Wikipedia:Teahouse

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244

Is it appropriate for one editor to put a command in a comment when no such consensus exists or indeed has ever been discussed on the talk page?

For example, here I had added Trumpeter Michael Sachs to the list of notable alumni for the National Repertory Orchestra. Michael is the long time principal trumpeter of the Cleveland Orchestra, a world famous trumpeter and educator, and I provided a reference that demonstrated his notability and connection to the NRO. Immediately following that, another editor here removed my entry, and put in a comment stating "Do NOT add names with now WP article". There was no consensus at this time, the other editor simply issued a command. Now according to WP:CSC, "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future" so (1) wasn't my entry perfectly reasonable, and (2) weren't the actions of the other editor outside of WP policy and borderline rude? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cohler, there exists a project wide consensus that in order to be listed in a notable person's list, that person's notability needs to be shown by the existence of their biography here on Wikipedia or sourcing that shows that beyond a reasonable doubt. See WP:NLIST. If the person you want to add meets article qualification guidelines (either the general guideline or the musician - specific guideline), then by all means write their biography then add them to the list. John from Idegon (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon that is very different from what Marchjuly told me here so now I am confused. And certainly it does not say that on WP:CSC which I quoted above. Why is there so much disagreement on this issue? Perhaps the policies surrounding this need to be clarified? Also, WP:Notability says that notability is established not by existence of a WP article but by the existence of acceptable sources. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 19:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cohler, you did not provide an independent source showing that this musician is "world famous" but rather a link to an orchestra website that lists all members of that orchestra. Because of your topic ban, you would be well-advised to avoid any type of editing that can be perceived as disruptive or misleading. Please desist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer look, Cohler, I see that you were editing a list that includes your own name, and you are topic banned from writing anything autobiographical. This is a really bad idea. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with my topic ban. I am simply trying to get an answer to my question. Why do you only respond with commands and veiled threats? Forget about the particulars, I am asking a general question, why are people giving totally different answers? Some are saying notability does not require a WP article, others are saying that it does, and WP:Notability clearly does not require a WP article. Here for example, John from Idegon wrote "there exists a project wide consensus that in order to be listed in a notable person's list, that person's notability needs to be shown by the existence of their biography here on Wikipedia" which is a direct contradiction of what Marchjuly wrote when he said "Individual entries of such a list do not have to have a stand-alone article written about them". I'm just looking for an answer to the policy question. Please answer the question and stop the veiled threats. I thought this was the place for asking questions in a friendly environment? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doc James clarified the terms of your topic ban to include "your work or the people you work with" here Wikipedia:Teahouse#Notability_requirement_for_a_list_that_is_inside_another_article. That would seem to include the National Repertory Orchestra article. Once again you seem to be tendentiously editing very close to your ban. Meters (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again. I said they had to have a bio or you had to prove it (probably could have said that better...you have to prove they would qualify to have a bio). You are violating your topic ban. So, to put things in simple terms, you cannot edit that list. You cannot edit any article that contains your name, you cannot edit any article about any organization you have ever had any association with. That's what a topic ban is. You have been given a topic ban in order for you to show you have the capacity to internalized our requirements. You show that by editing in areas you have no connection with (e.g. Bread) successfully. The alternative is you will simply be blocked. Sorry....that's as friendly and supportive as it can be phrased. John from Idegon (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am asking a theoretical question that has nothing to do with any specifics. I simply gave an example. Second, I have never worked at the National Repertory Orchestra, it is a training orchestra for young musicians and I did receive a fellowship to be in the orchestra for one summer in 1979. That hardly qualifies as some place that I work. What are you talking about? Could you please answer my question and stop with the attacks. I am not and have not violated my topic ban. Boy you admins seem to love attacking people who ask simple questions. Very frustrating indeed. I guess the Teahouse is not so friendly after all. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 20:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) What is required is that notability of the person be established. The easiest way to demonstrate this is by creating a well referenced article. Short of that, you would need to list multiple references (i.e. show the notability, show that the person could have an article) with the name in the list. While this is not forbidden; the former method is much preferred. A single link to a listing of all members of an orchestra does not prove that person meets the notability requirements. Does this help clarify matters for you? LadyofShalott 19:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LadyofShalott, Cohler can't write articles about people he knows and works with because he has a conflict of interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers I don't work with any of the people in the list. As I said, I was a student member of the orchestra in 1979 nearly 40 years ago. Why do you jump to ridiculous conclusions and then publish them here as fact with no basis whatsoever? Please desist. Furthermore, I am just asking a question here. Answers as opposed to your totally unfounded accusations, would be appreciated. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 20:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LadyofShalott Thank you for the first actual response to one of my questions here. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 20:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So getting back to my question, "Is it appropriate for one editor to put a command in a comment when no such consensus exists or indeed has ever been discussed on the talk page?" And this is a general question, not in relation to any particular circumstance. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 20:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you want a more detailed explanation see above. You'll generally get a clearer response if you don't phrase your questions in a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" format. John from Idegon (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cohler, yes, you have violated your topic ban when you wrote in an earlier Teahouse thread: "Why? The topic ban is on Jonathan Cohler. I'm allowed to edit other things right? Boston Conservatory is not related to "Jonathan Cohler" other than I am a notable faculty member there." You are not allowed to edit, mention or even allude to or hint at Jonathan Cohler, except when appealing the topic ban. Please stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cohler - If you have a specific question that isn't related to your topic-ban and isn't confrontational, you may ask it. However, you don't appear to be asking a question so much as trying to start a quarrel. Please be aware that some of the editors here are administrators who can block you for disruptive editing, including for editing in violation of a topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was deliberately not getting into the topic ban question because I have not looked at either the ban or the article in question. Cohler, multiple editors who have looked at those think you are in violation. I would advise you to step away from this topic. LadyofShalott 21:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should quotes or parenthesis be included in articles when you're not directly quoting someone?

