Wikipedia:Teahouse

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, 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

adding In Popular Culture to a page

Many actor bios have a section called In Popular Culture at the end of the page.

I put in the same section for Tyrone Power, and now it has been removed. The editor has not yet answered me as to what I did incorrectly so I can correct it. In the History section he has written: uncited or details unsupported by 3rd party sources for notability).

Power has been mentioned in several films: All About Eve, Sunset Boulevard, Fade to Black - I'm not sure how to add them. He was also mentioned on I Love Lucy and several episodes of The Simpsons - again, I'm not sure how to add this.

There is a fictional book called "Ty" with his photo on the cover. I put in a full citation but it was removed. Ditto a set of plays where the main character is named "Tyrone Power" after him. If the publisher is not good enough, how do I cite it? Thanks for any help.Chandler75 (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Issues using a specific map!

Afternoon,

I am adding content to Alps Hockey League, and as such i'm trying to include a map that features the locations of the teams within the league. Currently I'm using a map that isn't quiet suitable (a lot of the team names are squashed etc). As a result I would like to use this one as it better suits my needs:

INL location map

However, I can't seem to use it in the same way. I suspect it is due to the fact that it is a file rather than a template, however, the map in question appears to be used on the Italian wiki such as here so clearly it can be used in the manner that i'm trying to use it. However, I have no idea how I can go about using it as it doesn't appear to be a template. How would I go about doing so? Thanks in advance! Mark49s (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Citing if most of my sources are primary research that I conducted

I'm writing the biography of G.H. Rothe, an artist who doesn't yet have a full Wikipedia page or comprehensive biography online, despite being one of the most commercially successful printmakers of the 20th century. Most of the facts that I have of her life come from original research done with her son, whom I have interviewed several times. What would the best way to go about this citing be, in order to account for the facts? Juan Pablo Pacheco 15:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanppacheco (talk • contribs)

There is no way, I'm afraid Juanppacheco. If information hasn't been published by a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking, then it shouldn't go into Wikipedia, ever. Once you've had your research published by a reputable publisher, then it can be cited (but you would need to be cautious about inserting it yourself, because that would be regarded as a conflict of interest on your part. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

New account

• Bureaucrats Note!
• Special:CreateAccount and click user rights management
• Email - <redacted>
• Password - <redacted>
• Rights by changing group membership - Bureaucrat, rollbacker, ip-block exempt, edit filter manager, autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer, page mover, account creator, mass message sender, file mover and template editor. 112.134.81.42 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to post personal contact info here where all the world can see it, so I've removed it. Rojomoke (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your post is about. See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions if you want extra permissions for an account. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

content flagged as promotional

I am completely new to this, trying to update page for artist friend, Paul Tamanian. Some content provided by the artist, is considered promotional. Is there a way to know what content is considered promotional? Which specific items need references? How the references are qualified...sorry, so confusing, I get lost in layers of pages..appreciate your assistance. Neilneiljforrest 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiljforrest (talk • contribs)

Hello, Neiljforrest. Basically, Wikipedia isn't interested in what a subject says about themselves, (or what their friends, relatives, employees, agents, or associates say about them). It's only interested in what people who have no connection with them have published about them. So material coming from the artist is basically useless in updating the article (and if you are a friend, then you have a Conflict of interest, so you are discouraged from editing their article in the first place). If there are changes that you or he would like to see made to the article, suggest them on the article's talk page, preferably citing independent published sources. If the talk page does not get much traffic, it is worth adding {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) as that will bring your suggestion to more people's attention. --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I would look into WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV for any content that is questionable for promotion. Also make sure to use the four tildes ~~~~ to sign your comment. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Writing new article in English and linking it to the same topic which has a really short version in German

I'm in the process of creating a comprehensive English article on the artist G.H. Rothe. Even though there isn't any comprehensive article on Wikipedia, or elsewhere on the Internet about her, there is a short Wikipedia page in German about her life. I'm wondering how could I link my newly created article (which I haven't published yet) with the German version.Juan Pablo Pacheco 14:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanppacheco (talk • contribs)

Hi Juanppacheco, welcome to the Teahouse. After saving the article you can click "Add links" under "Languages" in the left pane. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

do we have to have the orphan page message tacked onto a new article?

Hello friendly teahouse editors, I have just had an article go up (Paul Smith - clergy) and I think a bot put an "Orphan tag" on it. Does that have to stay? I know what I should do is figure out how to link the article to others but I don't have the time right now to figure out how that's done. Lame, I know... Thanks! alfhild-anthroAlfhild-anthro (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Alfhild-anthro. No, the tag should remain there until there is another article which links to this one. As soon as another article links to it, anybody may remove the tag. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Logging in

Is there a way to see when a different user last logged in? Thanks → The Pancakeof Heaven! 14:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi The Pancake of Heaven!. Such information is not public. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The Pancake of Heaven! Best you can do is check their contributions list, which tells you when they lasted edited. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way to publish/ use crowdsourced information?

I was hoping to do an update to this wikipedia page: Comparison of XMPP clients and was able to compile data with the help of a reddit post in this spreadsheet . Is there any way that I can use this data or are the citations and references required too difficult to obtain or not reliable enough. Thanks and let me know! PS: I have yet to post anything to wikipedia and am pretty unfamiliar with how it all works so take it easy please! Signed Tiger_Respecter (I don't have an account yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.166.71.24 (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, Tiger_Respecter, until it has been published by a reliable source (such as a reputable publisher). As it stands, even though anybody may access it, a reader has no way of determining whether any of the information in it is valid: it may be completely accurate, it may be completely invented, it may be cherry-picked from a larger report, it may be basically accurate but have errors or malicious alterations: a reader has no way of knowing, so it is not acceptable as a source in Wikipedia. Once it has been published by somebody with a reputation for fact-checking, we may take their published version as reliable. --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A Sandbox not to be taken seriously?

Hi, again. I was creating my own User Sandbox page that would include a history of me (Sith Lord Amadeus), but it's more of a joke and I'm not planning to actually publish it or anything. This is my first time using a Sandbox and I wonder if it's a bad thing to do. It's more of a parody for after the end of Return of the Jedi. Should I not save the page since it's more of a satirical joke?

Sith Lord Amadeus (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sith. Wikipedia is not a social media site and userspace is intended for work on the encyclopedia rather than personal stuff. While not being part of the main encyclopedia user pages are visible to the general reader if they look for them and they are subject to certain rules including copyright, civility and not using Wikipedia as a web host to publish stuff not directly relevant to improving the encyclopedia.Charles (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so it must be deleted? Sith Lord Amadeus (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sith Lord Amadeus. Think of it this way: Wikipedia is a project to build and improve an encyclopedia. Nothing more and nothing less. It is not a social network. On the other hand, a certain amount of humor and joking around is accepted here, if the purpose is to build collaboration and working relationships among editors. In your case, you have made 19 edits so far. I think that there would be much more acceptance of a joke page if you had made 1900 productive edits to improve the encyclopedia. That is my opinion as an experienced editor, and other editors may have different opinions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Other editors may choose to let it alone, but is it is referred to WP:MfD it will most likely be deleted I would think. You do not have to do anything now.Charles (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Where is the appropriate place for alternative place names?

Hi there. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I was trying my best to see if there is any precedent for indigenous place names on Wikipedia, and I noticed that there was on the Missouri River page. Following that example, I am starting to add indigenous place names to other pages - Mississippi River, Seattle, and others. Should I include this information in the page heading (as it is with the Missouri River page) or is there a more appropriate place for it? Thanks! Jordanengel1 (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jordanengel1. This is an excellent question, and I am unaware of a specific policy since there is a large range of possibilities. This is really a matter of editorial judgment, and the most important primciple is that the indigenous name needs to be referenced to a reliable source. Is the indigenous name still commonly used or is it a footnote in the academic literature? Is there one known indigenous name, or several? Is the current name controversial? These are the sort of factors that will influence the decision of how much prominence to give to an alternate name. Consider Denali, North America's highest mountain. Its official renaming last year was highly controversial. The various names for Denali are discussed in the infobox, the lead of the article, a dedicated section of the article, and in a separate article devoted to the controversy, Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute. The bottom line is that well-referenced alternative names for any topic are worthy of due weight in any encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jordanengel1: There is a guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Wikipedia's own terminology is also good to know in discussions. In the article Missouri River, the largest bold "Missouri River" at top left of the page is called the page name or title. We rarely say "page heading" but if we do then it often refers to this and not to the box at the top right. This box is called an infobox. Its heading is called something with infobox like infobox heading, infobox title or infobox name. The part of the article before the table of contents is called the lead. Alternative names may be mentioned in the infobox heading and the lead but not in the page name. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Need help regarding citation

Dear Team, I need help to fix this issue:- I wish to cite AV media but its complicated, problem is that original AV is now private on MTV india youtube channel , Refer https://www.facebook.com/mtvindia/posts/10151879968645213 and the only copy left, is available on https://vimeo.com/87850673 which is AV's Director's official channel. Is there any way that I can consolidate these two proofs in single citation ?

