Wikipedia:Teahouse

GreenMeansGo, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Question

I just signed up for suggest bot but it only gave me articles that are already in existence. How do I get suggestions for articles that don't exist yet cause I really like to do new articles😊 Only one interested in China related suggestions though.Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Notgoingtotellyou Welcome to Teahouse. There is no bot to suggest non existent articles. You have to think according to your interest to create new articles. Still you can read Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Requested articles to see requests of some new articles. Also there are some stubs articles in Category:China stubs, you can expand those. Cheers.--Human3015 ^{It will rain}  16:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Question!

Excuse Me, Can I make my fictional episode guide now? I've been waiting all morning to make one!TheBetterAccount2016 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In view of your hyperactivity here in creating multiple accounts and asking lots of questions, it might be wise to give Wikipedia a rest until you are older and able to make constructive edits. Meanwhile, your fake article is still here if you wish to copy it to your own webspace. You could create your own Wiki where you could add whatever you wish. Dbfirs 16:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Combine IP account with new account?

For several years I made contributions just through my IP address, without an actual Wiki account. Today I've created an account and now have no contributions...is there a way I can combine my contributions made while just using the IP address with my new account? Apspowerengineer (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Apspowerengineer, welcome to Teahouse and congrats for creating an account. But there is no way to combine contributions of two users. You can write on your user page that "I was editing since several years via IP". But it will better to not disclose your IP address. There is no need of combining contributions, you can have fresh start and you can use your past experience while editing via this account. Have happy editing. Cheers.--Human3015 ^{It will rain}  16:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

My Redemption

Hi, I am the same user of American Weekend Pizza 2013, Gifted Teen, and Geno Robinson Wood. I'm sorry for what I did before and if you can find it somewhere forgive me, I promise I wont reopen List of Triton Henderson episodes for eternity. I am trying to make a change in Wikipedia. A brighter future on Wikipedia, I'm just an avarage person on Wikipedia. Please give me a second chance with account and my episode guide. I still want to make one. I stil want an acconut. I'll be the better user. I can change on Wikipedia. And god knows that!!! Now can I make my fictional episode guide now? ;DTheBetterAccount2016 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

New pages created by the person it is about?

Good afternoon, What is the stance on New Pages most likely created by the person the page is about? What do we do about it. I have seen one before that was obviously created by a bored school kid, and reported it for deletion. But I have just seen one by an actor, that was also not in English. Do we report it for deletion, or is there somewhere we can report it, for a more seasoned editor can look at it?, and decide if it is beneficial to Wikipedia? Cheers Lbmarshall (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete

How can I delete my former accounts? such as AmericanWeekwendPizza 2013, Gifted Teen, and GenoRobinsonWood, 2602:306:3A5D:D950:D058:3859:AD9E:7374 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't delete former accounts, but you can put a note on the user page that the account is no longer in use. Why do you keep creating new accounts? Dbfirs 15:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q9: Notice all Facts!!!

And y'all users will always be cool with me. Y'all always be cool. Wikipedia Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But the problem is the episode guide problem. So i love wikipeida.2602:306:3A5D:D950:D058:3859:AD9E:7374 (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The fake episode guide List of Triton Henderson episodes should never have been created. Dbfirs 15:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q8: Forget It Let Me TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!!

First of all, why would users be watching my sandbox? It's for my personal use! Second, Can I please make my fictonal episode guide? Third, Will I be "breaking the law" when I create the fictional episode guide? I gonna make it no matter what! It is my sandbox for crying out loud!! I said it was fictional, so it's fictional. Why are the people making a stinking big deal out of it?! Like I said it is my sandbox! And y'all should read that it says the information is fictional. So It turns out that the info is fictional!! Why can't y'all notice that? I know wikipeida is open and all of that, but why can't i create my fictional episode guide? I'm not breaking no law when I'm just creating an episode guide which is infact "FICTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!" So, please. I beg you please. Can I make my fictional episode guide nnow?!!!AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You made your page here then deleted it, but we are puzzled by the purpose. If you just want webspace, then this is the wrong place for you. If you want to start making useful contributions, then you are welcome to have just one account. Dbfirs 15:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q7:User Talk

Yes, David. I am the same user. I keep getting locked out of my account :( AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q6: Extra

Can I please make my fictional episode guide now? I always wanted to make one since July 2015. I promise I wont break the law. It's only on my sandbox! Please? can I make one?AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You haven't answered the questions which you were asked at #Q5: Final Bonus. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

About Youtube video links

When it is it ok to add a link to a Youtube video? I have seen such links here and there.

For now, I have added one to the Money burning to show what Serge Gainsbourg did and where he explains his motives.

The trouble with Youtube is that anyone can upload content but this does appear to be the original footage.

The subject is current as an arts student in the UK is apparently planning to burn money this year. I might add some information about this.

-- JamesPoulson (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was illegal to burn money here in the UK!DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Students and teachers

Wikipedia is not a school/university. There are course online volunteers. They have students. There are student accounts also. Very strange. Do they get admission and also prepare for examination? Marvel Hero (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Marvel Hero. I believe the things you have noticed are part of the Wikipedia:Education program. Wikipedia is not a school/university, but provides resources to help educators/students use and effectively edit Wikipedia as part of education courses. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Marvel Hero and Welcome to the Teahouse! A good overview about Wikipedia:School and university projects which may be helpful. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  13:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Two persons with same name confusion

Hi, I am considering a WP article on a notable composer/record producer who has had major chart hits (including Billboard) since the 1970s. However, I have discovered in 2001 another musician with the same name made an instrumental album, which also had some success. On search the only thing I can see is that the other person had no references for any instrumental or other recordings before 2001. To avoid confusion between the two people, how do I resolve this tricky issue? Regards, Alfshire Alfshire 11:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Alfshire. This is usually handled using disambiguation. Do not know as of yet how the intermediary page is done but someone here should be able to walk you through the steps. --JamesPoulson (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Alfshire, and welcome to the Teahouse. This happens all the time, and the approach is described in Wikipedia:Article titles#Disambiguation. Then first consideration is to name each article uniquely. This is normally done either by giving each a qualifier in parentheses (but if one is most notable then that one may be left plain, without a qualifier), or sometimes by adding a middle name if that is more recognizable. Then we need to facilitate readers finding their way to the right article, and basically that hinges on the number of people who share the name. If there are only two or three, then at the top of each article a Hatnote is used to redirect readers who might have come to the wrong page - for an example, see Brian Schmidt. If there are more than about four people with that name, a separate disambiguation page is set up to direct the reader: for example, see William Smith. So in your case, your new article might be called something like "Lorem Ipsum (composer)". I hope that makes sense; I seem to be having trouble putting it into words clearly so please do look at the examples and I hope they will be clear. Otherwise, please come back and ask...--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice everyone, Alfshire. Alfshire 15:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

referencs dont show subjects notibility

Hi,

I am a beginner to Wikipedia, and working on my page in the draftspace. It has been declined as the references don't show the subjects notability.

I have read the guidelines but still confused as to were I am going wrong. Please can you clarify if this refers to all the references listed and exactly were I am still making the error.

Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated Melissatanya (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link:- Draft:Exact Abacus - Arjayay (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding club crest to an info box

Hello Teahouse,

I am beginner to wikipedia. I am working on a page in my sandbox, it is for our football club, Inter Taipei FC. I had uploaded the logo to go into the info box and couldn't get the correct size. After getting it right I tried to upload the final image and got the response, that the image already exists but was deleted. I am now unable to re-upload the image. Why?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Lion Harley (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

On your talk page on Wikimedia Commons, you will see a warning message explaining that the image was deleted because it was believed to be subject to copyright, and no-one had provided a copyright waiver. The message includes links described what you might be able to do about it. Maproom (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Images like this are called "non-free" images, and they go through quite a different process than normal "free" images, which are released for anybody to use. "Non-free" images are permitted on English Wikipedia (NOT Wikimedia Commons) under certain restrictive conditions. The full details are at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images, but by far the easiest way to do it is to use the wizard. Basically: start with a low-resolution image (certainly under 100,000 pixels, preferably well under), and use the "Upload file" link on the left hand side of English Wikipedia to upload the file. When asked, specify that it is a non-free image of type "Team and corporate logos", i.e. it is the logo used to identify the subject of the article. It will ask you to justify how the use of the image will be minimized: state that it will be used only once at the top of the article and it is low resolution (111 x 222 pixels). (Substitute the actual size of your image there!) The questions may seem repetitive or unimportant to you, but if you treat them seriously your image will have a far better chance of surviving. Hope that makes sense; let me know if you have problems.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Increasing the sizes of images on wikipedia

Hi,

Does anyone know how to increase the size of an image on a wiki page? After uploading an image, it displays quite small on the page, and I don't understand exactly how I can go about increasing its size.

Thanks in advance!

Finivino1000 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have enlarged one of the images at Sula Vineyards for you, so that you can see how to do it. Maproom (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Finivino1000. Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images for various methods of increasing image size. Keep in mind that readers can click on an image to see a larger version. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I finally figured it out!