Example: The "autobahn" (German Train) is a very popular German method of transport.

Should it be that, or this:

The autobahn is a very popular German method of transport.

Which should be used?ZaxAttrach (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ZachAttrax and welcome to the Teahouse. Definitely the second one, as per MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Much more style advice is available at WP:MOS. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and, of course, an autobahn is a motorway, not a train. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ZaxAttrach! If you're wondering, the example I found this in was Loharu fort. Zachary G. 18:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZachAttrax. Use quotes (italics are preferred) only when talking about a word as a word. See MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Parenthesis are OK, but in the case you show, you would wikilink to autobahn instead of giving a definition. By the way, an autobahn is a German federal highway, not a train. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing an article

I'm a new user (about 800 edits) and I've been working on the article Guccio di Mannaia which is categorized as "Start-Class", but I'd like to ask someone to take a look at it to advise me how it might be improved. Is there a particular place to ask?

Thanks!

TimeForLunch (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TimeForLunch, your best options for such specific assistance are either WP:WikiProject Visual arts or WP:WikiProject Biography. Post your request to either Project's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TimeForLunch. I think that the most obvious area for improvement would be to add a photo of the Chalice of Nicholas IV, which seems to be his best known work. It may take some effort to find (or take) a freely licensed photo, but adding one would certainly enhance the reader's understanding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That's an interesting topic, TimeForLunch, and an interesting article – nice work! My first stop for info on that sort of figure is always the remarkable Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, which I see you've already consulted; those articles tend to have a very full bibliography, and following up those leads might perhaps lead to some further information. Many of them are likely to be quite hard to track down. On the article qua article, some quick changes you could make might be: (1) more wikilinks – not everyone knows what a chalice is, for example; (2) cut out "deceased" and any other euphemisms, replace with "dead" or other plain English word; (3) be ruthless with anything that might appear as peacockery or puffery – "widely considered a masterpiece" is almost certainly true, but is not something you need to say here, it should be obvious from the description; (4) expand general statements where it's easy to do so – even if the source says "the papal court", it should be pretty straightforward to look up who the actual popes were that Pace di Valentino worked for; (5) build round your article – an article on Pace, even if brief, would add context (and a wikilink) to Guccio; (6) (should probably have been #1) do what Cullen328 suggests; (7) use human-readable dates! – we aren't machines, ordinary mdy or dmy works fine here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template to tag inadequate ref?

I was looking at Alphabetic_principle, doing a bit of copyediting, and found several refs that were badly formatted— "cite" template without "ref" tags, so the ref was expanded in the text itself; URL and title with no tagging at all— and was able to fix them up at least somewhat. But this one, in § Role in beginning reading (second paragraph, second sentence), looks hopeless:

<ref>Chall</ref>

It wouldn't be so bad if there were a Reference or External link or such with some such name, but there's no such beast. I looked for a template to tag it with, but couldn't find any such; the best I could do was

{{clarify|reason=reference is a single name, totally inadequate}}

before the "/ref" tag. Is there anything more suitable? Please ping me to answer. --Thnidu (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: I'd have thought {{better source}} would be appropriate...but that just may reduce to the same thing as {{clarify}}. Any sort of remotely likely tag with a reason= parameter may be sufficient for the purpose: leave an in-line reason why some more editing work is required, get the page listed in a cleanup category, then drop it back into the vast lake to be picked up at some future date by you or someone else who has time and interest in fixing the problem more permanently. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: That ref was introduced in this edit on 1 July 2010 by an IP editor who has never made any other edits. There is nothing in the context at the time to help with filling out the details. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: There is an author of that name who wrote about the development of reading skills, so seems to be appropriate - for example, Chall, Jeanne S.; Jacobs, Vicki A. (1 January 1983). "Writing and Reading in the Elementary Grades: Developmental Trends Among Low SES Children". Language Arts. 60 (5): 617–626.. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book in question is probably Chall, Jeanne S., Learning to Read: The Great Debate, McGraw-Hill, 1967. This book is widely cited in other books that discuss the alphabetic principle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requirement for a list that is inside another article

If an article about a school, for example, has a section titled "Notable alumni" or "Notable faculty", is it required that each person listed have their own WP article? My understanding is that while notability is a requirement to qualify for a stand-alone article on WP, the existence of a WP article does not necessarily confer notability, and furthermore, there are many notable people who do not have WP articles. So if I as an editor, add a person to such a list, with proper sourcing proving notability, my entry should not be deleted solely on the basis that the person does not have a WP article correct? That's my understanding of WP:Source list. Am I wrong? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 07:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, TheClarinetGuy. You are correct that not every entry on every single list must have its own Wikipedia article. However, those entries must be verifiable. In the case of those lists designated as lists of "notable" people, though, the standard for inclusion is the existence of an acceptable Wikipedia article. If you believe that you have "proof" that a person is notable, and want to add them to such a list, then the solution is obvious: Write an acceptable Wikipedia article about that person and then add them to the list. There should be no Wikipedia articles about non-notable people. If such articles exist, then they should be deleted and removed from such lists.