I tried below code but system throws . External link in |publisher= (help); URL–wikilink conflict (help) when i clicked help its says Help:CS1_errors#param_has_ext_link

Below is the code I was using cite AV media| title =MTV Sync Episode 4, Music Video Dust by Talvin Singh feat Frame/Frame | medium =Television production | publisher =MTV (https://www.facebook.com/mtvindia/posts/10151879968645213)%7C location= India|date = 23 February 2015| url=https://vimeo.com/87850673

Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Catrat999. The publisher field should not include a URL. A Wikilink to MTV is fine. I am not sure if that is the only problem, but please try removing the URL. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328 , Yes sir to fix this code removing url from publisher works. Thank you :) Catrat999 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Templates

I do not know what is happening with templates and me at the moment, but any template does not seem to work for me :-( Do you have any suggestions? East Anglian Regional (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Which templates are not working for you? Can you link examples and expected output? Note that you can't embed CSS like this. Intelligentsium 19:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Can you give me any good templates for fancy usernames? Thanks, East Anglian Regional (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S, Do you know how to archive talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Intelligentsium East Anglian Regional (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we have the same understanding of the term Template? I would recommend just looking at the markup in the signatures of a few different users (feel free to hit "edit" to look at mine; WP:SIG may also be helpful). However whatever you decide, as long as it's within policy, your signature isn't all that important, and most users place more stock in your contributions and ideas than your signature. Intelligentsium 19:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm also unsure what you are trying to do. If you want to change the way your username is displayed at top of User:East Anglian Regional then you need DISPLAYTITLE, for example placing this on the page:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:User:<span style="background-color: #ffa500; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold;">East Anglian Regional</span>}}

See Help:Archiving a talk page for archiving. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Article creation

Hello, Wikipedia Teahouse. I have a question about an unwritten article I would like to create. The article is about a popular YouTube organization called The Nation with over 8 million subscribers. The Nation consists of five channels: Trap Nation (trap music channel), Chill Nation (chill music channel), Bass Nation (bass boosted music channel), House Nation (EDM music channel), and Rap Nation (Rap music channel). I think this article would be notable, containing trustable sources, but I am not exactly sure if the article would be encyclopedic or accepted by Wikipedia. Thanks! Blacksmith210 (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Try it out and se what the reviewers think of it. East Anglian Regional (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. It sounds like it could be notable, but to know for sure, can you post some examples of significant, reliable coverage in third-party sources? The relevant notability guideline would be WP:WEB. If you want some feedback on your article from an experienced editor before it hits the mainspace, you're welcome to use WP:Articles for creation. Intelligentsium 19:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have found first-party sources, but I was unable to find third party sources.

Blacksmith210 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, first-party sources (or primary sources) cannot be used to show the notability of a subject. Some good third-party sources would be news articles, academic publications, and interviews or profiles on reputable websites unaffiliated with the subject. Intelligentsium 19:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Thank you for your support.

Blacksmith210 (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandalized Page

How do I report a vandalized page to be fixed by an admin or user with enhanced permissions? Marcel Pagnol was heavily vandalized, and I don't see an easy way for me to help fix it on my own. Lizzius (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe all you need to do is post a message on an admin's talk page. Try User:SwisterTwister or User:Randykitty, remember, use the talk page. :) #bodyContent a[title="User:East Anglian Regional"] { background-color: #ffa500; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; } (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

P.s Sorry for that junk next to username. East Anglian Regional (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed it, just found an earlier version that looked good and reverted to it. -- GB fan 19:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Lizzius (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Report vandalism at the vandalism noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you report pages there? I've only seen templates for reporting users (this page was being vandalized by three users). Lizzius (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I was also going to suggest posting on that page, but it is for reporting vandals rather than for requesting help in reversing the vandalism (although you might find that administrators taking action against vandals might help out with the latter). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Often you don't need special permissions to handle vandalism. You can do what GB did by clicking on the "View history" tab and finding the version before the vandal edited. Then click the time stamp of the edit. It will take you to the old version. Click edit, leave a good edit summary, don't change anything else and save. Voilà, vandalism fixed. If there are multiple vandals attacking a page, you can ask for semi-protection or pending changes at wp:RFPP. Happy Squirrel (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

upload photo

How to upload a photo in the article. I'm trying to upload a picture of Meghan Jadhav. Pls help. Iamnewtowiki (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi. You need to upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons first and pass the scrutiny there to ensure there are no copyright violations. Good luck! - BroVic (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Where does the picture come from Iamnewtowiki? If you took it yourself, you almost certainly own the copyright, and can licence it as required when you upload it. If not, unless it has already been explicitly licensed with a licence compatible with Wikipedia, you would need the copyright owner to release it explicitly, according to donating copyright materials. If it is a picture you found on the internet, it is unlikely that you can do that - not impossible, but you will have to work hard identifying the copyright owner, and persuading them to release it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Iamnewtowiki You can upload your photo Here at Uploadwizard –– مجتبیٰ (Talk!) 09:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiBreak

Hi I am Inter&anthro, because of a real life situation outside of my control I will be unable to edit Wikipedia between June 18 and July 30. I am usually quit active on Wikipedia, is there anything I can post on my user or talk page that will let other editors know of my absence? Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: You could use {{wikibreak}}? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You can also just put notes on top of your user and talk pages saying, "I won't be on Wikipedia from June 18 to July 30". It's possible to highlight the words to make them stand out--see the note about replies I have at the top of my talk page for an example. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Archives

Hello. How can you create an archive for your talk page? East Anglian Regional (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, East Anglian Regional. There are a number of options. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page for advice on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure Difficult to Navigate

Hello! Whenever I try to complete a task in the Adventure, it leads to a dead-end. I finish the task, but all it gives me is a back-button. I can't go on. And I know I'm missing something, because if I click on the next mission, they say "we left off with..." and go on to tell about something I never heard. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong, or if my computer maybe doesn't support the experience? I'm not sure. But I want to go on the Adventure so I know how to navigate, edit, and contribute to Wikipedia! Thanks for your help. Tyke9494 (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (Nigeria)

I reviewed Draft:National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (Nigeria) and declined it as not providing enough evidence of notability. Its author, User:BroVic, has asked me on my talk page to take another look. I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors. Is The Nation (Nigeria) a reliable source? (I know that The Nation is a reliable source on facts but partisan.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking at it again. BroVic (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the Nigerian newspaper has no relation to the US magazine of the same name, Robert McClenon. I would consider it reliable for general purposes, in the same way that most newspapers are (i.e. we should beware of its ideological position and attribute opinions rather than reporting everything it says as fact). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:ItsNOON

I reviewed Draft:ItsNOON and declined it as reading like an advertisement. Its author, User:Rglundberg, has asked me on my talk page to take another look. I would like the comments of other experienced editors. It still looks non-neutral to me, and like it as much about the crowd economy or sharing economy than about the platform, but I would appreciate the comments of other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I would criticise it on the grounds that it just says that its subject is an "online platform", and nothing about what that platform does. Maproom (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and wikiversity

Is it possible to create content on the general wikipedia platform that can be used for training students, like giving them their daily homework tasks via the platform and the relevant tutorial. I've noticed you talked about wikiversity or mediawiki but I can't see how I can do that on the current wikipedia app that I downloaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenztaf (talk • contribs) 13:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jenztaf. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia and everything that takes place on this website should be devoted to improving the encyclopedia. There are no exceptions. We do host university courses devoted to writing Wikipedia articles but not others. Wikiversity is separate website with no direct connection to Wikipedia, except that both are projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am not aware that a Wikipedia app will work at Wikiversity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki is the software package that runs both sites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

images and photographs

what is the difference between images and photographs? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Super ninja2: A photograph is taken by a camera. An image is a broad term, but to put it simply, an image is something that depicts something visually. An image could be a photograph, a map, a scan, a graph, a view from a mirror, or any number of things. Every photograph is an image, but not every image is a photograph. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

What are mistakes in my article because of which it is not approved by wikipedia?