Finivino1000 (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Finivino1000
Please note that WP:IMAGESIZE specifically states:-
"Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width."
The thumb parameter allows readers to choose the image size they want, not have a size forced on them. - Arjayay (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q5: Final Bonus

Am I'm allowed to create a new fictional episode guide after deleting the recent one?AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Our purpose here on Wikipedia is to create and improve encyclopedia articles, not fictional content. Are you planning to work on encyclopedia articles, AmericanWeekendPizza2013? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you the same editor as User:TheFinaleAccount3? We are puzzled about the purpose of your edits. If you are just practising the format of tables with the intention of doing genuine edits to real articles, then that's fine. If you think that Wikipedia pages (even in your own sandbox) are a form of free webhosting, then you are mistaken, and we regret to advise you that new fictional guides without any constructive purpose are likely to be deleted as fake articles. Dbfirs 07:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q4: Bonus Question

So The Fictional Episode Guide I have on my sandbox, Can I keep that without doing something wrong on wikipedia I'm a teen and i trying to make an episode guide on my sandbox. So I still have it. I'm only worried about Who are the episodes directed by and who are the episodes written by and who are the episodes viewed by because i'm afraid i might be breaking the law. But it is fictional. You Know what?!! let's do a role call: Directed by: Fictional- Written by: Fictional- Viewers: Fictional- Title: Fictional- Summary: Fictional. So it turns out to be that all info on my fictional episode guide aren't real. So can i put what i currently have on there? I worked too hard on this. AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. The sockmaster is indefinitely blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q3 Last Question (Part IV/Final Part)

What is the content?AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello AmericanWeekendPizza2013. Your pattern of editing seems very similar to GiftedTeen2014. Are you possibly the same person? If so, please be aware that each user should in general use only one account, with very limited exceptions for security reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello AmericanWeekendPizza2013. I am going to guess that this question is a continuation of "Q3 Last Question (Part III)" below. (A note for next time: it would be easier if you had just continued that discussion rather than starting this new thread with no context, but I will make that assumption for now.) So the question is about how to blank the content of your sandbox. The steps to blank the page are:

1. Open your sandbox (User:AmericanWeekendPizza2013/sandbox)
2. Click the "Edit" tab, near the top right corner (if using a PC; on a mobile device click the icon that looks like a kind of pencil)
3. Select everything in the edit window underneath "<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->", and delete it all
4. Save your changes.

That's it; the page should now be blank.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Energy (Rock Band)

I reviewed Draft: Energy (Rock Band) and declined it, saying that it did not appear that anything had been added to the draft after its last decline by User:RadioFan. User: Thablaqkgoat then posted the following inquiry to my talk page: “So I had made a minor change before resubmitting it, removing a videography section to the page as the sources were posted to YouTube by the band itself. That was the difference between the first time it was submitted and the time you reviewed it. But I'm still trying to understand how my sources aren't "reliable." I had this discussion with the previous reviewer and I got the impression that he was the wrong person for this particular type of artist, as he did not understand reputability within this genre. So my question is: how exactly can my sources not be reliable? They are all varied between multiple sites that are entirely independent of the artist (minus a couple that are there purely for referencing dates and proving existence.) One of them is Alternative Press, which is a well established and reliable print magazine and another is the very well known and reputable IGN. I have found many artists in similar genres with similar notability and they have Wikipedia pages with less sources from similar outlets. Just as well, they are listed or referenced on other pages here and the link redirects to the wrong artist (which I'm in the process of removing those links for accuracy.) I'd just really like to nail down this issue please. Thank you.”

I agree that Alternative Press is a reliable source. The sources in the draft are a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources. Can other experienced editors please advise as to whether the sources are reliable? If other experienced editors think that the sourcing is sufficient, either they or I can accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd really like to understand this a bit better! Thablaqkgoat (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thablaqkgoat. Please read our notability guideline for bands. Most of what I see are basic tour schedules, album release announcements, reprinted press releases, interviews and social media content. These do not establish notability in Wikipedia's terms. We are looking for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, not stuff generated by the band's publicity efforts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Alternative Press item is a very brief tour schedule, of the sort we call a "passing mention". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen. I've been a regular visitor and done a few edits every once and a while but I'm excited to get the hang of everything and become a little bit more involved.

The band had a full page ad in Alternative Press at one point as well, but I'm not sure how I would be able to reference that. So interviews and release announcements, though not posted personally by the bands, are counted as not notable because it is considered promotion by them? I just added a feature article from a Mass. based news website, would that count as independent? Thablaqkgoat (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Advertisements are most certainly not independent coverage, and so they contribute nothing to notability, Thablaqkgoat. It is the notability of the band that we are evaluating, which is the basic threshold for inclusion of an article about this topic in the encyclopedia. As for the sources, we are evaluating whether they are independent and reliable. Nothing generated by the band's PR efforts is independent. Sources need to have professional editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy to be reliable. Sources that simply parrot press releases are not considered reliable. What is the name of the Massachusetts news source? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The publication is Wicked Local. Thablaqkgoat (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q3 Last Question (Part III)

But how can I blank it? AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

By blanking it. By deleting its content. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In order to find help I've just read again the biography for Tomo Milicevic, who is the guitarist of the same band as Stevie Aiello, and I can't understand what is remarkable for him that I could add also for Aiello.

During his career Aiello has made much more then Milicevic but it seems not notable, could I know why? StevieWorldwide (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Q3 Last Question (Part II)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:AmericanWeekendPizza2013/sandbox is making me worried about if they'll delete my sandbox! They can't abolish my sandbox! I need it for testing my editing skills! AmericanWeekendPizza2013 (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

First, it was tagged for speedy deletion because you appear to be testing your editing skills, which appear to be pretty good, by creating fictional articles. That isn't related to the underlying purpose of the improvement of Wikipedia. Second, although anyone can contest a speedy deletion, the removal of a speedy deletion tag by the page's author is disruptive editing. If you want to prevent the deletion of your sandbox, one way to do that would be to blank it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Is Matthew Waterson notable enough to warrant an article?

I was reading the page for The Witness and there was a link to a voice actor, Matthew Waterson. I want to know if I make an article about this person, would it be taken down because they are not notable enough? I've never written an article before but I'm interested in trying.

Connorstack (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Connorstack. The question is "Is there substantial material about him published in reliable places, and written by people unconnected with him?" If so, then he is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense), and a properly-written article about him would be acceptable. Please read your first article, and then I recommend you use the article wizard to create a draft in the draft space, where you can work on it (as long as you don't do anything really naughty like infringing copyright) until you're ready to submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk)

Help

How can i see the cahill map of the phillipines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plx Angel (talk • contribs) 07:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Beginner's Manual

Are there any manual anywhere for users starting at zero - maybe even sub-zero? I am old, thinks slowly and English isn't my "native" language... signed "Sternococktail" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.88.128.135 (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(I have given your question a title, so that it does not get confused with the previous question.)

You say "starting at zero" – but you don't say what you are hoping to do. Are you hoping to use Wikipedia, or to contribute to it? If you want to contribute, then in what way? Maproom (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that you are posting from an IP address in Sweden. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you might best be able to do so by finding articles that are in English Wikipedia but not in Swedish Wikipedia, or vice versa, and translating them. Maproom (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sternococktail and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several resources to help people get started with editing (assuming that is what you want to do): I like Wikipedia:Introduction, and this is where I suggest you start. There are plenty of links to more specific information at Help:Getting started. A good way to practice the skills is to work through "The Wikipedia Adventure". Other editors may have suggestions, but I don't want to overwhelm you; I hope this helps you to get started and you are always welcome to come back and ask questions here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual may be what you are looking for. —teb728 t c 03:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Stevie Aiello

User:StevieWorldwide asked me at my talk page about declines of Draft: Stevie Aiello: “Hi, sorry if I ask you but the article is constantly declined. I spent a lot of time on it and I don't want my work to be wasted. Could you help me understand what's wrong so that I can make it right? Thank you so much in advance”. Can other experienced editors please comment? Also, are you, User:StevieWorldwide the living person who is Stevei Aiello? If so, your draft is an autobiography, and common advice about autobiographies is not to try to submit them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply! No we are not Stevie Aiello. We are two people who have a fanpage on social media and are trying to write informations on wikipedia about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieWorldwide (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

See the username policy. User accounts should not be shared. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We wrote that in two but i'm the only one running this account, I don't see the problem. However I asked about the article, there are other editors who helping me. I'mgoing to edit it in a few minutes. Thanks for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieWorldwide (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

First, you said that you are two people. Then you say that you are one person running the account, but that other editors are helping you. If they are helping you by using the account to edit the article, that is non-permitted shared use. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You are the only editor other than reviewers who has been editing the article. I don't see any other editors posting to your talk page advising you how to edit the article. So it appears that you are using an account for shared use. However, will other experienced editors please comment on whether the subject of the article is notable, and, if so, what can be done to improve the article? There are two different issues, the account, and the article itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry maybe I didn't explain it well. I'm the only one running this, I said that there are two people only because the draft was made by me and my sister (And that's why I used this username) but she co-worked with the mind, she never logged in. About the other editors, I got notifications from "MIpearc" who edited my article. So you say he's just a reviewer. Sorry i'm new here. Hope other experienced editors will comment soon. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieWorldwide (talk • contribs) 21:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