This standard prevents these lists of alumni and faculty members from growing to a bloated state, which they most certainly would it we did not limit inclusion on these lists to people who are already the subjects of acceptable Wikipedia biographies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Thank you for your quick response. Can you point me to what policy states that a WP article is the requirement for inclusion in "notable" lists? Also, then as a specific example, are you saying that all red-linked people on this List of Boston Conservatory people should be removed? Before, I go ahead and do that, I would like to make sure that I cite the correct policy. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 07:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Cohler. Our editing is guided not only by formal policy, but also by behavioral guidelines, consensus and good sense. I have just read the discussion that led to your recent topic ban. I therefore feel obligated to warn you to refrain from any form of tendentious or disruptive editing. In my opinion, you are skating on very thin ice here, and would be well advised to stay away from this area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The topic ban is on Jonathan Cohler. I'm allowed to edit other things right? Boston Conservatory is not related to "Jonathan Cohler" other than I am a notable faculty member there. As long as I don't edit anything about myself there, isn't that allowed? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 08:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about the faculty where you work is a conflict of interest. Since you have been topic banned from writing about yourself for COI reasons, this seems like a particularly bad idea. Pinging User:Doc James who should have the definitive answer on this. Meters (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. Yes do not edit about your work or the people you work with either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cohler, I agree with Doc James. In my opinion, you should stay a long way away from any article or list where you have even the slightest trace of a conflict of interest, even if they are outside the narrow confines of your topic ban. Your edits are subject to heightened scrutiny because of your history. You should defer to the opinions of the many experienced editors lacking any conflict of interest about these articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi TheClarinetGuy. I think what Cullen328 is trying to say is that there was probably something about your editing at "Jonathan Cohler" which led to the community deciding to topic ban you from editing that article. So, if you try and use the same approach on another article, then your editing their will probably come under scrutiny as well.

As for "Notable alumini", I think what you're looking for is WP:LSC, in particular WP:CSC. Individual entries of such a list do not have to have a stand-alone article written about them, but that is typically the basic criterion for inclusion. If all the entries in the list have stand-alone articles, then you can assume that is probably the consensus for inclusion established for that particular article. If some of the entries don't have stand-alone articles but are supported by a citation to a reliable source, then you can assume that is probably what is needed in such cases. There is no one "common selection criteria" that applies to all article across Wikipedia, so often times you have to check the article's talk page to see it the subject has been discussed before. If not, then you can start a discussion yourself, or you can simply be bold and at the name to the list. If you're bold and reverted, then follow WP:BRD. There is no automatic inclusion for such names, and like other article content you may have to reach a consensus for it on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and thank you for all the clear, informative and substantive answers. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 14:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add (copy, insert, paste) a photo (picture) into my draft article?CableHut (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I have looked all over the Help features but cannot find any instructions on how to do this!CableHut (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CableHut, and welcome to the Teahouse. Image must be uploaded first (usually on Wikimedia Commons). The most important thing to keep in mind is copyrights. Most images you'll find on the Internet, in books, and magazines do not meet the strict licensing requirement: the copyright holder needs to have explicitly stated that they allow anyone to use the photo for any purpose, including commercially. Images are not the most important component of Wikipedia articles; they are the icing on the cake. I'd suggest you improve your draft Draft:Jean Jepson: Dancer; Choreographer; Teacher. in other ways first. You should, for instance, put the references right after the content they support (the list at the end will be created automatically): Help:Referencing for beginners#Test it out. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CableHut, Help:Files gives you the basics of adding images to articles, images and sound files are both types of file so it is almost logical to hide those instructions there. I have a training module on this at User:WereSpielChequers/image_adding which is ready for beta testers, feel free to check it out. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

removing template messages in an user space draft

I've been adding citations, they are numbered, yet don't show on the list. I'm afraid to leave the draft's page (superstition...) in order to read the related info. Can you please help? שוחרתשוחרת (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, שוחרת, and welcome to the Teahouse. Without saving the draft, it's really difficult for us to guess what's wrong. Here are the instructions for citations anyhow: Help:Referencing for beginners – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, שוחרת. I agree with Finnusertop. Other editors cannot evaluate any unsaved changes that you may have made. Based on the last saved version of your draft, those tags should not be removed, because the problems with the draft have not yet been resolved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi שוחרת. Unfortunately I do not read Hebrew, so I am not sure how to read your name. It's OK to use non-Latin script characters in your username per WP:UN#Usernames with non-Latin characters, but it might make it a bit easier for others to communicate with you and help you if you added some easy to type characters to your signature as explained in WP:NLS. Not every editor is using a keyboard which can type Hebrew script, so they may not be able to address you by your username. You can customize your signature so that the Hebrew characters show when you sign your posts per WP:CUSTOMSIG, and then change your name to something a bit easier for more editors to understand if you want.