My article can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Au_Financiers_(India)_Limited Aufin1996 (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As explained in the note left on the draft, it does not meet the notability guidelines. You need to cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not from the company but are specifically about it. In other words, press releases are absolutely useless.

Another issue not addressed in that note is that your name rather indicates that you are employed by Au Financiers and so should not be writing articles about them at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

posting a new topic

i don't wish to promote or publicize anyone, but this person called Mark Angel is gaining popularity and wiki doesn't have a page to let it readers know who he is! so instead of creating a page i just wanted to suggest that topic. how can i do that? Rooppam (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)RupamRooppam (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rooppam. Does this refer to this Mark Angel, or someone else by the same name? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I am positive the person I am talking about is a different Mark Angel

Rooppam (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It might help us answer your question if you tell us more about who he is, Rooppam. More generally, see Wikipedia:Your first article. For Wikipedia to have an article about someone or something, that person or thing must have been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so you would need to be able to demonstrate that. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

how to remove the tags mentions in my edits by some other editor

how to remove the tags mentions in my edits by some other editorMakkdp (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

how to remove the tags mentions in an Article by some other editor with valid reasonsMakkdp (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Makkdp. I don't understand your question. I'm guessing this is about Art Fund, which has been nominated for deletion. It was previously Proposed for Deletion (a quicker process), and you removed the proposal, which you are entitled to do. Majora then took it to Articles for deletion, a more formal process, where discussion can take place. You are encouraged to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArtFund and make the case for keeping the article there; but please understand that you need to do so by arguing according to Wikipedia's principles: I suggest you read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions carefully. In the meantime, you can continue to improve the article according to Wikipedia's policies; but any discussion about the deletion should take place on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArtFund, not in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is about ArtFund rather than Art Fund, which is a long-standing redirect to another article. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorting on a category page

Unlike other categories I've looked at, Category:Articles_using_infobox_person_with_unsupported_parameters isn't in alphabetical order, or any order at all as far as I can tell. I'd like to get it sorted. After reading a variety of help pages, I still have no idea how this is done. Please help. Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlackcurrantTea, welcome to the Teahouse. Category:Articles using infobox person with unsupported parameters is sorted first by the name of the unsupported parameter and then by the page name if articles have the same unsupported parameter. Please don't change this without getting consensus at Template talk:Infobox person. For the technical details, {{Infobox person}} says {{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{main other|[[Category:Articles using infobox person with unsupported parameters|_VALUE_{{PAGENAME}}]]}}|preview = Page using [[Template:Infobox person]] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|...}}. _VALUE_{{PAGENAME}} is a sort key controlling how the article is sorted if Module:Check for unknown parameters adds the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter. I didn't think a template change would be involved. It makes sense that it would be sorted by parameter, but that wasn't obvious. I appreciate your taking the time to explain, especially the technical part. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Visual editor - problem with "further reading" and "external links"

Visual editor -

I did a draft in my sandbox using visual editor – it went well until I got to the “Further reading” – when I added the bullet point & selected cite template (book) it was given a number (following on from the reflist above eg. reference 3, following reference 2 above) – I just want the bullet point

By going into wiki source I noticed a <ref> tag had been inserted at the beginning and end of the reference. By deleting this coding the reference saved ok and the numbering was removed. The same happened in external links. Not sure if this is a bug or if I'm missing something?

Cheers

Gerringong coast16 (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gerringong coast16, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think the "Cite" button can omit placing the chosen citation template in <ref>...</ref>. The "Insert" button can do it but then you get a general interface for adding templates with no special features for citation templates like automatically generating data from a url. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

How can an unreliable source be challenged and deleted?

In the Manchester United and Liverpool FC pages there is a reference to the Liverpool v Man Utd rivalry. When accessing this site there is a section called Football Rivalry 1992-present. In this section there has been a systematic undoing of a decades long truth about trophies which count as Major. It has long been established that in England, Major Trophies are the 3 domestic titles; League, FA Cup, and League Cup. In Europe it is the Champions League, Cup Winners cup( now defunct) and UEFA/Europa Cup/League. By this measure Liverpool lead United by 41 to 40. But United fans have obviously resented this and so decided to try and include ALL honours , even including the pre-season curtain raiser- the FA Community Shield. This has often been shared, and,in the case of a Double, has necessitated the involvement of another team altogether. Now, I and many long time football fans allowed the Community shield to be mentioned, but at the same time wished it noted that Major Trophies(like Tennis, or Golf) need to be acknowledged. Every publication, TV description ever always lists Major Trophies. Over recent years there has been occasional use of European Super Cups, or World Club cups but NEVER the \charity/Community Shield. It is an acknowledged practice. Now these biased fans have tried to suggest there is a 'dispute' as to who has the most major trophies. To back this up they have 3 sources (34),(35), and (36). the first two correctly list a set of trophies. The third-poorly written and full of random statements- cherry picks some international titles,and ignores others, and even mistakes one for another. I have left a comment on the source site just below this article. To counter this I tried o show that, even with international titles, Liverpool still lead (44-43), and I used the UEFA site. I was met with the response 'dude, what makes UEFA the authority on this' UEFA is the governing body for all European football! Source 36 is merely a blog. Enkayaitch (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Enkayaitch. The proper place to resolve this issue is Talk:Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. Please be aware that there is an expectation that all Wikipedia articles be written from the neutral point of view and it is not a place for Liverpool and Manchester fans to argue with each other. There are plenty of places online for such debates, but not here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked and there has been no discussion on that talk page in 2-1/2 months. Please take the matter there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

what you are stating isnt true and is only you're opinion. If you would like to discuss any issue you have sensibly, feel free to do so with me or on the talk page, I have replied to your talk page in the hopes of getting some kind of conversation started....and please stop having digs at other editors and United fans over fallacies and differing opinions. Davefelmer (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPEEDY, or let it be?

Hello - during NPP I tagged an earlier version of new article "Serenitea" for CSD G11 (advert). The original author then removed the CSD tag. How much further should a patroller go in this situation? Retag G11? Or just unpatrol the article and let more experienced editors determine next steps? Thanks for your guidance. --dstone66^{(ṭạḷḳ)} 20:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's an advert. I wouldn't say I'm experienced in deletion, but I have no doubt that G11 is appropriate. Re-speedied. Maproom (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Dstone66 the article creator is not allowed to remove speedy deletion tags. If they do, then you can undo their edit and put the tags back. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have asked the author to make the appropriate conflict of interest and paid editing disclosures, and, if they are not affiliated with the company, to come here and state that they are not being paid. At this point, it looks like it may survive a speedy, and I am considering whether to AFD it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This is great guidance; thanks, everyone! --dstone66^(talk) 18:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

How to make multiple drafts in my user space ?

Dear Team, I finished working on my first article Draft:Purplehed Records, meanwhile this gets improved via AFC process I wish to work on my next one but I am afraid I don't know how to do it technically. With reference to below article Wikipedia:About the Sandbox "If you want more sandboxes then make a page in your userspace and designate it as your sandbox. Unlike your primary sandbox, Wikipedia does not automatically keep a way to link to these, so be sure to bookmark it or otherwise have links on your userpage which go to your other sandboxes." I understood the logic but kindly guide me practically how do I make a page in my Userspace and designate it as my sandbox ? Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Catrat999. You need a link to create the wanted page names. This can for example be done by creating red links like User:Catrat999/sandbox2 and User:Catrat999/sandbox3, and clicking on them. You can also enter the wanted page names in the search box and then click at "You may create the page". The page names should start with User:Catrat999/ but can be anything after that. You can place {{User sandbox}} or {{Userspace draft}} on the pages to designate them but this is optional. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, Thank you so much for teaching me how to do this:) Very informative and I appreciate your guidance. Thanks and Regards Catrat999 (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia Page and Making it stick

Hi there,

I'm creating a wiki page for Tobacco 21. It's a political movement in the United States trying to get governments to raise the sales age of tobacco from 18 to 21.

