadiaNinja, are you involved with the Ninja TV Show?Kimberlytoday (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No I do not know what that is CanadiaNinja 14:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

you can see why i made it on my page

CanadiaNinja 14:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I need some help with Wikipedia

I would much appreciate some help and assistance in understanding how to set up an article on Wikipedia, how to engage with others on Wikipedia articles and edit same 185.33.209.100 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey anon. A good place to start may be to review our tutorial on writing your first article, and consider registering an account so that you can take our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. GMG^talk 15:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

publishing an article

I've written a wikipedia page, I have edited it and now I'd like to publish it for review. What do I do? 2600:8802:4401:6B00:A4E9:2392:D986:1DA0 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon. We can certainly show you how to submit your work for our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. Unfortunately, you appear to be editing from an dynamic IP, meaning that there isn't any indication of what it is you've been working on, and I'm afraid you'll have to provide us with a link. GMG^talk 15:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

why do your contributers keep falsfying her information on wikipedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_De_Roide

why do your contributors keep falsifying her information? she got divorced and left her spouse in real life after several domestic violence and abuse claim's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_De_Roide71.191.90.60 (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey anon. Because of Wikipedia's requirement that content must be verifiable for readers, it's not enough for information to simply be true. Rather, information has to be cited to sources that meet our standards for reliability. For more information on how to cite these sources in the article, you may want to check our our tutorial on referencing for beginners, and consider discussing the changes on the article's talk page. GMG^talk 15:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Published Artist Page

when are you guys going to make a Wikipedia page for this published Artist ACE KING-9? from online sites www.youtube.com/USER/ACEK9MM/VIDEOS 71.191.90.60 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey anon. In order to qualify for an article, a subject needs to have sustained in-depth coverage in sources that meet our standards for reliability, usually things like newspapers, magazines and books, and excluding official websites, blogs, and self-published Youtube videos. If the subject has received this type of coverage, then they may be appropriate for their own article, but if they have not, then we will need to wait until they have. GMG^talk 15:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Page with most references

Im curious to see, what page has the most references? Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There isn't an automated way to count it, but International recognition of Kosovo is the example that's usually given. There's a natural limit to the number of references an article can have, since eventually you hit the template limit. ‑ Iridescent 17:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

A question

What are bots and why would someone create one — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadiaNinja (talk • contribs) 17:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't ask the same question in multiple places. It is a waste of a volunteer's time to answer a question if it has already been answered elsewhere. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CanadiaNinja A “bot” is a common nickname for an automated tool that carries out repetitive and mundane tasks on Wikipedia see WP:BOTS. But as you have just been told, please don’t ask questions in multiple places, you have asked at the help desk and on your user talk page too. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair use BLP pictures

Would someone be able to link me to a specific policy regarding fair use images in a BLP infobox? I have had an editor revert in the past saying that fair use cannot be used for BLP, but they did not provide a specific source for their reverting. I want to be sure of this policy before I do the same for someone else. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 17:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The very first line of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. Unless there's a specific reason why it has to be a non-free image—generally when specifically discussing someone's appearance at a particular point—it's unreasonable to claim that an image of a living person is non-replaceable, since you could always go and take a new one. ‑ Iridescent 17:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, in order for a non-free image to be used in an article, and I quote, "no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (bold mine). Anyone could create a free image of a living, notable person today by taking a picture of them and lisencing that picture to be compatable with Wikipedia's policies. Because of that, copyrighted images of living people are rarely acceptable at Wikipedia for the sole purpose of showing what they look like. That policy is expanded on explicitly at the guideline page Wikipedia:Non-free content, which notes that "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image" and are generally unacceptable at Wikipedia. This is a very long-standing policy; it's been here in substantially this form, for the 12 years that I have been at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 17:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Just as a tangential point: in spite of Jayron32's excellent explanation of the NFCC policy for LP (i.e. "if the photograph has nothing unique and a new one could just be taken, don't use it"), I believe it has been incorrectly applied as "no non-free photographs of living people" in at least one case: North Korea officials. I would argue it is not reasonable to think that a free photograph of Kim Jong-Un could be created in the foreseeable future, and hence one of the numerous DRPK photographs of him could be used under NFCC. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Someone actually made a photorealistic sketch of him. The image in that article is a free one. That's one great benefit of being very strict about nonfree content; people can be motivated to get very creative indeed on finding or creating free media so that they have something to use. If they can just slap in a nonfree and stick a rationale template on it, that doesn't happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Notifications

Users get notifications when they are reverted or mentioned by others. Do users get notifications when other users take a look at their contributions or userpages/talkpages? E.g. "X user has viewed your userpage/contributions." If so, is this also include ips? 46.236.136.33 (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There are no such notifications. It's private which pages you view. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, anonymous IP user.

In short, no. Notifications are tied to changes made. Just viewing a page does not change it, hence never generates a notification. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It's worth adding that you can get a tally of how many visits per day any given page receives. You can't see who they are or where they come from though. To see this summary information, hit the View History tab, then look for the 'Page View Statistics' link. From memory, I think this can be set to report back as far as mid-2015, and you can also compare visits counts with other pages on the same chart. Hope this might be of some interest. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)