Finally about your draft, its seem from User talk:Kudpung#Dear Kudpung you are trying to writie an autobiography. If you are the same he:קורינה_הסופרת, who is the subject of your draft User:שוחרת/Corinna Hasofferett, then I suggest you read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia's Law of Unexpected Consequences and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Hebrew Wikipedia and English Wikipedia are part of the Wikimedia Foundation family, but English Wikipedia probably has a lot more people from around the world editing it and sometimes some of these people do not do so with the best of intentions. Being the creator of an article or the subject of an article does not give you any final editorial control over any edits to the article per Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, so it's important to understand that right from the start. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all good people, Cullen, Marchjuly and Finnusertop. I'm indeed working intenslynon this article, as the perfectionist I am in all I attempt to do. It is still work in progress and will for sure take me a while, but I love it and am sure will continue to write missing articles for wikipedia, now that thanks to your continuous help I'm starting to grasp the handles and the behind the scene dramas. What I like most is the transparency. I wish we could import it into our daily political life. I will relate in good time to some of the issues you raised. Right now what baffles me is the fact that while inserting citations, they got numbered alright at the specific location, yet they do not add up to the single citation at the bottom list for citations. My question is why is that so and could it be remediated? In Thanks, שוחרת (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרת שוחרת (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרת[reply]

Hi again שוחרת. I am a bit confused. The draft you've been working on has no citations included in it at all. In a way, this gets back to the questions I answered yesterday, where I prefaced one of my comments by saying "[i]f the latest saved version is the version you are talking about..." Based on the above, it seems it is not. If you don't save your edits to the draft, then (still on the question from yesterday), you will lose that material if you log off and don't save (unless, of course, you save it offline, in a Word document or the like). Anyway, because it seems you have not saved the edits where the citation issue has come up, it's a bit opaque what the issue actually is. Have you included a dedicated references section with a {{reflist}} template in it? Viz:

==References==

{{Reflist|30 em}}

Here's some links to pages that might help: Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1; more involved: Wikipedia:Citing sources; there are numerous others, and each I've linked contains see also sections linking to additional help, guides and tutorials. Also, there's a visual guide to placing inline citations through <ref> ... </ref> tags that I am posting below (just click show). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visual inline citation guide

Formatting references using inline citations
All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the "cite.php" form of inline citations, using the <ref></ref> elements. Using this method, each time a particular source is mined for information (don't copy word-for-word!), a footnote is placed in the text ("inline"), that takes one to the detail of the source when clicked, set forth in a references section after the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <ref> tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a </ref> tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: <ref name="name"> followed by the citation text and a closing </ref> tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: <ref name="name" />. In order for these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code <references/> or, most commonly, the template, {{Reflist}} which can be modified to display the references in columns using {{Reflist\|colwidth=30em}}. Per our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.
Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'	What it produces when you save
Two separate citations.<ref>`Citation text.`</ref><ref>`Citation text2.`</ref> Multiple<ref name="multiple">`Citation text3.`</ref>citation<ref name="multiple" /> use.<ref name="multiple" /> == References == {{Reflist}}	Two separate citations.^[1]^[2] Multiple^[3] citation^[3] use.^[3] References_________________ ^ Citation text. ^ Citation text2. ^ ^a ^b ^c Citation text3.
Templates that can be used between <ref></ref> tags to format references {{Citation}} • {{Cite web}} • {{Cite book}} • {{Cite news}} • {{Cite journal}} • Others • Examples

Template:Z3

how does one insert photos and can photos be considered a source reference?

how does one insert photos and can photos be considered a source reference? AvaAva Bianca 01:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, User:Comfortscience. Pictures are welcome, as mentioned in WP:Image. Difficulties exist, and the biggest one is usually WP:Copyright. If you snapped the photo, you probably own the copyright and can license it for Wikipedia and the world to use. If someone else made the picture, the photographer is usually the owner. Whoever the copyright owner is, must make a statement to give up the rights. After the legal part has been done properly, the technical parts are easier.

Photos by themselves are usually not a reference for statements in the encyclopedia. They need to be backed up by a WP:Reliable source saying what they are, in which case those words are the source reference. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how to edit

People educated at North Sydney Boys High School. How do I edit that article. If I click edit source, the items on page do not appear!Saki0710 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles called North Sydney Boys High School and List of Old Falconians. I assume you're trying to edit the second of those? Make sure you click on the Edit Source link in the tab marker right at the top of the page. If you click on the edit link next to the title, you're only editing the lead section, before the first section subtitle. Please don't add names of random ex-pupils to the list. Only those with existing articles about them are eligible. Rojomoke (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating page with PCD/COI

Hi all, I'm an employee of an NGO, and the page about the org is really out of date with regards to basic information about where the headquarters are, who the CEO is etc. It would be great if that were updated, and I made the suggestions with citations on the Talk page (including full transparency about my affiliation with the org), but it seems none of the editors are active. Where to from here? Do I wait for someone to see it and update it, or is this the kind of information it's okay for an employee to update?

I'm being very cautious and respectful of the whole PCD/COI thing so I don't want to barge in and make changes without knowing it's okay to do so, as it's a controversial page with controversial topics.