StevieWorldwide: your request "Could you help me understand what's wrong so that I can make it right?" suggests that you may have misunderstood the problem. It may be that the problem is not with the draft you have created, but that its subject simply isn't notable. If that is the case, there is nothing you can do about it. Maproom (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Maproom: Thank you. So I don't have to prove that he's notable but experienced editors will check that, right?--StevieWorldwide (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

StevieWorldwide: If you don't demonstrate that he is notable, the draft will be declined. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) StevieWorldwide: That is not what I meant. If you don't provide evidence that he is notable, there are three things that might happen. (1) An experienced editor looks for evidence and adds it to the draft. The draft eventually gets accepted as an article. Or (2) an experienced editor looks for evidence, fails to find it, and the draft gets rejected if resubmitted. Or (3) no-one bothers checking (we are all volunteers here) and the draft gets rejected if resubmitted. My point was that if he is not in fact notable, there will be nothing you, or anyone else, can do to prove that he is. You should not assume that there is "something you can do to make it right". Maproom (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

To restate what Maproom has said, slightly differently, not every musician, or entertainer, or person in any other line of work, or corporation, or product, is notable. If the subject isn't notable, there is nothing that the author can do to get the article accepted. If the draft doesn't establish notability, you can try to find additional information to establish notability. That doesn't mean that you will find it; it doesn't mean that you won't. You can ask for help in finding evidence of notability, but some experienced editors are willing to help you find evidence of notability, and some would prefer that you do it yourself. Not every subject is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There are basically two major classes of reasons why drafts are declined: Style reasons, and notability reasons. If a draft is declined for style reasons only, and not for notability reasons, it can probably be fixed. If a draft is declined for notability reasons, you might be able to add evidence of notability, but the subject might not be notable anyway. (Some drafts have both notability and style issues. Also, some drafts are frivolous, but yours is not. It just has notability issues.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

ok, got it! Thanks to both of you! So I can say that the subject is notable because:

• Has had a single he co-wrote the song "My Demons" performed by Starset and it was on national music chart for weeks. In fact, the label "Razor & Tie Music Publishing" claimed "Starset’s first single, “My Demons” is now in the Top 5 at Mainstream Rock Radio and has been on the Billboard chart for a record-setting 41 weeks. This marks the longest chart run of the year at the format and the longest chart climb to the Top 5 for any artist since the launch of the chart in 1981"
• He released two albums with the major record label Island Records: "Wall Of People" and "Break Through The Silence" as frontman and composer of the band "Monty Are I"

References

I added this to the draft, hope that's enough. Anyway I'll be searching for more tomorrow.--StevieWorldwide (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The first of those sources doesn't mention him, the second shows that he co-wrote a lyric, and the third refers to his "versatile guitar". I doubt any of this qualifies as "significant coverage". Maproom (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In order to find help I've just read again the biography for Tomo Milicevic, who is the guitarist of the same band as Stevie Aiello, and I can't understand what is remarkable for him that I could add also for Aiello. During his career Aiello has made much more then Milicevic but it seems not notable, could I know why?StevieWorldwide (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC) StevieWorldwide (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Reporting Hearsay

HI there, tricky one this. I was looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Noye, a well known British criminal. What struck me was that The murder of Stephen Cameron is misleading because it misses out on a rumour that is strongly believed by people in the law enforcement and legal communities. Basically that Stephen Cameron was not killed in a 'road rage' incident but in fact was murdered because he owed Kenneth Noye money, and I can't find a reputable source, rather just endless repetition in blog articles.

Some advice on this please. I think it's important Wikipedia be able to nail down stuff like this. Perhaps someone could recommend a way to find better sources.

Caveywavey46 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Caveywavey46. Any such assertion requires far stronger coverage in reliable sources than "hearsay" in blog posts. Our policy on biographies of living people is stringent, and everyone alive is covered by its restrictions, even convicted murderers. Unless you can find a far better source, the theory should be kept out of the article. Perhaps talk page discussion might lead to discovery of a better source. That talk page has been inactive since 2008. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, If I were to find a reputable source quoting this rumour as hearsay would it be acceptable for inclusion as a 'sourced hearsay/allegation/rumour'?

Caveywavey46 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Caveywavey46: I would say that if a source reported a rumour, then by that fact it would not be a reliable source. —teb728 t c 03:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

how can i put references into the article?

how can i put references into the article?Albaghdadia (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Albaghdadia, you can do this by using these tags: <ref></ref> on either end of a bare url and then running the Refill tool, or by using the cite templates on the edit window. Create a reflist at the bottom of the article by typing this: {{reflist}}. Hope that helped. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 15:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Albaghdadia, also you can look at Help:Referencing for beginners Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• In addition to those excellent answers, Albaghdadia, if you prefer visual learning there is a short video on YouTube here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

New Member Trying To Get Some Tips From An Experienced Member.

Hello, my Wikipedia name is FromAllAspects, currently I'm a new member of Wikipedia. I was wondering if I could get some tips on how to create/enhance articles. I recently created a article by the name "HSV GTO", which is an Australian Muscle Car that was made by Holden Special Vehicles between 2002 and 2006, but was called off as it lacked information (Didn't know how to create proper templates and other important pieces to make it worthy). I hope this isn't a stupid question, but a response would be excellent.

Kind regards, FromAllAspects 17/01/2016 FromAllAspects (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi FromAllAspects, no it's not a stupid question. You can read WP:Your first article for some tips. Also, a helpful way to make new articles is to create them in a sandbox or user subpage, because then you have an unlimited amount of time to perfect them. You can do this by typing User:FromAllAspects/HSV GTO (or whatever you want the title to be, after the slash) on your userpage and then clicking on the redlink. Whenever the article is ready, you can then move it to mainspace. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 15:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

However FromAllAspects, the HSV GTO (and other HSV models) already have coverage at Holden Monaro#HSV range (and HSV GTO redirects there). You should consider adding your content there instead of creating a new article. —teb728 t c 20:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh and I see now that there is a separate HSV article at Holden Special Vehicles. That would be an even better place to add content. —teb728 t c 20:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, White Arabian Filly and teb728 t c. I'll see if I can add some detailed information in the HSV section instead.

Kind regards, FromAllAspects 18/01/2016 FromAllAspects (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox error

The page Mustafizur Rahman has no "Career statistics" in infobox. It follows the same template, {{Infobox cricketer}} such as in Shakib Al Hasan. All the career statistics can be seen in the edit page but not on the main page. Please help! Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems like I solved the proble myself! I added |columns=4 to display this. See my edit for better understanding. Sorry for wasting time! Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That was quick - just 8 minutes between asking the question, and saying it was fixed! BTW, thanks for reporting the solution, because a lot of people watch this page to learn about editing - so you never know how many people may have learned something from your question and answer.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

VFD a redirect

What is the procedure to request deletion of redirects created by banned users which are only causing controversy? YuHuw (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @YuHuw: If the user used a sockpuppet to create the redirect, then it is eligible for speedy deletion as blocked/banned user. If the redirect was created before they were blocked/banned, then the process would be a deletion discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Constructive dialogue

Hi, I am struggling to get other users involved in constructive dialogue over at Talk:Crimean Karaites#Hatnote. There is some sort of sudden objection to some wording in a a hatnote. I have tried sending thanks to some of the users involved, but so far no one is being forthcoming about their fears/concerns. Is there anywhere which provides tips or advice on how to generate better discussion? YuHuw (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@YuHuw: welcome and you were correct in taking your concerns to the talk page. That thread seems to have attracted considerable discussion since you posted earlier today. But if a similar case arises again you have a number of possibile courses. To attract more interest in an existing talk page discussion you can "notify" particular editors who've been involved with this or similar topics - the {{ping}} template I just used here is handy for this (but avoid "canvassing") - or go direct to their user talk pages. Or ask for participants on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, if the project still seems to be active. To take up the matter beyond the original talk page, there are Noticeboards that deal with particular areas of policy. Finally, if a discussion has taken place but without progress towards any agreement, a request for comment can be launched. Basically any form of discussion is better than "edit warring": Noyster (talk), 15:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Read the dispute resolution policy and try one of the procedures described there for content disputes, such as a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Q2 III (Last Question Part I)

So, can I put down. Directed by: Jayson Thiessen Written by: M.A Larson Or Viewers: 2.09 Network: Cartoon Network Without lying on all four of those when I'm making my homemade episode guide? Cause all I'm really doing is just testing it out. Because none of the info on my episode guide are real. I'm just testing it out. And the writers didn't wrote none of the episodes. I'm just pretending like they did. And no one knows what the show looks like because like I said. "It isn't real." So can I write my homemade episode guide now?GiftedTeen2014 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, GiftedTeen2014. You can experiment with anything in your sandbox, as long as you are working in good faith to develop your personal skills as an encyclopedia editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If it is entirely a personal work of fiction, done as an editing experiment to develop skills, it will probably only ever be allowable as a personal page. One of the main things will be to avoid controversy, i.e. avoid doing something which is going to cause significant concern for other editors. A possible approach to that is to start out with full disclosure by placing a clear notice at the top of the page, something like the following:

{{Mbox|type=content|text=This is a personal editing experiment to develop skills. The information is fictional, and not for publication in an encyclopaedia article.}}

Adding something like that basically removes or preempts the possibility of someone accusing you of trying to actually publish fake information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is normally all about accurate and verifiable real information on notable subjects, so you can hopefully understand why someone might become concerned about your page. It should also remove the possibility of another user mistakenly taking facts from your page to use on a real article. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service, so this advice is on the basis of a single small-ish personal page genuinely being used to develop editing skills. See also WP:FAKEARTICLE, which has some relevance to this discussion.