Can you review my page and let me know what I missing to make sure the article sticks?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_21

TMC2015 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The place to start is to find a couple of independent sources that actually discuss the political movement. When I checked there were 16 sources on the article. The first one is a primary source as it is the movement's website. Of the remaining 15 only #6, #14 and #15 use the term "Tobacco 21" in the article. All 15 of the other sources are not actually about the movement but about the legislation. Are there any sources that are about the movement? -- GB fan 19:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi TMC2015, Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia shouldn't be saying that this movement/campaign/foundation "is the driving force nationally..." without citing reliable sources that support the claim. Gab4gab (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

referencing help

I tried to write an article about a famous person whose music is on tube but my article got denied because ai don't know how to do the referencing. any idea what to do?(Fariborz00 (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Try reading about reliable sources and referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

changing the spelling on a page name

I created a page on a Canadian curator. I spelled the name wrong. The only place I can't seem to figure out how to edit is on the actual page itself. Thebaconfairy (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are using the standard interface, the Move command is to the left of the search box (possibly under More). I have moved the article for you. --Boson (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wondering whether creating a new article for a service provided by the US government makes any editorial sense

Hey there!

I'm a volunteer working with America House Kyiv, a non-profit cultural center and NGO funded by the US Embassy here in Ukraine (I'm afraid I don't know all the nitty gritty of our background off the top of my head, this is my second week here, so please don't take all the background I'm aware of as 100% fact). My boss, the social media manager, had been approached with an idea regarding having a page for America House for general information purposes. I have noticed certain pages regarding similar US efforts, such as "Belgrade Youth Center" and "American Corners in Kazakhstan", are up, but not particularly well-linked with relevant pages or categories. In our case, the concept as far as I'm aware would regard the current services offered by the center. From my perspective, it would also ideally provide a quick history of the building we occupy (a former school which was then used as the Consulate prior to the new Embassy's construction).

I personally believe that this information would be more relevant on the "Embassy of the United States, Kiev" in some sort of section on services offered, as putting it anywhere in the "Foreign relations of Ukraine" or "Ukraine-United States relations" would be out of place. However, one of my fellow volunteers has had experience with the public relations and social media fronts within the Embassy, and is hesitant as to whether this sort of major edit would be approved. I'm sorry if this isn't the appropriate forum to bring this up, but I'm unfamiliar with how an organization like ours is to be represented on Wikipedia, or whether it should at all.

Thank you very much for reading, I look forward to further contact,

Santiago.de.la.Compost (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are connected to this subject, you should not edit it. See WP:COI. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Just what I was thinking. Thank you very much for the quick response!

Santiago.de.la.Compost (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Santiago.de.la.Compost: welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for asking. People quite often mistake Wikipedia for a social media site, but it is something completely different from that: it is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutrally written articles based almost entirely on independent published sources. It is never appropriate to advertise yourself on Wikipedia (and it doesn't make any difference whether you are commerical, charitable, governmental, or anything else). If Wikipedia is to have an article on you, you will have no control of its content: you will be encouraged to suggest edits, but strongly discouraged from making them yourself.

The question of whether there should be a separate article on your organisation depends mostly on whether it is notable, in the special Wikipedia sense of "there is substantial writing about the subject, written by people who have no connection with it, and published in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers". If that is the case, then there can be an article, based almost entirely on these independent sources. As an employee, you are discouraged from writing such an article, but not forbidden: you must, however, declare your status: see WP:PAID. If these independent sources do not exist, then there may not be an article on it, however written.

If there is some published material about the organisation, but not enough to establish notability, then information about it may be added to an existing article, as you suggest. Every piece of information added should still be referenced to a published source: independent sources if possible, but non-independent sources may be used as long as what is included is only uncontroversial factual data. And you will still need to take note of the provisions about conflict of interest and paid editing.

In short, if you are here to help us build the encyclopaedia, you are welcome; if you are here only because your boss has told you to promote your establishment, please use social media for that, not Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

how to cite newspaper cuttings

I am writing an article about an artist who has sent me newspaper cuttings about his important exhibitions. I could upload scans of these cuttings or put them on a separate website. What is best? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Landschaftsmaler/sandbox --Landschaftsmaler (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To put copies of the newspaper cuttings either onto Wikipedia or onto another website would almost certainly be a copyright violation, and in any case would not satisfy Wikipedia's requirement for verifiabilty. What you need to do is to provide the information to allow other editors to look up the information, such as the name of the newspaper, the date, and the title of the article. The template {{cite news}} is a good way of formatting the information. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks David, I´ll do that. One question though: Would it be alright to link to newspaper cuttings of photographs where permission was granted by the people in those photographs? Details required for a proper citation would be added. --Landschaftsmaler (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

In general the copyright in a photograph does not belong to the subject of the photograph. Copyright usually belongs to the photographer, but for a newspaper photograph I would expect the copyright to belong to the newspaper. David Biddulph (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

My article has been flagged for speedy deletion - Marico Innovation Foundation. I don't believe it should be deleted. what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maricoinnovates (talk • contribs) 10:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to read the messages on your user talk page, and the message in the box at the top of the article. Each of those has useful links. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In your case, it was deleted as advertising. You may request the deleting administrator to restore the deleted article to user space or draft space via Requests for Undeletion if you don't think that it is advertising, that is, if you think that it is a neutral presentation about the foundation. However, are you affiliated with the foundation? If so, you must make the required disclosures under the conflict of interest policy and possibly the paid editing policy. You may then submit your draft via Articles for Creation for review by volunteer experienced editors. Bear in mind that if you are affiliated with the company, it is very difficult to even try to write a neutral draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't just that it was advertising. It also had no credible claim of significance.

Also, @Robert McClenon: has perhaps forgotten that Requests for Undeletion says "Please do not request that articles deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7 or G11 be undeleted here."; in this case, those were the two criteria for deletion. David Biddulph (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I had forgotten those. Also, it appears that the original poster has been indeffed as a promotional account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit

Hi, I'm having problem on my talk page. I can see edit button on desktop site, but not on mobile site! (Please ping me up, If you can help) INVISIBLE^knock! 08:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Invisible Guy: On the mobile site, the edit button is a gray pencil located at the upper-right of the page, on the same line as the page title. Does it not appear for you? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The upper right pencil icon only edits the lead section. Each section heading is supposed to have a pencil icon. They didn't before but they do now after I closed two open divs in the lead.[1] @Invisible Guy: I don't know whether your former talk page design with a border [2] can be combined with mobile section editing. It cannot be tested with previewing and I don't want to experiment with saving variations to see what happens. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, It worked! INVISIBLE^knock! 21:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Perge

I want to publish a page about Perge, bee bread. Can any of the editors help me? Please visit my page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Perge and please join my disscusion at Draft talk:Perge Ica2000 (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

See also the lengthy thread #Draft: Perge and Bee bread below. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There is discussion at Talk: Bee pollen. You are welcome at any time to add to the article (as long as you are not violating any Wikipedia policy, such as by advertising products). Unless there is consensus that a separate article is needed, it would be much better to add to the article than to create a new article, which might be subject to an AFD with a conclusion of Merge. If you ask the same question here that has been asked within the past week, it may annoy some of the editors, who may think that you are trying to get a different answer this time. Please respond to the comments at Talk: Bee pollen. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if i am very persistent about publishing a page, but what do i do when i gave arguments about reasons of publishing a page on Talk: Bee pollen, but the editors don't answer? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ica2000 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ica2000. So far, you have failed to provide high quality scientific sources written by academic experts on bees that discuss "perge" or "bee bread" as a discrete topic. The current sources in your draft are promotional and credulous. One is so promotional that it includes recipes. If you want to include any medical claims in an article, then your sources must comply with WP:MEDRS. These matters were explained to you several days ago, and you have not improved the referencing of your draft article. You have a lot of work to do to improve your draft before it has any chance to be accepted as a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The recipes were not intended to be promotional, but as an example to what can be made with bee bread, or with such substances. If you are giving an audience an article that includes most parts about bee bread, you might just as well give them an example of an dish that (not as a promotional matter, but more as a practical use of bee bread) includes bee bread. And to as the sources that I used. In the article the second source (that I used for describing the production of bee bread) is a scientific book that is used on a university in the city Novi Sad. As for sources that include medical claims, I'll change it until the time being (until i find a source of medical claim for bee bread). User:Ica2000 —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Royalty-free images

are Royalty-free images allowed to be uploaded on wikipedia? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Super ninja2. Probably not, but it depends on what the copyright holder means by "royalty free". If they mean that they retain copyright and control, but grant permission to people to reuse the image without payment, that is not enough, because images in Wikipedia (apart from fair use) must be available for anybody to reuse and modify, under CC-BY-SA or similar. If they mean that they have released them under a suitable licence, then yes. You need to check the specific copyright status. --ColinFine (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

what is the "new section" tab at the top of a talk page?