Here's the related talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society

Thanks in advance for any advice!

Tuberose87 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tuberose87. Can you please format the references that you have added to the talk page to include full bibliographic information, as opposed to bare URLs? You can find instructions at Referencing for beginners. In addition, you should write specific proposed language to be added to the encyclopedia. I will review your changes once you have done so. Leave a note on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to save a draft so it stays draftish...

working on a draft for a long time and yet not ready but so tired. How do I save a draft without having it published, just so that it waits for me nicely? שוחרת שוחרת (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Dear Checkingfax, Teahouse host[reply]

Please respond as soon as possible, I'm afraid to leave the draft so it won't misbehave and then so many hours of work might get lost.שוחרת (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC) שוחרת[reply]

Hi שוחרת. If this is about User:שוחרת/Corinna Hasofferett, it's already saved as an unsubmitted user space draft, and, barring out of the ordinary matters, should stay that way, undisturbed, for you to work on at your leisure. When you are ready to submit it, just click on the Submit Your Draft for Review! button.

If this is about another draft, one you have not yet saved, so long as you do so as a user space draft, or save it in the draft namespace, the same will apply. To save it as the former, simply preview anywhere (or save at your userpage) a link in this form: [[User:שוחרת/Intuitive Name For Topic]] → click on the red link revealed → paste your content → save. For the latter, do the same, but instead of using "User:שוחרת/NAME", use "Draft:NAME" as the title. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask for clarification?

Thanks you for your response, Fuhghettaboutit. So, I have nothing to worry about? the draft will stays undisturbed, it won't disappear and I do not need to click any saving button, even if I close my computer for the night?שוחרת (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC) שוחרתשוחרת (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC) שוחרת (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרת[reply]

Hi again שוחרת. If the latest saved version is the version you are talking about, you may log off, shut down your computer, go to Tahiti for a week, and when you come back, there should be no problem (generally for six months). Of course, the reason the draft was userfied for you upon request was because of a copyright issue. One of the "out of the ordinary matters" is where a draft contains a copyright violation. That will result in deletion immediately once discovered "even" as a draft. But since that has already been addressed for this page, and assuming you added back no copied content, yes, go to bed!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tahiti too far, almost as far as my orphaned bed of rose thorns... Grateful,שוחרת (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרת שוחרת (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Wiki Specific: Proper nouns as adjectives

So, I made an edit where a previous anonymous editor changed the capitalization of a wrestling move called a "Samoan Drop" so that it read "samoan drop" instead of "Samoan drop." I restored the original capitalization (with good faith, of course), but now I'm wondering.

Obviously, "Samoan" is a proper noun, but when used to describe something else not directly relating to the original country, does it become non-proper? Kind of like "North Carolina" vs. "I'm heading north from here." I'm hard pressed for a more specific example, but I would assume something like a generic culinary dish named after a region like "New Mexico tacos" would preserve its capitalization instead of becoming "new mexico tacos."

Any guidance?

Thanks, KNHaw ^(talk) 19:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KNHaw: Since "Samoan" is always a proper noun, it should always be capitalized. "North" is not always a proper noun, so it's case can vary. hope that helps! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me! Thanks. KNHaw ^(talk) 20:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KNHaw, Nihonjoe: Not always. We generally do not capitalize nouns/noun phrases that incorporate place names where the name has become highly generified as everyday English vocabulary: french fries, french toast, french doors, english (sidespin in billiards), plaster of paris, etc. But I don't think this has happened for Samoan drop. The issue occasionally arises at requested moves and the answer is always the same: check for usage across reliable sources—and don't use a web search but a search that tends to concentrate reliable sources, such as using Google Books—where here, the results strongly support using the uppercase ess. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: So, in essence, "Samoan" is currently always a proper noun.

···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I will keep my edit as capitalized. KNHaw ^(talk) 22:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not "generified/genericized" yet.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle reliable sources only available w/ UN/PW or by PDF

For an entry I'm writing on an entrepreneur, I'd like to use a profile that Businessweek did of him. Unfortunately, it is not available online except as a PDF via Ebsco which I access through my library (NY Public).

The PDFs are scans of the hard copy magazine, so you see the magazine name and date in the footer. I can include link to it in Ebsco, but the url comes up as a "proxy" which is some kind of red flag to the editors, and probably won't work because you need a library card with a UN/PW.

I have downloaded the PDF's and could archive them somewhere (archive.org, say), but I don't want to go the trouble only to find out that against the rules.

I'm sure this problem has come up before and am hoping someone can direct me to the right info -- or give it to me direct.

Sam Perkins (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam Perkins. Sources do not have to be available online. See Wikipedia:Offline sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hey Sam Perkins. Template:Cite includes a parameter |url-access=subscription which indicates to other readers that a paid subscription is required to access the material. Otherwise, sources behind paid subscriptions are allowed under Wikipedia's verifiability standards, even if they're less than ideal. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! That was fast. Thanks for such a speedy reply. Checking out your solutions now.

Sam Perkins (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for completeness, Sam Perkins, I'll point out that uploading a PDF of a reference is hardly ever useful. Often it would be a copyright violation anyway, but even if it is freely licensed, it will hardly ever meet the requirement of reliability: even if it was downloaded from a reliable source, it could have been altered. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any final checks recommended?