--Murph9000 (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

One more thing just sprang to mind, it is also good practice to place {{User sandbox}} at the very top of your sandbox page, in addition to any other message boxes, so that it is clear to any visitors that the page is a personal sandbox. --Murph9000 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

GiftedTeen2014, I'm not sure if you are the same user as TheFinaleAccount3 but you should stick with one account and abandon the other. Except under certain circumstances, editors are limited to one user account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Q2(Part II)

Can I put the viewers, writers, and directors on the homemade episode guide on wikipedia? like for an example, If I put writer: M.A Larson on my homemade episode guide or put the viewer percentage: 3.00 or even put Director: Jayson Thiessen on my homemade episode guide will it cause a problem? Or If I say that the fanmade series was on Cartoon Network since 2012 or write the fanmade charecters info down Will any of that cause a problem? GiftedTeen2014 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Very simple facts are generally not subject to copyright. So, simple stuff like "Thing was written by Fred Smith" should never be a problem, as long as you have a good faith belief that it is true and are not making any attempt to deceive or mislead. Long sentences, paragraphs, and longer texts are subject to copyright, and must not be reproduced on Wikipedia. Most audio and visual media has some form of copyright protection as well. If you are trying to create something new for Wikipedia, doing approximately the same thing that is done widely across Wikipedia should be quite safe, as long as you remember that all images and longer text is protected by copyright. There should be some guidelines or essays explaining copyright in more detail somewhere in the Wikipedia project pages. --Murph9000 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and Wikipedia:Plagiarism might help you to understand copyright a bit. --Murph9000 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Other editors have answered about copyright, but you did not say that copyright was your concern. One of the other fundamental things about Wikipedia is the need for verifiability, which means that you need to be able to support the material you add by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's fair comment, David, good advice. I was answering in the extended context of the previous question from the same person, which seemed to be concerned with copyright issues. --Murph9000 (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

hello Teahouse

is there a way to decipher from the useful edits you have made, what they where as from the edits that where made needlessly. I know there is what some users have is an edit count which I'm guessing is what it basically does? but I for some reason am unable to access that. is there another way to gain that information? Hot Pork Pie 20:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Hot Pork Pie. You might be interested in these tools. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Cordless Larry: I'll give that a try. Best Regards. Hot Pork Pie 20:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Hot Pork Pie. Others might have further suggestions. Just to let you know, a ping only works if you sign the post at the same time as inserting the ping template - if you add or fix it later, you need to re-sign the post to activate the notification. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay @Cordless Larry: bear that in mind for future. Cheers. Hot Pork Pie 20:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Q2

Hi, I want to know will someone expose my sandbox? Cause i'm trying to make my homemade episode guide. But I have to worry about who directed it and who wrote it and who viewed it. And I'm trying to come up with writers that wrote a show or an episode etc. But I could be copyrighting something. Could I be breaking the law on Wikipedia? GiftedTeen2014 (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your sandbox is here. It's empty at present. You should have a link to it at the top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in. You shouldn't put copyright material there, so don't copy text directly from the internet, but you can put your list of writers there. I'm not sure whether this answers your question. Did you mean something else? Dbfirs 19:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

My Questions

Hi, I have an episode guide I want to keep private on my sandbox. Am I'm able to keep that private? TheFinaleAccount3 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your sandbox is readable by everyone – not that anyone is likely to show any interest in it. Maproom (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

In a word, no. Anything you submit to Wikipedia is visible to the entire Internet, with almost no exceptions. If you don't want everyone to see it, don't put it on Wikipedia. You can create your own user sandbox here, and other users should generally not interfere with it unless it violates an official policy or somehow is causing a problem (prohibited content is still prohibited within personal pages), but everyone can still see it, and changes are advertised for the world to see. The only way to have a truly private sandbox is to install MediaWiki locally on your personal computer or your own private server. --Murph9000 (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at a Page

Hi all, I am creating a page of someone who is notable in the Dominican Republic and active in U.S. politics. Can anyone look at it and let me know if it meets the requirements for notable persons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Leo_Perez_Minaya

Azeremen12

Azeremen12 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Azeremen12 and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles are required to use reliable sources: sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, such as a respected newspaper. Some third-party sources are also needed: sources which do not come from the subject of the article, or from a person or organization directly related to them; for example, a press release would not be considered third-party. A good starting point for finding sources is to look for some coverage in national newspapers.

Significant coverage in reliable sources is also required. This doesn't mean that a whole newspaper article, for example, needs to be written about Leo Perez Minaya, but he should not just be mentioned in passing.

I hope this helps, and feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I have tried to use publications, newspaper articles, as well as live interviews as sources, but the page gets declined. The issue is that this is all Dominican based. It seems that notability depends on media exposure, but how do you get around that when the media we're discussing isn't well known outside of the country it is in? Some of the interviews I have linked are with some of the top showtime hosts in the country, but no one outside the country would know that. So how do I get around or work with that?

By the way, I appreciate the experience as I would like to write more articles about individuals that are notable in their countries but perhaps do not have an international profile.

Azeremen12 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that it's an issue that the sources are mainly Dominican, Azeremen12. In declining the draft, SwisterTwister explained: "Perhaps simply still not enough in-depth third-party sources overall". It therefore sounds that you need to find more significant coverage of the subject (as opposed to passing mentions in media sources). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cordless Larry! You make a valid point! My next question is, can TV interviews of the subject be used to make up the bulk of the sources in the case that there might be too few direct mentions in published sources? Azeremen12 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Azeremen12. I'm afraid the answer is No. Interviews of the subject are not independent. So you can use them as a source for uncontroversial factual data (including of the form "XXXX said in an interview that .... "), but the bulk of the sources must be independent of the subject; and if there are not enough such independent sources, the subject fails notability, by definition. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism observation

Hi, I would like to stay vandalism observer. Where do I browse observe that the first case of vandalism? And how do I reject etc.? I really want it to work ^_^ --L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 11:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lukaslt13. Wikipedia:Vandalism has various information. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lukaslt13: From my experience, ClueBot NG is able to spot and revert most cases of obvious vandalism immediately. Human users might use STiki or Huggle to look for vandalism. Manually, you could do recent changes patrol, which is as simple as clicking the "recent changes" link on the "Interaction" bar on the left, though it would be painstakingly tedious work with little output. It is advised that you have sufficient editing experience before using the aforementioned tools, STiki, for example, requires 1000 edits as a prerequisite. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Lukaslt13 – There are two Tip-of-the-Day which may be helpful.

1. Wikipedia:Tip of the day, January 29 Vandalism-level indicator
2. Wikipedia:Tip of the day, July 17 Join the fight against vandalism

Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  14:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The Average Wikipedian I almost done 300 changes, but many have created. Yes, very little compared with 1000. The ratio of 300 <1000 :|. JoeHebda what do you have in mind? Care should be taken, and to combat with parasite, which spoils the wikipedia :) --L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 14:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

P.s PrimeHunter very thank you, I let's read. --L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 14:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

Why my article is discarded ?

I create my article for my company I give reference according to you as journal, news and scholor and also google book but why this thing is happen my article is discarded.Ayesha jaisinghani (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You obviously have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest here if you are writing about your own company, but the reason for declining the draft was that the references you provided were nearly all your own adverts and press releases. You need to find more Wikipedia:Reliable sources where your company has been written about independently. Dbfirs 11:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ayesha jaisinghani and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote an organization, person or point of view, therefore a page should not be created "for" a company. This is because Wikipedia needs to present content neutrally: stating facts without taking sides. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources are sources which have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, such as a national newspaper. These should also preferably be not directly connected to the subject: for example, a news reporter should only be writing about the business because it is newsworthy, not because of a connection he or she has to it in some way. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Put simply, Ayesha jaisinghani, Wikipedia has no interest in what your company - or any other subject - has to say about itself. It is only interested in what other people, unconnected with the company, have published about it. If there is significant independent material published about it, then we can have an article on it (though you are discouraged from writing it); but if not, then no article on the company will be acceptable, however it is written. --ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

How create a page on wiki

I have created the page, two times but its deleted, can anybody tell me the reason?Chandila Deepak (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your user page on Wikipedia is not like your profile on Facebook, Linnkdin, Twitter etc. It should not be used for self-promotion. You are welcome to say what you intend to contribute to Wikipedia, and what expertise you can bring to the project. Dbfirs 10:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social networking project, as told Dbfirs. You do not have to publish your page, too much of your privacy information that does not get you in trouble. Perhaps because of this and removed your options, as well as mine, but I use userboxes. --L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 12:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Mustafizur Rahman