I saw a question here few seconds ago about the "new section" tab and I surprised I never knew it was exists! what is the "new section" tab and what it used for? and thank you all for your help shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Super ninja2. Unsurprisingly, the "new section" option allows editors to create a new section. This allows new topics to be discussed on that particular talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2. The "New section" tab is basically a short-cut for adding a new section to a talk page and it works pretty much the same way as the "Edit" tab. Go to User talk:Super ninja2 and click on the "Edit" tab at the very top and see what happens. Next, try clicking on the "New section" tab and see what happens. You can in fact add a new section to a talk page using the "Edit" tab; it just takes a little more time since you have to manually format the section heading, etc. and place the section in the proper location on the talk page. The "New section" tab will automatically do that for you.

You seem to have lots of questions about Wikipedia which is fine, but sometimes you can learn a lot by searching for the answers yourself. Have you taken the Wikipedia:Adventure yet? Lots of answers about Wikipedia can be found there. There is also WP:FAQ which has lots of answers to common questions about Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Where is the "new section" tab at the top of a talk page?

Where is the "new section" tab at the top of a talk page? My talk page has no such thing as a "new section" tab, but I was told to go there to leave a message for Materialscientist. It wasn't on his talk page either.

I searched for "new section" using the search tool, but found nothing of use. Zee99 (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zee99, welcome to the Teahouse. First navigate to the talk page you would like to leave a message at. For Materialscientist it is User talk:Materialscientist. The "new section" tab should be located directly to the right of the "Edit" tab and to the left of the "View history" tab. These tabs should all be located directly to the left of the search bar. However, if you're browser window is small, the "New section" tab may be located in the "More" dropdown menu. Take a look at this picture. Do you see it now? Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to reply to your helpful advice, but I wanted to say God bless you! Thank you,

Your directions were followed and the "New section" tab suddenly appeared. I have no idea why it didn't show earlier.

Vern. Zee99 (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To editor Zee99: You're welcome! If you have any further questions about Wikipedia, feel free to ask here. Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To editor Zee99: I moved your second post to the existing section. Clikc the "edit" link to the right of a section heading to edit that section. A new post can be added at the bottom of the section. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Website Sources section

what exactly is Bibliography and further reading sub-heading? and why it contains Website Sources section (like in United States article) does that means I have to separate website sources form book sources or pdf sources when I make an article? why Website Sources section is not simply under References sub-heading? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A "bibliography" in the context of Wikipedia refers to the list of books/articles that the subject of an article has published. For example, Stephen King bibliography is a list of all of the books that author Stephen King has published. The "References" section lists all of the sources that the Wikipedia article itself cites; it explains where the information found in the article can be verified. The "Further reading" section is a list of works where a particularly interested reader could find more detailed coverage about the subject. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Just took a look at the United States article – the case there is a little different. The term "bibliography" is confusing because it can either mean a list of works published by an author and it can also mean a list of works that an article cites. The "Bibliography" section at the United States article serves kind of as a combination of references and further reading – it combines sources that the article cites frequently with published media that the reader could look to to find more information about the United States. The "Website sources" header seems to be special to the United States article. Generally, I don't think you need to separate the websites from the other sources. I think it's there for the convenience of the reader. Mz7 (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2 and welcome to the Teahouse. The article Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout explains what each section of an article contains. All the sources are references. The other sections are for information not used in the article but which might be useful for the reader. Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To editor Mz7: thank you thank you so much!! you really helped me!! shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

the difference between

what is the difference between sources and references and citations? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2. How I understand it is this: The "source" is the place that verifies a piece of information you want to write in Wikipedia. For example, if you are researching the birthplace of a notable actor, and you find the answer in a book about the actor, the book is the "source". In order to mention the birthplace on Wikipedia, you must provide a "reference" to the source – in other words, the reference explains where you found the information you are writing. A "citation" is a more precise way of saying a "reference". On Wikipedia, they mean the same thing. For help with referencing on Wikipedia, check out the page Help:Referencing for beginners. If you find yourself confused, feel free to ask here at the Teahouse and we'd be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To simplify a bit, Super ninja2, the book in this example is the "source". The bibliographic information about the source is the "reference" or the "citation". The source is immutable, but the reference may have shortcomings and can be improved. The reference may lack page numbers, or the name of the publisher, or an ISBN number, and so on. If you add those, you have improved the reference, which is a worthy and commendable thing to do. But the underlyling source remains the same, although the referencing in the article has been improved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Youtube video as a reference

why it's not ok to put a link to Youtube video as a reference on interview for certain actor? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2. There are two parts to answering your question. The first part has to do with the copyright status of the video and the second part has to do with the neutrality/content of the video.

As explained in WP:YOUTUBE, YouTube videos can be used in certain cases to cite article content. The problem is that many videos uploaded to YouTube were not done so by the original copyright holder of the content. Lots of YouTubers seem to upload stuff they find online regardless of its copyright status. This maybe fine for YouTube, but Wikipedia does not allow links to any videos, etc. on any website which may be considered to have been uploaded in violation of copyright law per WP:COPYLINK. If the interview the actor gave has been uploaded to the official YouTube channel of the copyright holder, then it can possibly be cited in the article. For example, an interview Tom Cruise gave on CNN uploaded by CNN to the CNN official YouTube channel can possibly be linked; an interview Tom Cruise gave to CNN upload by me to the Marchjuly Youtube channel most likely cannot be linked.

An interviews is basically someone talking about himself or herself. When people talk about themselves, they often find it hard to do so in a neutral way. That is why Wikipedia considers interviews to be a primary source. Wikipedia articles are intended to reflect what independent reliable sources say about something, not what the subject says about itself. Primary sources can be used to cite certain article content in articles about living people, but they need to be used carefully per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

a place where I can find articles with multiple issues

is there a place where I can find articles that have multiple issues or any issue and need my help to improve it in one place so I save time searching for them? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Super ninja2 and welcome to the Teahouse! There are several places to find articles with multiple issues.

• At Template:Multiple issues page, left column, click on "What links here" for the list.
• There is also Category:All pages needing cleanup.

Another place to find more Wikipedia articles to be improved is at the Community portal, Help out section. The grid on that page shows nine different types of updates on a variety of articles, and that page is frequently updated. Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia encyclopedia. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia place where it is okay to solicit uninvolved editors to a couple of contentious articles?

I have been editing for 12 years, particularly in areas involving technology, economics and software and interesting intersections of economics with technology. I've recently stumbled upon another interesting intersection, and have edited to do basic content building. For some reason, unclear to me, there are editors frequently opposing each other there on several related pages.

I know it is explicitly not okay to solicit partisans to come in and take sides etc., but I also know that, say in the example of an RfC on a narrow Talk page issue, it is okay to randomly invite folks who've offered their services to being neutral/uninvolved editors on RfC narrow issues.

My question, is there a similar area where it is okay to randomly invite editors to come over to an article page or set of a few article pages more generally? Just to get a wider set of eyes on contentious matters.