I'm working for some time now on an article on an international technical conference. I do my best to be as precise in terms of facts and neutral in tone as possible and to give ample references for my statements (mainly to the conference's web site). ProveIt shows no errors. Is there anything you would recommend to me before I shall submit my article? WolfgangSchi (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WolfgangSchi and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read Wikipedia:Notability before going any further. Wikipedia requires that subjects already be well-known and written about in reliable sources independent of the subject before having an article here. None of your references show that about the conference. Look for independent sources about the conference itself or the sponsoring organization. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One reference does talk about the course in depth, but are there others? StarryGrandma (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should I put in an EPPO code into a Taxonomy box?

Hello. Just wandering if I should put the EPPO code for the genus Kalaharituber on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalaharituber. And, how do I link articles on the same topic but in different languages? AWearerOfScarves (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links to corresponding articles in other languages are made through Wikidata. See either the "Wikidata item" link on the left-hand toolbar, or the "Edit links" item at the foot of the "Languages" section at the bottom of that left-hand toolbar. There are two other languages there already. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with article

Hi, fellow Wikipedians. Earlier this month I created an article, Elisabeth Brichet case. I have been working on it and have managed to add a lot to it, but I'm a bit stuck. I think the article has potential to reach at least B-class, but there's a lot of info I still haven't added. Most of the references available are from Le Soir (around 50 pages of news articles; not all of them are usable, though), a French-language newspaper. I'm not fluent in French, and so there's an awful lot to read through and translate, and there are some parts I can't translate right. I've read through and translated many of them, and cited the ones I could use from those in the Wikipedia article. It would be helpful if others could help expand the article to include the missing info. It would be ideal if any of you know French, but don't worry if you can't; there are also links to news articles on the talk page, including a number of English ones, that you can use. I think this article has potential, but I can't do it all on my own. Any edits made to the article would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. Linguist ^talk|contribs 17:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Linguist111: You may try asking for help at WikiProject France. It's likely there are fluent speakers there who can help. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: Thank you! Linguist ^talk|contribs 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how to write well?

How will I write a paragraph more structurally?I mean how I move from one paragraph to another by keeping a nice distance.how will I add pictureBaruaanik (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baruaanik, separate paragraphs with just one blank line. Read the Picture tutorial and if you still have questions please come back here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hos to create an inset

How to I create an inset such as the one you see on the right of this page:

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

Acelentano2016 (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acelentano2016, and welcome. I'm guessing you mean the infobox - the code to create these varies depending on the subject matter. You can find the code and instructions for your article at Template:Infobox artist, but let us know here if you need a hand. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Content for a page that is labelled as deletion

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

Hello team,

The above link created by me has got a tag for deletion. I would like to improve the content quality so as to better meet the wikipedia norms and regulations. Can you please tell me as to what are the errors on the above page so that I can help improve the article and avoid its deletion.

Acpp555 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Acpp555. One option available is to request that the article be moved to a draft, where it will not be easily accessible to the general public, but will not be deleted, and so you can have additional time to work on it and seek advice from other editors. Since this is your first article, it would probably be helpful to consider reading through our tutorial, and (if you request it be made into a draft) consider submitting through our Articles for Creation board, where it can be reviewed by experienced volunteers prior to publishing, and who can hopefully offer helpful advice.

Otherwise, the deletion discussion will progress normally, usually for about a week or so, and if the community decides to delete the article, you will have to ask for an administrator to restore at WP:REFUND. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Acpp555. I've made a request of the editor that nominated the article for deletion to move it to draft for you and withdraw the nomination. This is possible because no one else has entered the deletion discussion. It's 100% up to him, but if he agrees it will save you some wait. John from Idegon (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acpp555, You're article is now at Draft:Anjusha Chaughule. I'd suggest you submit it via Articles for Creation when you think it's ready so you can get a second, more experienced opinion before it is put back in the encyclopedia and at risk for deletion again. Best of luck. John from Idegon (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve my draft!

Hey, if any editor is vacant can you please help me wit improving the styling of my draft?? Please repair its structure, template. I know the content. I just want a good structure. I have basic knowledge. Please help in improving my articles here :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clash-a-Rama

HighnessAtharva (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighnessAtharva, I have taken a look but I can't figure out why the episode table is being rendered after the references. While we wait for someone who knows how to fix it, you need to look for better sources to reference. The subject's own website, Youtube and a blog are no good for proving notability. I'm not sure of the reliability of toucharcade.com. Look for quality sources such as reputable websites that review games. You could also as WP:WikiProject Video games, as that's where the topic specialists hang out. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is their a prebuilt template that I can use

Is their a template with a superset of attributes that I can fill in and edit to create a WIKI page more efficiently? Acelentano2016 (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Acelentano2016. I am unaware of any such template. An acceptable Wikipedia article will be originally written prose, which does not really lend itself to formulas or recipes. I suggest that you read Your first article, and take a look at Good articles and Featured articles about topics similar to yours. Those will give you a good idea about how your planned article should be written and referenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across an old photo of the silent film actress Peggy Hyland.