I am currently working on the article Mustafizur Rahman. It contains a family image of the cricketer, File:Mustafiz with his familly; photo taken by Masum Ibn Musa.JPG. I was wondering if is eligible to keep because I barely see family images on sportsmen pages. There tend to be images with once spouse or siblings, but this one got the whole family! Thanks! And don't forget to mention as a notification along with your reply. Ikhtiar H (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ikhtiar H: you could use a cropped region of the image in the article. Or you could download the image, crop it at home, and upload an image showing just the cricketer. Or you could request me to do either of those for you – but only if you tell me which of the two young men in the picture is the cricketer. Maproom (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: the one who is sitting in the middle. I appreciate your help! Thanks! Ikhtiar H (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This exchange is a good indication of why the image should be cropped! Cordless Larry (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Maproom (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: thanks a lot! Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

proposed deletion

my article is going to be deleted in seven days. Please help me to save it. What if i don't have a reliable source for my article? What am i going to do? Save it please. Iamkheypop (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iamkheypop: Welcome to the Teahouse. Looks like the problem with the page is that there aren't any reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) in it. For articles featuring content about living people, they must have a reliable source. If you can find a source and add it, you could feel free to remove the template upon doing so. Zappa24Mati 02:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this is about MyungEun_(Kim_Myung-soo_and_Son_Na-eun). The message at the top says to not remove the notice. If reliable sources are found, then mention that at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MyungEun_(Kim_Myung-soo_and_Son_Na-eun) RudolfRed (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they changed it. When I looked at the page, it was around the same time as this edit, so it was under PROD at the time. Zappa24Mati 03:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to acknowledge that the article doesn't pass the criteria for retention in article space and move it into user space. The criteria for user pages are much less strict than for article pages. In particular, the lack of references will not normally cause a page in user space to be tagged fpr miscellany for deletion. The Articles for Deletion discussion will be made moot by its move into user space. ~I don't know for a certainty, but am willing to guess, that this is one of the rare cases where the removal of an AFD template is permitte. Robert McClenon (talk)

Guilds

Is there a list of Guilds on WP? Is it possible to start a Guild of Educators? Zedshort (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zedshort. Are you possibly thinking of WikiProjects? If so, a list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/All. I ask because I only know of one collective of Wikipedians referred to as a guild, the Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. There is already an overarching education Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Education (which appears to have about 170 members though many of them could be inactive), and a number of specific ones like Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in India, but I see none for "educators". Starting a Wikiproject, if relevant to your question, has little formality associated with it but the trick is designing it well, having a clear focus and organization and having people join and participate. There are many, many Wikiprojects that exist on paper but do very little or are defunct. Anyway, for advice on starting one, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Thanks much for a solid and direct answer. Zedshort (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You're most welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Inserting graphics

I need to put some figures into an article I am editing. How do I that? All I need is to be pointed to where I can find a paragraph or three on that; not a dissertation. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Retired Pchem Prof. There are no simple, brief answers to open ended questions on very complex topics. You need to tell us more. Do these graphics already exist? Did you create them? What is their copyright status? If they are your work, are you willing to freely license them for use by anyone for any purpose?

It is very easy to add freely licensed or copyright free graphics which have already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons to any Wikipedia article.

If you provide more details, then perhaps we can provide a concise and tailored answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

So there is no documentation on this? Really?Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof: On the contrary, there are many pages of documentation on it, but you wanted a paragraph or three; so you probably don't want ALL the documentation. If you want a short answer, you need to give more information. —teb728 t c 05:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As an example of documentation that you may or not need: If the figures are not licensed under a free license, their use is severely restricted as described at Wikipedia:Non-free content. —teb728 t c 05:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Retired Pchem Prof. Looking about your user talk page, I guess this may be about File:Z Overview.png, in which case the answers to Cullen’s questions that you created it and uploaded it to Commons, licensing it under CC-BY-SA-4.0.

You said on your user talk page that you were having trouble editing the description. Please click here to be sure you are on the right page. Do you see the Wikimedia Commons logo at the upper left and your username at the center top? If so, you are logged in; so try editing the description.

You said also that you wanted to change the filename to something more descriptive. On the same page, do you see a More tab with a dropdown to Move? If so, click move for the Renaming a file dialog. —teb728 t c 06:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Retired Pchem Prof, inserting "prefabricated" diagrams and tables such as the one mentioned above is no different from adding normal pictures. A short and very easy guide on how to do this is Images for beginners. Hope this may help you, w.carter-Talk 07:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Carter(? I am editing, so I can't reaaly tell) for the helpful link. It is, at least in spirit, what I was looking for.

I now feel I must rant. This is probably the wrong place, but so far as I know there is no way to provide feedback. Wikipedia's official position seems to be that people are encouraged to become editors. But institutionally, Wikipedia provides new editors with an extremely unwelcoming environment. Note that I say "institutionally"; there appear to be many helpful and welcoming individuals here. But an institution is not just the sum of the individuals involved.

When I started, I found the "Wikipedia:Questions" page and clicked on several promising looking links hoping to find an overview. No such luck. Just a bunch of long documents that at first glance appeared rambling and overlapping. When I decided to just jump in and try editing, I noticed among the icons a question mark inside a circle. Ah, help. I clicked on it and got a message saying, in effect: "Duh. Read the documentation, stupid." Not even a link to where I might find that documentation. Where do I find a link to something like User:Yunshui/Images for beginners? Not in the links on the bottom of this page. Or so far as I can tell via Wikipedia:Questions. Or something like that on editing equations? Or managing messages (which appears to be damn near impossible)? On second thought "unwelcoming" may have been nice.

The only thing that makes this work is the kindness of strangers, of which there seems to be a great deal here. But surely they could get some institutional help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retired Pchem Prof (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Retired Pchem Prof. The trouble is that the "institution" is the editors - the same volunteers that do everything else (or a self-selected subset). You are not the only person, by any means, who would like to see the institution made more welcoming; the question is, what are you prepared to do about it? There are probably already pages where people are discussing this, but I would start at the WP:Village pump, which is a sort of community space. --ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Mass reformating of the source code of references

There seem to be a number of different ways commonly used to format the source code of the {{cite foobar ... }} templates. Some with lots of carraige return characters, some with none, and some inbetween. It seems different editors like to put there {cite ...} refs in in various formats.

My question: what has been wiki-policy or guidelines on making mass reformats of others cite templates? E.g., if some editor wants to say remove all the paragraph marks in a citation formatted like this (which is a format we see quite often in the English Wikipedia) on all of the many citations in an article:

<ref>{{cite book
| last      = Turner
| first     = Orsamus
| title     = History of the pioneer settlement of
Phelps and Gorham's purchase, and Morris' reserve
| publisher = William Alling
| place     = Rochester, New York
| year      = 1851
| id        = {{OL|7120924W}}
}</ref>

Others code refs this way (two-line format, with no extra carriage returns). My question would apply if someone went into articles and changed every reference from this format, by adding a bunch of paragraph breaks in every citation.

<ref>
{{cite book |last=Turner |first=Orsamus |title=History of the pioneer settlement of Phelps and Gorham's purchase, and Morris' reserve |publisher=William Alling |place=Rochester, New York |year=1851 |id={{OL|7120924W}} }}</ref>

This could obviously cause some conflict between editors who might prefer format A, or format B, or some other/different format C, and all of the changes would not improve the article space, but may likely cause a bit of editor conflict. So has this been discussed previously? Or is there a policy or guideline on it? Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, much commoner than either is this one-line format

<ref>{{cite book |last=Turner |first=Orsamus |title=History of the pioneer settlement of Phelps and Gorham's purchase, and Morris' reserve |publisher=William Alling |place=Rochester, New York |year=1851 |id={{OL|7120924W}} }}</ref>

with no carriage return after the initial <ref>. I find this odd, as the multi-line format is much easier to understand and edit, and makes the surrounding text easier to follow. My guess is that because the templates conveniently provided in the edit screen use the one-line format, most editors go with what they do. I believe that all these formats are acceptable. Maproom (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The single-line format is more common, as is the super-expanded multi-line format. I've also seen the two-line format as it puts the <ref> tag on the line with the prose, and then leaves the citation clearly visible ({{cite ...}}aligned with left-margin).