Thanks. N2e (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Look at WP:3O, it might be what you're looking for. If not, maybe it will point you to the right place. RudolfRed (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I sometimes alert the most relevant WikiProject to get more input. This works best when the WikiRroject talk pages are popular and active, of course. Some of them, like WikiProject Biography, really just don't attract much traffic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas RR and NRP! I don't think the WP:3O is quite the correct avenue, as I'm already a 3rd opinion (between two sides, apparently) and the crazyness and WP:DRAMA continues. But I did learn from going to that page something: WP:RfC is not only for narrow, straightforward issues like I thought. RfC can also be used for issues like I've witnessed on those pages, and so can be used as an acceptable method to invite uninvolved editors to take a look and weigh in. So your pointer was, indeed, helpful RR. And it would seem useful to perhaps put a note on the relevant Talk pages for Econ and Software technology as well. Good advice. Much appreciated. N2e (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

N2e, I've used WP:EAR in the past. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons Image release for people featured in the image

This seems straightforward enough when it comes to the photographer, but what if the image has recognizable faces in it? I didn't see a way in the wiki help for a way to document an individual who is featured in photograph to release their rights creative commons use. Is that even possible? Is that why most Wiki images are of sites and buildings, which in my experience are not subject to IP laws?Philip.mark.powell (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Philip.mark.powell. If a photograph is taken in a fully public place, there is no expectation of privacy, and no requirement that people portrayed release rights. I have uploaded photos of recognizable people to Commons without problems, and have used other such photos I found there without problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, please educate me. If this content were used for editorial purposes (news etc.) I would think there would be no problem, as you indicate, but if under the Creative Commons agreement, it can be reused by others for commercial endeavors, I would think permission from clearly recognisable people would be required. Again, just trying to learn and do things properly. Thanks.Philip.mark.powell (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been doing some reading on Wiki about this topic and it seems that in the United States anyway, you can release photography under CC license if it has identifiable people in it, but you may get into trouble if someone reuses it for commercial use. Is it possible to upload a photo with identifiable persons in it and restrict the Creative Commons list to everything but commercial? It would seem to me that would be acceptable, but again, I'm no expert, just trying to educate myself.Philip.mark.powell (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a non-commercial Creative Commons license, but then you couldn't upload that image to Commons, which requires that it can be reused for any purpose. RudolfRed (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Legit way to update company information

Hi, This is my first experience with Wikipedia updates.

We would like to update some factual information on the Wikipedia page about our company. Stuff like provide our new tagline & logo, update old stats that were cited from articles that are 5+ years old and things like that. We would also like to add new information.

Everyone, including our PR agency says DON'T DO IT!!. I've read through as much as I can on the help pages, but I still feel very wary about updating any info. Should we just submit the updated and new info on the talk page with a CIO tag/disclaimer and hope that an editor updates our public-facing page.

We want to be completely above boards, but we would also like to make sure that the changes get made.

What is your take on this?

MermaidsmeadowMermaidsmeadow (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mermaidsmeadow. The first thing that you should do is to start a userpage and declare your conflict of interest. Click on the red link in your current signature and click on the option to start the page. State the name of the company you work for and indicate your willingness to comply with our policies and guidelines. Then, post your proposed changes and the reliable sources that back them up on the article's talk page. In my opinion, you can update the logo yourself, as I consider that non-controversial. Return here and provide a link to the article, and an experienced editor will help you out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please also read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, Mermaidsmeadow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty well it, Mermaidsmeadow; but if you add {{edit request}} to the request on the talk page, it will make it more likely tha somebody will notice it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for the quick and informative reply. I'll work with our team to get the appropriate documentation and then will proceed as you described. I really appreciate your help with this! MermaidsmeadowMermaidsmeadow (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

How to know an article is notable and verifiable

Hi,

I've been contributing to Wikipedia generally on a subject that I resonate a lot with: The World Cultural Council and its annual award ceremonies. I have been collecting a lot of information. All notable to me like understanding who are the founding members, what Nobel prize winners are working with this institution, why the names of the awards were selected, how is the selection process of the winners, among others.

To me, all the above information is notable for an article that produces value to the community, but it may not be notable to someone else. How should I know?

Second, the information that I have collected can be verified with some of the members of the organization, but there is no newspaper nor book where the information can be double-checked. What constitutes a verifiable article? Almost all articles have statements that can not be verified in any way. Can you please help me?

Thanks in advance,

Healing Mandala (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Healing Mandala. Please read notability. "Notable" in Wikipedia doesn't mean famous, or important, or significant, or popular, or influential, or worthy, or valuable to the community, or anything like them. It means that more than one person who has no connection with the subject has chosen to write, at some length, about the subject, and had their writing published by a reliable publisher (such as a major newspaper, or a reputable book publisher). That's the criterion for having an article about somebody, because if there isn't such writing about them, then it is impossible to write a well-sourced article about them.

If you're talking about whether particular information may be added to an existing article (about a notable subject), then the criterion isn't quite the same. It is necessary that the information have been reliably published (unpublished information should never be added to a Wikipedia article), but it does not always have to have been published by somebody independent of the subject: uncontroversial factual information can often be adduceds from non-independent sources such as the subject's own website. There is also a separate question about putting information into an article: even if it is well-sourced, it may not be encyclopaedic (important enough to be worth mentioning) - that is a question which gets answered by consensus of interested editors. --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for someone to check my article so I don't have to resubmit it a third time!

Hi everyone!

Just a quick question -- I've submitted the article I'm creating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Henry_Alan_Green) three times now, each time with a new piece of feedback. Before it gets reviewed and potentially rejected again, I was wondering if someone could glance it over and tell me if there's anything else I would need to fix to get it approved this time? Thanks!

Gc717 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

One obvious point is that you have violated MOS:SURNAME. Other editors may comment on other aspects. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have moved it as it is good enough to publish. I have done some cleanup. -- GB fan 19:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the article still needs work. "Green is very active as a voice for Sephardi Jews, both in the United States and abroad", for instance, is an unattributed and unsourced opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The article also tells us "the book based on his dissertation is viewed as the most significant contribution to the sociological origins of gnosticism, three decades after its publication". The book was published in 1985, which is three decades ago now, but the source for the claim that is it the most significant contribution is from 2009. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

what is left for me to do to get the article published on the Wikipedia site?

Hello,

I am very confused by the dialogue that has gone on over the article Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird, that I am working to create. I have done each suggestion that has been made, clarifying the issues pointed out, but am at a loss now as to what is currently needed to get this article listed. I really am lost. Please advise. Thank you, ZintkalaNuni (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link Draft:Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird - Arjayay (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

When you ask a question at a public forum in Wikipedia, it is helpful to provide a link to the article in question. In this case, it is Draft:Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird. I have two points. First, the review process is backlogged, and is done by volunteers, and you are just in the same situation as every other author of draft articles, waiting. Second, you haven't really addressed the original advice, because you haven't really written a proper lede sentence beginning simply as "Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird was a Native American woman who was rescued as a baby ...". The article shouldn't begin "This person, Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird". It begins simply "Zintkala Nuni-Lost Bird". Other than fixing the lede, please look over the draft for any non-neutral language, that is, language about how sad her story is, in the voice of Wikipedia. It isn't the job of Wikipedia to comment, although it is our job to report the comments of others. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Open proxy blocks when signed in

Hey Wikipedians, this is about open proxy blocks. I assumed that if I'm signed in to my account I can still edit pages even if I'm using an open proxy. But I get the block message when I try to edit even though I'm signed in. Help? MediaKill13 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MediaKill13. You can find technical information on this matter at Wikipedia:Open proxies and following the various links there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

How to remove 'citation needed' flag?

This is my first ever Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Beck_(painter) I can see a flag 'citation needed' in the 'Background' section. I have now added a suitable reference, but cannot work out how to remove 'citation needed'. Very grateful for advice. SueJ (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@SueJ: if you edit the page you'll find {{Citation needed}} or {{CN}} possibly with date stamps in there. Just delete the curly brackets and everything in between. Nthep (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The code {{CN}} is what was creating the Citation needed mark on that line. To remove it you remove that tag, as I did in this edit. I also removed an external link you put inline in the lead. We do not link to external websites within the prose of the article. -- GB fan 15:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Struggling to work out how to thank you for your help and advice. But if you can see this, then thank you! ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SueJenkins (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

a blog

I fond this blog online and wanted to know more about it but found nothing. So i kept seaching and finally found out some information. Is it okay to make a page for it even if it isn't very popular? I just found out a lot about it and I thought making a page with all the information would be a good idea. But now i am unsure. Help please! Theweirdgirl666 (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

See web notability guidelines. If you haven't found much information about the blog, it probably isn't notable. Popularity isn't important, but how much the blog has been covered by third-party independent sources is important. Probably not, but maybe. My advice is that if you can write a reasonably sourced article, submit it via Articles for Creation to be reviewed by an experienced editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Writing an article about a band

I'm trying to put an article together about a band, which I believe meets the notability criteria, having had national television coverage as well as local, and a number of reviews by independent sources, in print, on the internet and on radio, both broadcast and internet, sometimes, but not always, including interviews. The real question I have is where and how do I actually create it, and how many parts can be filled in from sources other than those reliable and independent sources (bio of band members, ages, etc). For example, if the band congratulates one of it's members on their nth birthday, that gives date of birth, which then gives ongoing age into the future. If they aren't using a sage name, this is a matter of public record, although I wouldn't expect the details of that public record to be published without the permission and approval of the band and/or member. It's reaching the balance between giving the information which would be of interest to fans or potential fans, and respecting the privacy of the band and it's members. Can you be of any help to me? PhilLee2802 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, PhilLee2802. Wikipedia:Your first article has all the information you need about the mechanics of creating a draft article for review. To answer your question about material not from published sources, there shouldn't really be anything in a Wikipedia article that a reader can't verify by checking sources, so you should only include material that can be sourced. Not all of the material needs to come from independent sources, though. Basic facts about the band such as the age of its members can be sourced to their own promotional material or website. I hope that helps. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

uploading an image

I wanted to upload an image for submission to a site for possible use as a logo.