Photo of Peggy Hyland; has her name written on back and that of Campbell Studios, 5th ave embossed on the picture. Would this picture be of interest for inclusion on her bio page 2601:346:404:4375:E83D:1827:B773:4AE2 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are a few questions that need to be answered before we know it's OK to add an image to a Wikipedia article (even if the photo looks good and would be useful):

Who is the owner of the photo?
Is the photo free to reuse for any purpose? Usually there is a license that permits this, and if there is none or it's not clear, it's usually assumed to be owned by the photographer or copyright holder and cannot be used. There are some exceptions to this based on the age of the photo, as it may have fallen out of copyright.

If you can provide a link to the photo (if it's online) or provide answers to these questions, we can help you out. Thanks! I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, anonymous editor. Peggy Hyland's film career took place so long ago that it is highly likely that the copyright on your photo has expired, if it was published even once back in the days when she was an actress. Please note that our article already has several photos of her, even though they are not very good photos. Therefore, we cannot use the photo under a claim of fair use, so you will need to do some research. I suggest that you ask at Wikimedia Commons, which has a lot of volunteer experts in borderline copyright cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of a woman architect to acheive publication, how do I know when I have added enough

I have created a page for licensed California architect Violeta Autumn and I submitted it before I was completed so It was not apparent how notable she was and it was immediately declined. I have added a lot more information, including some photos of awards, and added references to magazines, publications, and other libraries. I have also included her government work and election to public office using her architecture and planning background. This is my first page. How soon will I know when I have done enough? Do the images help?Sausalitoarchitect (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. There are over 400 drafts awaiting review. Not many have been waiting more than 4 weeks since submission, and you might be lucky and get a response more rapidly. Images rarely have any influence on the acceptability of an article; what will matter most is the quality of the references. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sausalitoarchitect. The best of your sources is probably the six page article in Progressive Architecture about a home she designed for herself. By the way, that was a different publication and was unrelated to Architecture magazine. I have seen photos of this home online and agree that it is a stunning design. However, a single write-up of a single project is not really enough to establish the notability of an architect. We are looking for sustained, ongoing coverage of multiple projects in several publications. Then there is her service on the Sausalito City Council and planning commission. Your sources for that are the local Marin County daily paper which gives routine coverage of routine local government business to all elected officials in that county. Sausalito, though a beautiful tourist attraction, is a very small town of only 7000 people. I know it well as I lived there briefly 45 years ago and visit it often. There is no presumption that an elected official in such a small town is notable. Then, she wrote an unusual cookbook. I do not think that is enough to establish notability as an author. Photos of minor awards are of no use. If any award was a major one, and is discussed in reliable sources, that would be helpful. The bottom line is that, after reading your draft in its current state, I am not convinced that she is notable as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information

I was wondering how to go about a situation where I feel an article is missing information about a topic, but I don't feel in the slightest bit confident in actually writing any details about the situation. I'd like to point out the specific omission, but not actually write up the wording for the article itself.

Also, is this handled differently if the page is "semi-protected"? JQ1981 (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can start a new section on the article's talk page, and explain what change you propose, supporting it with references to published independent reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thank you! JQ1981 (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload a photo

Well i am new to Wikipedia and i have found that some articles are lacking some photos. as photos enhances the beauty of the page so i want to upload photos but when i click Click here to start the Upload Wizard it says that i am new and can't upload the photo so what is the procedureMian Moazam (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mian Moazam, and welcome to the Teahouse. According to Wikipedia:Uploading images#Procedure to upload, only registered users with autoconfirmed rights can upload images. This means that your account has to be at least four days old, and you must have made at least ten edits on Wikipedia. Before this time, I would like to suggest that you read Wikipedia's policy on Image use policy, especially the issues concerning copyright. Generally, only images that are part of the Public domain and works that you have created and that you are releasing into the public domain are permitted for use on Wikipedia (there are limited exceptions for images under certain free licenses and fair use of copyrighted images in Wikipedia under US law, but I would advise everyone against treading into that domain, except for really experienced Wikipedia editors or US lawyers). --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 15:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Talk2ChunMian Moazam (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meghwal

I made an edit on meghwal page however this was deleted. I used the reference which already exists from the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5B71:E100:7D59:4492:CEB7:EB48 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey anon. If sources need to be repeated, this can easily be done by using ref names. So instead of typing:

<ref>Wood, T (2017) How to use ref names. Retrieved 25 January 2017</ref>

You would give the reference a name by typing:

<ref name="wood">Wood, T (2017) How to use ref names. Retrieved 25 January 2017</ref>

So that next time you need to use the reference, you simply include:

<ref name="wood"/>

and it will duplicate the reference without needing to type the whole thing over again, and link all inline citations to the same reference at the bottom of the page. Just make sure you include the "/" in the repeated references, (<ref name="wood"/>), or you will get an error.