But that just makes my point. There are more than one (or two, or three) ways this is done. So I'm assuming that some editor conflict has occurred on this mass-reformatting over the years; that is why I'm looking for policy or previous discussion of the matter. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I've wrapped the citations in <pre> and <nowiki>, since the point of the question is about the layout of the citation in the source. --ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@N2e: The closest I know of to anything in policy or guideline that addresses this is WP:CITEVAR. The letter of its language ("style") could even be interpreted as making it directly on point, but in application, I don't think the intent of "style" was to address this formatting issue, but rather (as indicated in the "To be avoided" section), a more radical change of the type of citation itself, e.g., a switch from some other system to list-defined references. But it certainly could be pointed to in any discussion of the issue (in support of saying please don't do that). It's pure individual preference AFAIAC but I find the multi-line format very annoying to look at and never use it and find editing single line no barrier. An article with 100 reference is not uncommon and if each has: template name, last, first, title, url, page and date (if not more) that's 600 extra lnes in edit mode to view.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The "Cite" toolbar generates on-line citations, so it's no surprise they are the most common. Other templates such as Infoboxes are more often multi-line. Personally I don't mind and I think if anybody went on a rampage to try and convert them all to their preferred layout then "animated discussion" would ensue.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the best guideline/approach here is probably "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". If you are doing a big cleanup of the citations (adding missing template parameters, correcting template or parameter usage, generally improving them significantly), then you generally get to choose your preferred style for the source code. Similarly, if you are doing a lot of good and legitimate work on a section of an article, you will probably be ok including minor adjustments to citations in that work. On the other hand, if you go around trying to just impose your will in terms of the "better" source code style, without actually making any substantive improvements to either citations or content (minor copyediting wouldn't really be a good justification for mass citation reformatting, for example), then storm clouds may well form in the vicinity of talk pages. If you blast through hundreds of articles changing format and very little else, without a strong pre-discussed consensus behind your actions, you should probably consider investing in some Nomex clothing! If someone else changes a citation you worked on, and the generated reference is still good and of equivalent quality, it's really not something to start a fight over, and there are far more useful things to put your energy into caring about. --Murph9000 (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much Fuhghettaboutit, Gronk Oz, and Murph9000. Sounds like a consensus that such mass refomatting of all refs in an article is not good practice, but that there seems to be nothing in policy or guidelines that clarify that specifically. I might take the guideline Fuhghettaboutit referred to (WP:CITEVAR) and propose a bullet that clarifies its application to this situation. Would any of you care to be invited to comment on such a proposal? Or any others who read this? If so, I'll be sure to get back to interested parties an and invite then to the discussion if I ever start one. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

REference format and reference manager

I usually use ZOTERO reference manager with a WORD plug-in to make my life easier. My questions are 1 Is there a ZOTERO plug-in for Wiki? 2 My default reference format is VANCOUVER. Does WIKI prefer a difference format? Thank you Moose139 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a plugin for Zotero, Moose139, but the best way to cite sources is by using citation templates, which deal with all of the formatting automatically. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not mandate any particular way of formatting references Moose139, but the format should be consistent within an article. As Cordless Larry says, the citation templates are a good approach, but they are not compulsory. WP:Zotero has some information which may be useful to you. (Hint: to find out about any topic in editing Wikipedia, try putting 'WP:' before it and searching - that's how I found that page). --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Privacy photos

Good evening-night, I wanted to know 1. If I can capture your most important things (well certainly not candy and load) and add to Wikipedia, and indicate that the photo will be published on my (Lukaslt13) page? Is there a big invasion of privacy? And another intriguing question me 2. As to take account of changes 272 in 5 months? Or just how far ^_^?--L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 19:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the answer to the second question, so I'll just cover the first one. That probably does count as an invasion of privacy--at least, to some people. Some people post so many photos online they probably wouldn't care. Others, like me, do not like posting personal information online where anybody can see it and would be mad. If you want to take pictures for Wikipedia and they will include people, it might be a good idea to ask their permission first. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding you, Lukaslt13. I don't quite know why you are asking about uploading personal pictures: please remember that our purpose here is building an encyclopaedia, not running a social media site. There is some latitude for user pages, but in general pictures should only be uploaded if they meet the criteria in commons:commons:Project scope.

I have no idea what you are asking in your second question. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have taken a number of photos for Wikipedia of public places, and I edit the photos to blur any people's faces or car licence plates so as to protect privacy.

If your second question concerned your own contributions, you have made 259 total edits since Sep 18, 2015, 2:49 PM. If you want to check this at any time, just open your "Contributions" page (linked at top right) and at the bottom of that page you will find the link to "Edit count".--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I just the second question asking whether this is a good bit of changes? And the photographs, I just winched own user page as the gallery :)--L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 09:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

Template for posting insects

I am looking for the complete template to expand post on Odonata refer List of SA Odonata It is rather frustrating to da a page. Line people up to post photos to the galery and find that the page has been modified to another style. JP labuschagneJP Labuschagne (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you specifically looking for / want?--L.ukas lt 13 --TalkLukaslt13 —Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Having cleaned up a couple of these, I believe the editor is referring to their adding galleries to Odonata stubs and then placing the only image of the article in there, rather than integrating it into the text. Judging from the above, this is apparently done to get other users to add images? I would suggest that as long as there is only a single image, placing it into a gallery looks somewhat weird, and the picture is better placed in a suitable location in the text. A gallery can then easily be implemented by anyone wishing to add further images.

As for other "style" changes, all of them are standard in species articles (Description before Habitat & distribution) or articles in general (full sentences rather than bullet-type fragments), and I would suggest taking them on board, using any well-developed species article as a reference.-- Elmidae 09:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

A new page that I wanted to create got deleted

I just started editing a new page and it got deleted right away by someone named Liz. Why is that?XLNC11 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@XLNC11: As was noted in the message on your user talk page, there was no assertion that the subject of the article was significant or important. Any such article is subject to immediate or speedy deletion. Articles can be speedy deleted for a number of reasons; one reason is when the article is about a person and there is no indication that he or she is a significant or important person. —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

See the explanation on your talk page. User:Everymorning nominated it for speedy deletion as not making any plausible claim of notability, A7. Administrator User:Liz concurred with the nomination, and deleted it. I suggest that you use the Articles for Creation process to get review before moving the article into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Review action

Hi, I'm unsure as to how the review action is carried out on new articles. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a specific question? If so, we will try to answer it. Otherwise, read Articles for Creation. If you have a specific question, we will try to answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean wp:New page patrol or wp:page curation? Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon and Happysquirrel. What I meant was, the specific action of approving an article, rather than an edit, which appears in Special:Log/review. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The log you are referring to is the wp:pending changes log. From what I gather, pending changes is a special kind of protection where every edit needs to be approved by someone with special user rights before appearing. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

To mark a page as patrolled, click on the little "[Mark this page as patrolled.]" thing on the bottom right of a new page. Before you do this, you should be certain you understand Wikipedia's policies, such as deletion, biographical articles, and copyright violations. The autopatrolled user right bypasses new page patrol. New pages are usually patrolled in a timely manner, but niche/technical articles often take longer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sk Wasim Ali

This page I have created, but official its removed. In Google Search, the page is giving still the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sk_Wasim_Ali , I want to remove it from search else Allow me to redirect the page to my user account. Skwasimalitoni (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Skwasimalitoni and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has no control over Google's search results but now that it has been deleted, Sk Wasim Ali will disappear from Google in the next day or two. That sort of information (if it is about you) does not belong on you user page either. As another editor explained to you on your talk page [1]. Wikipedia is not a place like Facebook or LinkedIn for people to write about themselves or host their resumes. Wikipedia:User pages has more information about what is appropriate and inappropriate content for user pages. I see that as I was writing this you have re-created Sk Wasim Ali as a blank page. Please do not do this. This too will be deleted and will simply prolong the time it takes for the page to disappear from the search engine results. If you are interested in working on the encyclopedia itself, you might find The Wikipedia Adventure a good way to start. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

How to have "the read this article in other languages" w/o problems?

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse. As of Jan14, 2016 my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AibE_(software) was rejected by Robert McClenon due to lack of reliable independent 3rd party references. So I send my doubts to the Teahouse after Robert's suggestion to ask here. I read the Wikipedia statements about relevance and anti-advertising policies and I thought my translation was neutral enough in the article because I just tried to make an English language version of this entry https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/AibE (in Spanish). The subject of this article is about a more than 25 year old software application that runs in several languages, but yes mainly in Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries. Both the Spanish article and the English draft show the same 3rd party references although they are solely in Spanish. Are English-written references mandatory in English Wikipedia? Other than those I've mentioned, I cannot provide other independent references, as I don´t find any source referring this matter in English. Are also external links to LinkedIn or this vendor's website a transgression to the advertising policies in Wikipedia? English is not my mother tongue, either, maybe there are some issues with my translation that didn´t match the neutral criteria about self-promotion or advertising? Mind that I don't want to be fussy or picky at this, just have this considerations clear and try to make things better. Thank you in advance. Raycaster (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Raycaster, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not a problem to use foreign-language sources (although if you can find some English-language sources, then all the better). The problem here is that you only have three sources listed at the end of the article, which probably isn't enough to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. A secondary problem is that you have not used inline citations, so it is unclear how much and what parts of the article are supported by each of the sources used. I suggest having a read of Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, all of these concerns appear to apply to the version of the article on the Spanish Wikipedia too, although I am unsure of the notability and referencing requirements over there. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry and also Robert McClenon, I'll try to mend these questions and have my draft ready to meet the Wikipedia quality standards. Un saludo Raycaster (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Are Interviews SELFPUB?