I was not sure about the "licensing" issue. I consider it public domain. It is an image that I have created myself.

when I use the upload wizard, it asks for a license page, but since I created it myself, the website (imgur) that I uploaded the image for hosting does not have a license statement.

100.12.250.92 (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I don't fully understand what you mean: if you are submitting a possible logo to a site, I don't understand what that has to do with uploading it to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. But what I will say is that if you created it, then you own the copyright (unless it is so basic that it cannot be regarded as copyright). It will be in the public domain only if you explicitly put it there - but if it is to be used as a logo, that may not be what you want, because that will mean that anybody can change or reuse it for any purpose, without your permission. Most logos represent some organisation, which does want to keep control of their use; so most logos are not released either into the public domain, or under a licence compatible with Wikipedia. Most logos which appear in Wikipedia articles are uploaded and used there under the non free content criteria. Does that help? --ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

self bio page

i have added my name as a suggestion for biography page under India. its been 2 years with no response. can i know whats the reason and if theres an update ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_nationality&oldid=599137289#India

mangesh Ghogre Mangeshghogre (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

We are all volunteers here, and no-one has chosen to start work on your biography. But it's a better candidate than most of those on the list. You have provided numerous references, which is a great help. I may start work on a draft myself sometime. Maproom (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

About rewarding

Is there any reward for new editors?Or do I just post it by myself when it goes to a specific of edit?Cause I don't really understand what does it mean in the award page...... THX!!! lysvincent (Sthg wrong with my edit?Tell me!) 07:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi lysvincent
As it states at Wikipedia:Service awards "There is no process for receiving these awards; you just determine the grade to which you are entitled, then display it on your user page."
So, in your case, with 369 edits since 14 April you can award yourself the "Novice Editor (or Burba) Award" - Arjayay (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Arjayay
Am i just have to display the whole thing it mention in the "Novice Editor (or Burba) Award" on to my page? lysvincent (Sthg wrong with my edit?Tell me!) 07:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No, lysvincent Just choose which one of the symbols you wish to use, and copy the template under that symbol - so if you want the service badge copy {{Novice Editor}} onto your user page, or if you want the Userbox copy {{Novice Editor Userbox}} - Arjayay (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay:I saw that other users has a bunch box named history, how can i create those box, example like User:Onel5969?Also, where can i find the box that's provided?For example , I like Pizza, how can i type this onto my page?Lastly, how can i know my total number of edits?Where do you find it?lysvincent (Sthg wrong with my edit?Tell me!) 08:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

lysvincent - Obviously. you can type "I like pizza" directly onto your user page, but I suspect you are referring to user-boxes - the rectangles with symbols in that many people use. The index of these is at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Gallery, but I have no idea if there is one about Pizza.
If you like the way someone has laid out their page, you can look at, or even copy, the code that they have used by clicking "edit" on that page, but do not alter someone else's user page.
Finally, you can see the number of edits, and the date of the first edit, of any editor, including yourself, by hovering over the users signature (You may need to have pop-ups enabled in "Preferences" for this to work) - Alternatively, at the bottom of your "Contributions" page click on "Edit count" - although confusingly, this may give a slightly different number - Arjayay (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Update - there are lots of options for pizza lovers at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Food - Arjayay (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay:THX A LOT!! lysvincent (Sthg wrong with my edit?Tell me!) 08:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Invalid COI

Hi,

I came across a COI and thought to investigate the closed case. Upon successfully getting the feedback from the editors of COI, i got to know that editors created the COI page without any proof and just based on assumptions. There has been some wicked act on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_marketing_research_firms

After questioning the editors several times, they failed to provide any evidence on which the whole drama was created. I would request senior editors to investigate this "digitgaps" on COI page and find out the following editors have some external connection outside wikipedia to create such a scene: Tagishsimon, Brianhe and BilbySamwiki2001 (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#DigitGaps. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Samwiki2001. This matter is over and done with, and those highly experienced editors you mention have done absolutely nothing wrong. Continuing the discussion is disruptive. Please read the essay Drop the stick and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi [[User talk:Cullen328|, thanks for checking this. Don't you think that if a case is invalid then those COI pages should be deleted? Samwiki2001 (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

How to produce the summary which is displayed on mobile devices

Some articles have a very short summary which is displayed on the mobile Wikipedia app, e.g. Godwin's law displays the summary "The longer an online discussion grows, the higher the probability of mentioning Hitler." Looking at the source of that article, I cannot find that text specified anywhere. Can any of the wise Teahouse residents point me to where that text come from, please? Gronk Oz (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz! I haven't used the app before (so I'm not sure where the summary is found), but I think that the summary comes from the description in the article's Wikidata entry. (The short article summaries that appear in the drop-down list when searching on the mobile site appear to use those same Wikidata descriptions, too.) CabbagePotato (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That looks right, CabbagePotato - thanks! How do those entries get created? It would be good to create that when I write a new article... --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with Wikidata; Wikipedia:Wikidata and d:Help:Items look like they might be helpful in answering your question. CabbagePotato (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: If the article exists in another language then you can click "Add links" under "Languages". Adding a language in this way will automatically create a Wikidata item. If there is no other language then there is often no reason to create a Wikidata item but it can be done at Wikidata as described at d:Help:Items#Creating a new item. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If the article is linked to a Wikidata record, Gronk Oz, then "Wikidata Item" appears in the left menu. --ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

delete my photo

how can i delete a photo i uploaded ? Ianasaman (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ianasaman (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ianasaman. More information would be useful. Which photo? Why do you want to delete a photo that you freely uploaded previously? In general terms, if you are the copyright holder for a photo, and you uploaded it under an applicable Creative Commons license, then you cannot delete it. Your upload is irrevocable. Carefully read the licensing language before uploading any photo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

thanks

Ianasaman (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Notibility guess

Hello All,

Thanks in advance for your time. I have drafted in my sandbox an article for a regional arts organization called Twin City Stage. (history article note: page was delete once per my request, because I was new and didn't really understand anything yet.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip.mark.powell/Twin_City_Stage

It is not complete yet, nor is the history fully cited yet. My major concern, as I have been reading the documents about Wiki practices has to do with one of notability. I don't want to waste anyone's time with work that is likely to be rejected. So, if people are willing to provide some feedback here on the likelihood of this topic of notability for this article, that would be great.

I see many articles on Wiki that are similar to this one, i.e older community theatre (when searching for Little Theatre on Wiki), however I am new and don't fully understand things, so an opinion would be great. Does the organization have national notability? In my opinion, no. Does it have regional and state notability? Certainly. I'm just not certain if that is enough. I would love to have someone risk an opinion before I fully cite and polish the article for submission. Thanks in advance.

Philip.mark.powell (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Philip.mark.powell and welcome to the Teahouse. We have many articles on community theatres, but standards for articles are tighter now. You will need references independent of the theater. Regional notability is fine. First, take out the "Shows by Season". It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Many theater companies have that on their web page so see if it can be added there. Find newspaper articles and local history to serve as references. They don't need to be online. Don't play down the previous name, Little Theatre of Winston-Salem. That is an important part of its history. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the honest, constructive feedback. I do how a question about the "Shows by Season" section though, from my perspective this is an important part of the history, and demonstrates its continuous operation over 81 years. How is this different from the listing of a television's show list? Again, just trying to understand.

However, I will admit, unlike anything else in the article, I have the original newspaper sources for all this information and more, however the COMPLETE list of shows, is something I have pieced together from the monthyly board records from 1935 to the present, I don't believe it has ever been published anywhere, even on the organization's website. As I understand it this is called "original work" which is not allowed, even though I know it to be true and have sourced it through archives, and more recently through internet sources. I guess I could dig through the microfiche, but if it wouldn't be allowed, don't want to spend weeks at the Library. I guess the question I have related to that is, are there any circumstances where including a list of shows by season would be allowed, that you can envision?

Also, could you elaborate on the phrase of "not playing down the previous name of the organization?" I want to do a good job. Thanks.

Again, just trying to learn and understand, I appreciate your honesty and help.Philip.mark.powell (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Philip.mark.powell Wikipedia is many encyclopedias, for science, arts, history, popular culture. The standards are different from area to area. A major theater may have a list of productions as a spin-off article from the main article (see Guthrie Theater production history) but a small theater will not. Television reaches millions of people per episode, so standards are different there. I realize you have done a lot of work putting the list together and it would be nice to see it on the theater's website. Many theater websites have a "Past Seasons" page.

About the name. I didn't realize until the end of the article that the name had changed as late as 2009. Put that information at the top of the article too, what the original name was and that it changed in 2009. Many of your references will be using that name. See Template:cite news for how to write references for newspaper articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind feedback. I will delete the seasons by show entry and try to set it up as an external link hosted by the organizations website. I am sure I will have some further questions as I progress. Thank you.Philip.mark.powell (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Final Deletion of Articles

There is an article (Valley Center Western Days) which has been marked for deletion and the result seemed to be delete. When do deletion discussions end, and who closes the discussion/carries out the decision? Thanks in advance. Vchero (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vchero. There are several deletion procedures, but the matter you mention is an example of an Articles for Deletion debate, which takes the longest and requires the most extensive discussion. Normally, these debates last a week, though they can be closed early if consensus is overwhelming. On the other hand, if discussion is weak, the debate can be relisted and could take two or three weeks. If consensus is to delete the article, the debate must be closed by an administrator who has the power to delete the article. If consensus is to keep the article, any editor in good standing can close the debate. This is called a "non-adminstrative closure". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Could I just add that the closer should not have been involved in the discussion, and suggest you read Wikipedia:Non-admin closure # Appropriate closures - Arjayay (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is about appropriate closure. I don't see the closer as having been involved in the discussion, and it appears that the closer is an administrator. Maybe I have missed a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that Arjayay was speaking in general, rather than about this specific situation, Robert McClenon. The point is that AfD debates in general should not be closed by editors involved in the debate, and I think that is information useful to this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the general statement. I disagree with the spelling of my user ID, but I fixed it. I don't see a direct connection between non-administrative closures and the need to closers to be uninvolved. A close by an involved closer is inappropriate, even if the closer is an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the typographical error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I also see that another page, Valley Center History Museum, has seemed to have reached a consensus on a "redirect and merge" per the decision on the AfD page, but the admin said that if they carried it out, it would be too bold (probably in relation to the fact they participated in the debate). Do admins go through and check when people have decided and go through with the conclusion? Vchero (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Vchero. There is a list of open deletion debates that is monitored by administrators who like to work on deletions. Do not think in terms of "the admin" but rather an administrator. No one is assigned to any matter and any administrator who is not using their administrative powers on a specific matter is just another editor. I suggest that you let this discussion continue for a few more days. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I was just wondering because the debate has been open for 5 days and it seems unanimous. Thanks for explaining! Vchero (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Vchero, the editor who made that comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Center History Museum is not an administrator, but rather a regular editor who made the deletion nomination. They probably meant that it would be too bold for them to close the debate as redirect because it is rather frowned upon for nominators to close their own AfDs. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cordless Larry understates one thing. It is very frowned up for nominators to close their own AFDs. AFDs are normally closed by uninvolved administrators. They are sometimes closed as Keep by uninvolved non-administrators. An editor who closes an AFD in which they !voted is very likely to face sanctions, ranging from a strong warning to de-sysop to a block. Closers should be uninvolved prior to the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for the clarification! Vchero (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I created an article U.T Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed but other editors keep deleting it.

I created an article U.T Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed but other editors keep deleting it. I would like know what am I doing wrong and how can I fix it. Any help would be great. Thank youAawork100 (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The reasons for the deletions have been explained to you, repeatedly and at some length, on your talk page. Maproom (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The deletion of U.T Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed is discussed on another user talk page, User talk:Aliahmed100. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

And on User Talk:Anarchyte. Maproom (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

In an edit summary, you refer to U.T Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed as your client. Please read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy and make any required disclosures. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Are User:Aliahmed100 and User:Aawork100 two different people, or one person using two accounts? If the latter, please decide which account to use, and abandon the other one. (If two different people, is one client hiring two paid editors?) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Aliahmed and Aaworks100 both are my accounts, I am not getting paid to write this article, as I know Mr Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed personally I thought of writing this article, as my article was deleted I was told that I can create the same article with another account therefore I created another account, I just want some help. As I think I am providing sufficient amount of content then why my article is being deleted. It is not an advert I was asked to add more links and I did so. Please can any one of the experienced editors edit my article for me so that it will not be deleted. Thank you Aawork100 (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a good reason you are using two accounts, Aawork100? Please see Wikipedia:Username policy#Using multiple accounts. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you are not being paid to edit the article, why did you refer to U.T Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed as your client? (If you didn't understand that that would be the implication of that comment in English, then we can pass it off as a language issue.) Robert McClenon

(talk) 14:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank You for understanding (Robert McClenon) I just finished my graduation, I did not know such words make that much of an impact, I just want do some productive work. As I was writing an article on Mr Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed and I told him about it, I taught the term client was appropriate, but I did not realise it will appear as if I was taking money from him. Sir could you please help me with the article. I have been fallowing all the advises given to me, I removed details about his collage as they told it appears as advert then they asked me to provide with more related review able web links and I did. I wanted to mentioned about his achievements and the positions he holds, but I do not have any news paper articles and web links proof them and now they are accuses me of taking money for the article. This is my first article and I wish to write more in future.Aawork100 (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The current profile of U.T Zulfikhar Ali Ahmed

Director Zulfi Developers

Member Zonal Coordination committee Rehabilitation Council of India

Member MLA Housing Co-operative Society Legislative Home, Vidhanasoudha Bangalore

Founder & Chairman U.T.Naseem Fareed Education Memorial Trust

Director U.T. Zulfi Cochlear Implant Foundation

Joint Secretary Karnataka Unaided Private College Association

Joint Secretary Karnataka Muslim Minority Private College Association

Please let me know if I can add them to my article.Aawork100 (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Aawork100. It is unfortunate that, like many new editors, you have plunged straight into one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia: creating a new article. I always advise people to spend a considerable time first working on improving existing articles, so that they learn not only how to edit, but also how Wikipedia works, and what are its principles and policies.

What you need to understand here, I think, is that a Wikipedia article is not written from what you know: your knowledge of the subject may be helpful to organise and express the content, but the content - every single bit of it - must come from reliable published sources; and most of it must come from sources which have no connection with the subject. This is because we are an encyclopaedia: we are not a business directory. Our articles are neutral encyclopaedic articles about the subject, not "profiles". Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a subject says about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, employees or associates say about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with them have published about them, in reliable places (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers).

So, some of those appointments might be appropriate for the article, as long as they are confirmed by published sources (which they probably are, because I guess they are on the websites of the organisations mentioned) and the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that they are relevant and appropriate. I can only suggest what might affect that consensus; but I think the question is one of proportion: a list such as that should not be a major part of the article. If you can find substantial independent articles about Ahmed, so that you can write a significant amount of impeccably sourced text about him, then a list of seven appointment might well be proportionate. If, however, you can only write a paragraph of independently sourced text about him, then such a list would be disproportionate (and actually, the consensus might be that he was not notable in Wikipedia's special sense, and so there shouldn't even be an article at all.)

So, what you need to do to get the article accepted is to find those independent reliably published sources which discuss him in depth (no blogs, no social media, nothing published by him or any of his associates of institutions, nothing which is based on an interview by him or a press release, but places where somebody unconnected with him has thought it interesting or important to write about him), and then, forgetting what you know about him, write text based entirely on those sources. If that lets you write a substantial article, then you can add some uncontroversial factual information based on non-independent sources (such as those appointments).

Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine for the advise, I will try my level best to write the article and find more reliable sources. I truly appreciate your time and advise thank you so much. Aawork100 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)