For example, if the subject of an article mentions in an interview that his brother is a chef in New York, would it be OK to write "His brother is a chef in New York". In other words, should interviews, press conferences, etc, always be preceded by "He said/declared/etc"? How do we treat interviews? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DevilWearsBrioni. If the interview is published in a reliable source, and if the person is actually notable, then the interview can be used as a source for basic, non-controversial biographical details. Common examples are place of birth, schools attended, early jobs, marriage and children, and so on. Referencing the interview is sufficient, instead of using "he said" qualifying language. Regarding your specific example, we do not usually mention the places of residence or careers of siblings, unless the sibling is also notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328! DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Demonstration of notability through references

Robert McClenon recently reviewed my proposed page on ELGA LabWater and rejected it on the grounds that it does not demonstrate enough notability through the references. ELGA LabWater, my former employers, manufacture water purification equipment to produce pure water for use in laboratories around the world. They are listed in numerous scientific publications as the source of the water used in the published research. Last time I looked there are over 1400 such references in a Google Scholar search and a similar number in the American chemical society database. These can all be verified. I just included a few in this submission. ELGA is one of the top 3 global suppliers of such equipment, which is present in most laboratories. How should I convey this high level of notability better? I would greatly appreciate your help in this matter. Thank you. Paul Whitehead Paul W1901 Paul W1901 (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe ELGA LabWater is notable. If it is, it's up to you to demonstrate it, by including suitable references in the article, in a way that readers and reviewers can find. Note what the reviewer said: "Because of the formatting of the references, it is not possible to assess whether this business meets corporate notability guidelines." Maproom (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I now see that Wikipedia already has an article Veolia Water, which is about the same business (a division of Veolia) as Draft:ELGA LabWater. I have created redirects from Veolia LabWater and ELGA LabWater to Veolia Water. Maproom (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Correction: I see that the "LabWater" division is different from the "Water" division. I have deleted the redirects. Maproom (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Inserting a logo into the Infobox

Hi,

I am currently struggling with learning how to: 1) Inserting a logo into the Infobox 2) Adding coordinates in the Infobox for a location

The page I am working on is 'Sula Vineyards' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sula_Vineyards

I am new to wikipedia, and this is the first page I have edited. Could someone possibly help me out? Also can this be done without coding?

Thank you!

Finivino1000 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Finivino1000. For a logo you first need to upload it to Wikipedia; see WP:Logos. When it is uploaded, add the file name to the winery_logo parameter of the infobox. For the coordinates, add a coordinates = {{coord}} parameter to the infobox, filling in the coord parameters as described in the Template:coord documentation. —teb728 t c 21:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Finivino1000. I'm not familiar with the coordinate parameters, but it seems like teb728 did a good job above. To add an image to the infobox, upload or find an image (preferably an image under the Creative Commons) and put the image name (without "File:" next to winery_logo =.

It will look something like this when it's done: winery_logo = example.png. Anarchyte 12:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Finivino1000: @Anarchyte: No, it is unlikely that Sula Vineyards’ lawyers will allow the logo to be licensed under a free license—even Wikipedia for all its commitment to free content does not free-license its logo. The logo should be tagged with {{non-free logo}}, and {{non-free use rationale logo}} should be used for a non-free use rationale (as outlined at WP:Logos#Uploading non-free logos). —teb728 t c 19:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all the help!

I managed to successfully insert the logo into the inforbox. I added the coordinates as well, however there is an error. Could someone please have a look at it and correct it, or let me know what I am doing wrong?

Thanks once again!

Finivino1000 (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Is a newspaper (LeMonde.fr) considered a valid source?

About editing or any of the process of contributing something to a Wikipedia article.

Is an excerpt from an article from Le Monde considered as a valid source? Or should sources solely be in English?

--JamesPoulson (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources in other languages are acceptable, though sources in the language of the Wikipedia (English, here) are preferable if available. I believe that Le Monde is a well-respected French newspaper. Maproom (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JamesPoulson. Le Monde is a highly respected newspaper in France, comparable to the New York Times in the U.S., or the London Times in the U.K. Accordingly, it should be clear that Le Monde is a reliable source most of the time. But no source is 100% reliable. For example, we expect that medical claims be cited to survey articles in respected peer-reviewed medical journals, not daily newspapers. And if Le Monde says something, but if four other reliable publications disagree and criticize the Le Monde reporting, then we need to be extremely cautious about citing that source in that specific case. Le Monde is a great source. But it is not a perfect source. No source is perfect. Editorial judgment is what is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Pet peeve: it's just The Times. --ukexpat (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ukexpat means that the London newspaper is simply The Times, which, to disambiguate, may be qualified parenthetically as The Times (of London). In New York, if someone says "The Times", they probably mean The New York Times, but the unqualified name actually means the London newspaper, and Le Monde and both of them are respected reliable sources, but, as noted, no source is perfect. Also, if a peer-reviewed medical journal refutes a medical claim made in a newspaper, both should be cited, but Wikipedia should state that the claim in the newspaper was refuted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, The Times (of London). I think everyone knew what I was talking about. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you everyone :) . I did my first edit. Just added a phrase and figured out how to add a reference. Not that complicated after all.

In terms of fact checking, it would be nice to have a list of newspapers and such overall with a "weight" in terms of credibility (measure of accuracy) and what they stand for.

Wikipedia itself was put to the test with some scientific articles and it compared favourably with a conventional encyclopedia.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, JamesPoulson. As with a lot of questions in Wikipedia a list like that would not necessarily be a good thing, because, as others have said above, so much depends on the particular case (and also, if such a list exists, somebody will probably use it for wikilawyering, saying "this list says XXX is a reliable source so you have to accept my edit".) The reliable sources noticeboard is a place you can ask about individual cases, and you can also search the archives of that page. --ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, thanks for the link to the notice board.

This is outside the scope of the question here but evaluating information interests me greatly as a programmer.

Weighting sources alone would only be a first step. I can sense the problem with the mention of "Wikilawyering" and I can see parallels with the legal system.

From there on it would require human interaction according to an argumentative approach (pro- and anti- columns). A source could be confirmed or invalidated by other sources.

This would not guarantee absolute certitude but with time and participation could measure a degree of how factual a statement or piece of information is.

Again, this is outside the scope here but ideas from anyone reading this are welcome :D .

--JamesPoulson (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Own photos

Good evening, I wanted to ask:

1. What kind of pictures do I do if I would like to put the rural landscape?
2. And what need galleries of photographs? Namely the need to do a lot of rural pictures (if it is about the village) with regard to landscape or landscape and to load and put the key in the content?
3. What kind of license?

Thank you. P.s I answer and read it tomorrow, after the concert (own) --L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 19:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse Lukaslt13.

1. Take the pictures yourself, or upload existing ones from The Commons.
2. Articles do not need many photos and there is not usually much room for them unless you thumbnail them in to compact galleries.
3. If you want to publish your own work (not images harvested from the web), use The Commons Upload Wizard
4. The Wizard will coach you on licensing. It will suggest the default licensing, but there is an adjacent link to choose more licensing options.

Here is a link to a tutorial on things such as galleries: Wikipedia:Picture tutorial Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, if you like to go out and take pictures, a great place to start is Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by location. Navigate through until you get to your area and see what is requested. It will even make a map for you. Happy Squirrel (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Very thank you all!! I use this help for my photos. Really very very thank you!--L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 17:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

How do I actually find stuff to edit?

Again, I'm a new guy here. I am learning Wikipedia markup and all so no problem with that. I've found one thing I can edit. But I'm unable to find anything else. I've tried just going through like 75 random articles but all of them usually already have content beyond my capability of contribution. Is there any place I can find articles that need resuscitation? Thanks Ramthecowy (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

My experience is different. When I am teaching someone, face-to-face, how to make edits, I get them to click on "Random article", read the one that comes up, spot a mistake in it, and correct it. Sometimes they need to click two or three times. Anyway, if you really want a challenge, have a look at List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name, read its talk page to learn what's wrong with it, and correct it. (That's not altogether a serious suggestion – it's a large very boring task that needs doing and requires no particular skills.) Maproom (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit clash)Hello Ramthecowy - welcome to the Teahouse, and congratulations on completing the Wikipedia adventure and for your enthusiasm to contribute. There are several approaches, depending on what appeals to you. Here are some that occur to me:

• If you have skills or an interest in a particular topic, there may be a "Wikiproject" on that area. You can see the list of Wikiprojects under "Finding a project" at Wikipedia:WikiProject. Then for example, if you look through that list, and its sub-lists, and decide you're keen on insects then you could go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects. Most Wikiprojects have a list of articles that need attention.
• If you want to hone your editing skills by working on articles with a particular problem, then you can take a look at the lists at Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask or Wikipedia:Cleanup.
• You can check out new users' contributions at Special:Contributions/newbies - some of them are good, some are ... not.

I'm sure other editors will have some suggestions, but these might help to get you started. Good luck!--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make minor improvements to articles, and you read and write English at the native level, Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit consists of articles that have been tagged as needing copy-edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for their replies, I've made a note of the things you've all said and hope to get somewhere some day! Thanks again! Cheers, have a good one Ramthecowy (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Notability impasse - What happens next?

Apologies if I have sent this twice by mistake!

I have been working on an article (Draft:Gill Fielding) for some time and some editors are challenging the subject on notability grounds. Where do we go from here as I believe there is a strong case for notability and I think other reviewers would see my point?

Here is my position on the subject's notability based on the basic criteria: This says that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject." Fielding has had non-trivial articles written about her in two (and arguably three) national UK non-tabloid newspapers. The Sunday Times and Telegraph are considered upper market newspapers - hence reliable - while the Daily Express (which has run two articles on Fielding) is described as a middle market newspaper (defined as 'the halfway point of a three-level continuum of journalistic seriousness; uppermarket newspapers generally cover hard news and down-market newspapers favor sensationalist stories.'). She has also featured as the central subject in a Channel 4 TV programme. Channel 4 is a publicly owned UK-wide TV channel. She also has a chapter written about her in an independent published book by Stephanie J. Hale.

In my mind, this only leaves the definition of 'significant' up for debate. I consider the above coverage to be significant yet some of those who have commented seem to disagree with me. How can we get this resolved? Thank you for your attention Neilho (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Sunday Times article says that she avoided her taxes (this is not mentioned in the draft) and appeared on a TV show. The Telegraph article confirms that she's worth £15,000,000. The Express article presents an interview with here, and is therefore not independent. I believe that all this does not constitute evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Maproom for getting back to me. OK, I can mention that she flipped her properties to save on Capital Gains Tax - that would clearly improve the balance of the article. But as the Times is a secondary source which is reliable and independent of the subject, I hope you would agree that this article would still be evidence of the subject's notability. As for the Express articles (there are two), one is an interview while the other is a mixture of interview and editorial which contains researched facts to support the article. Are interviews not allowed? Citation No.6 on the Notability of people page defines independence as 'whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.' This adequately sums up the Express's position. The newspaper itself qualifies as an independent source as it has editorial independence and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain). I still stand by my original assertion that the subject is notable as a property developer and TV personality. How about the Hale book? Independent books from a respected publishing house are mentioned as a valid source for notability and this one has a full chapter on the subject. What is the next step to move this process forwards do you think?

109.150.25.155 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The "next step" should be one of three things: (1) you add another, better, reference or two, and resubmit; (2) you somehow persuade a reviewer that the references already in the draft are in fact adequate; (3) you accept that adequate evidence of notability cannot be found, and abandon the draft (which will then be deleted in six months, I think). Maproom (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Maproom. As you can probably guess I will try (2) for now (I do have more references, for example a newspaper article from last week, but again it's mainly an interview and it's a regional newspaper). If this is the accepted way of doing things then could I please ask for a reviewer who does accept that I have provided sufficient evidence for notability to respond next. I would work with him or her to iron out any remaining issues with neutrality. Even if the subject only merits a stub at this stage I still do believe notability has been established due to the mainstream sources mentioned above (national newspapers, national TV coverage and chapter in a published book from a reputable publisher) combined with the multiple non-trivial articles in local newspapers and magazines I have also put in.

Neilho (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your boldface request seems like a defendant asking to be tried by a judge who already believes he is innocent. But I can't blame you for asking. Maproom (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That would be nice Maproom :) However, I would prefer there to be a jury to consider the case. If my only course of action is to find a sympathetic judge, then I will go that route for now.

Neilho (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of "space" for duration of time

In the article Jacobite rising of 1745 (as well as others) "space in time" has been used to describe the duration of time. Some of the edits that I have made have been reverted based on the premise that the previous "sounds better". Space measures volume vs. time measures duration. A calendar takes up space but the time on it takes up duration. Now I understand that "space in time" has been used liberally but it seems that when the wrong use of word has been made that regardless of how it sounds the wrong use of a word persists. What is the policy of WP?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the relevant policy would be here, but "in/within a short space of time" is a well-established phrase. See here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Col. Saunders, I agree with Cordless Larry. Describing time in spatial terms is a major underlying metaphor in English and many other languages. Consider:

• You have been called before this court... / I have to be there before ten.
• Jill came tumbling after / Repeat after me.
• I'll go on ahead / the days ahead
• We're approaching the end of the year.
• Christmas is coming.
• a short time, a long time
• This week has just whizzed by in a blur. / My days crawl by when you're away.

See Conceptual metaphor for further discussion.

--Thnidu (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I find your reference to my name offensive and I am certain that you would be the first to understand that you have absolutely no right to do so. It disrespects me, can on some levels be found to be derogatory and makes my name a mockery.

Space is measured by volume and time is measured by duration. The phrase to non-English speakers can be very confusing because it is not logical. I had always thought that its use was a sign that a person was either confused or just plain ignorant. If there is some special exception then for those that persist to use are justified to do so. What newspaper of record is willing to use it in their publication, and if they do is it only as a direct quote? What legal action has it within its text or does the profession regard its use merely for literary use. I would not regard WP as a literary pursuit. It is an act of encyclopedia that to a certain extent is a measurement of an absolute/definition of something. It is not a novel.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Srednuas Lenoroc. You can find an example of "space of time" used in newspapers here and here, and there are plenty more if you search. "Space in time" is perhaps less common and it's harder to find examples, because searching for that throws up many results along the lines of "Tim Peake blasted off into space in time for Christmas". What is the context in which you have encountered "space in time"? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked Jacobite rising of 1745, and I see you've made two edits to it recently. The first one changed "red silk with a white space in the centre" to "red silk with a white period in the centre" and appears to have been made in error - "space" is clearly correct there, not "period", as the sentence is describing the design of a banner. The second changed "in so short a space of time" to "in so short a period of time". Both of those are correct, in my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with both examples cited of "news" reporting is that one is a reader asking the question which the newspaper then poses to its readers. It is not a "news" story to be found on a front page. The second example is an op-ed piece contributed to the newspaper and not written by the newspaper staff. So again, where are there examples of a contemporary newspaper that has its reporters write original verse with a phases such as would use volume to describe duration--and it is not a direct quote? If it cannot be found in an example of legal actions such as an opinion/ruling or legislation then the inherent confusion to be found by the incompatible comparisons found within the phase. It may be fine and dandy for novels but not works that are used to establish credibility such as encyclopedias.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that the writer of the letter wrote the headline of that article, Srednuas Lenoroc, but if you want more examples, there are thousands here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

An advice column is not of the same writing importance as a front page above the fold current events report. Novels make great reading but they are fiction. Wikipedia is not a novel.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about a novel, but I have provided a link to a list of lots of newspaper articles that use the term, as you requested. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

All varieties of English use idiom and synonym which may be illogical and appear to be imprecise. "Short/long space of time", note the qualifiers should be included, is a widely used British English synonym and if even English use guides like Fowler's Modern English Usage use it (example - read the entry on Google) then it's use on Wikipedia isn't an issue to me. Perhaps it's a term that should be added to Wiktionary but and absence of definition there is not reason to eradicate it's usage across Wikipedia. Nthep (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There must be some misunderstanding here. I am not for an across-the-board eradication of the term at hand in WP; only its use as an original composed contribution to WP articles outside of a direct quote. Grammar exists to provide a logic that is not framed well with the phase at hand regardless as to how any "authorities" sustain it.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The first definition of space in the Oxford English Dictionary is "denoting time or duration". Its use for denoting area or volume while not a secondary definition is not the first listed. Yes, grammar does exist to provide a logic and in British English space as a measure of time is perfectly acceptable. While it might grate to the ears to some or seem illogical to others, it's an acceptable and logical form in any Wikipedia article where British English is the form of English used. Wikipedia isn't here to create an international form of English and the variations are accepted, even welcomed - see WP:ENGVAR. Nthep (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There must be some misunderstanding, I am not advocating for universal British/American English, just a logical one.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Srednuas Lenoroc. You seem to be objecting to a particular use of language which several people have pointed out is a normal part of English (and other languages, incidentally). If you choose to avoid such expressions in text that you write, I doubt if anybody would even notice; but for you to go round removing it because you consider it illogical would probably be regarded as disruptive. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that due diligence be practiced so that since this discussion has what I thought ended there has not been any additional changes. Your apology accepted. As was previously stated, WP is not the place for innovation regardless as illogical is the English language. I do still hold the point that this "volume" vs. duration has its point except in creative writing and WP is not a novel.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever happened to your supporting statements; please do not take them away on my account. I am certain that there are others that might find them of interest. As they appeared following my comments I assume that the proper way of including them was not followed.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Help.

My page Allama Abdul Malek Halim and Al-jamiatul Arabia Lil Baneena Wal Banaat Haildhar Anwara are going to be deleted. Plz go ther and correct it.its very nesessery files for bangladeshHamdan Munir (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would think that this is not the section for this type of help but I do hope that instead of unilaterally deleting articles so soon after being notified that others will provide just as speedy guidance to improve what remains of these articles since WP English has so much more work needed to help sub-continent subject matters improve to the level that western articles are that explain that society/culture.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Subject is reference

Hi, I'm trying to create an article in which it matches the criteria for original content, as well as notability, but the subject of the article is my reference. How do I cite the reference so the content becomes verifiable for the page Cason Cooley? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekozacek (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 January 2016‎ (UTC)

If you are saying that you can't find any references independent of the subject, the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's terms, so the article will be deleted. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)