So when all is said and done, if you type this:

This is the first sentence.<ref>Wood, T (2017) How to use ref names. Retrieved 25 January 2017</ref>. This is the second sentence.<ref name="wood"/> Finally, this is the third sentence citing the same source.<ref name="wood"/>

What you will get is this:

This is the first sentence.^[1] This is the second sentence.^[1] Finally, this is the third sentence citing the same source.^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Wood, T (2017) How to use ref names. Retrieved 25 January 2017

Assuming Sitush made the revert because it looked unreferenced, using this technique should avoid similar mixups in the future. TimothyJosephWood 13:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one organizations logo to my article

Is it okey if I will add one organization's logo to my article with their permissionHatadurdyyev (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hatadurdyyev, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Not only is it OK, but you don't need their permission. Please see WP:LOGOS for information about how to proceed, and consider using the WP:FFU process as you are a new user unfamiliar with the WP:FAIRUSE guidelines, so that a more experienced contributor can help you upload your image and affix the proper fair use rationale. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About user draft in sandbox?

What is importance about creating a draft of an article in user sandbox? Does it benefits the user?Sagyan17manija (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sagyan17manija. The main benefit of developing a draft of new article in sandbox space or draft space is that it does not need to comply fully with our core content policies while it is being developed. An editor can take a reasonable amount of time developing the prose, finding sources and adding references to those sources without being bothered by criticism. On the other hand, an undeveloped new article in main space is subject to immediate review by new page patrollers, who may nominate the article for deletion if it has shortcomings. These routine shortcomings will be ignored it the draft article is in a sandbox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What could be done about Democratic socialism and Social democracy?

I've removed Social democracy sidebar on the Democratic socialism page on grounds that there is "not to be confused with" markup with respect to the former.

Hopefully, this is ok and the confusion seems to extend to the contents of Democratic socialism even though Socialism in itself is considered as far left today and anticapitalist by definition.

The socialism sidebar in itself would make sense on the social democracy page and the remaining socialist sidebar on democratic socialism has a link to social democracy under variants.

As I'm not clear as to where the idea of democratic socialism comes from, who can one talk to about it? - JamesPoulson (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, JamesPoulson. The proper places to discuss the similarities and differences between these two topics are the talk pages of the two articles. I disagree with the "not to be confused with" tag on the top of one of those articles, which in my opinion, should be used only in cases of articles entirely unrelated topics rather than closely related topics. These are closely related articles discussing very closely related political philosophies. I also disagree with the removal of the sidebar. Take a look at the list of members parties in the Socialist International, the worldwide alliance of similar parties. Many call themselves "social democratic", many call themselves "socialist", and the U. S. affiliate is called the Democratic Socialists of America. Others use a variety of different wordings combining "democracy" and "socialism" in various ways. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is being discussed on the talk page and that you are of this opinion would indicate a specialist or two needs to have a look.

The ideologies are derived from socialism and some political parties do have socialist origins but Democratic Socialism and Social democracy might as well be considered synonyms and merged if they have links to each other.

Obviously, a self-described social democrat would not want to seize the means of production.

Here are some links to clarify their differences:

Hello again, JamesPoulson. Please sign your posts. Most of the links you posted are not reliable, independent sources. The Teahouse is not a place for lengthy discussion of article content or political ideology. It is instead a place to discuss the mechanics of editing Wikipedia. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not edited by "specialists" but by anyone with an interest in a topic, who is willing to summarize the content of reliable sources in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll make a note that The Economist, The Local and the New York Times are not reliable sources and you're RIGHT this is not a place to discuss political ideology. Have a nice day. --JamesPoulson (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JamesPoulson, opinion pieces are reliable sources only for the opinions of their authors, no matter how exalted the publication they appear in. Every source must be evaluated individually in context. Wikipedia articles in themselves are not reliable sources, although the references they contain ought to be to reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that revision. The issue is mostly solved then and Europe can relax in not being considered as "socialist" :p --JamesPoulson (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page for a company

What is the proper way to create a page for a company I work for? What is the proper language etc?

Asnowstaff (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is strongly suggested that you don't create an article (this an encyclopedia not a promotional tool) for a company you work for, and instead use WP:AFC to suggest suggest someone else write it. If you want to go ahead anyway, then read WP:YFA, WP:COI, and WP:PAID for how to create your first article, how to handle conflict of interest, and how to disclose you are being paid to edit. RudolfRed (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asnowstaff: @RudolfRed: A small correction: Wikipedia:Requested articles is where one requests than an article be written. WP:AFC is for writing an article yourself which, to reiterate, you should not do about a company you work for. – Joe (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC says that it can be used if you have a conflict of interest. RudolfRed (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One further point, Asnowstaff, which might seem picky, but I think is important, especially for people in your position: We don't have "pages for" companies or anything else. We have "articles about" subjects, which are neither for nor against the subject, but just summarise what reliable independent sources say about it, favourable or unfavourable. (I realise that your "for" probably didn't mean "for" in that partisan sense, but articles here are not "on behalf of" the subject either). --ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error: Mary Tyler Moor Show..How fix?

The page states "first show to..." The given footnote does not say that, and the That_Girl factually contradicts the assertion.

Would "an early show" or "at the start of the trend" or so,me such be appropriate edits?

TIAC.o.o. (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, C.o.o.. Simply edit the article to more accurately summarize what the source says. If your edit is reverted, discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome. The sentence in question is above the editable portions of the page. (See: The Mary Tyler Moore Show ).

This suggests to this newbie that such a change is a case of "above my pay grade". C.o.o. (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@C.o.o.: There are no edit restrictions on the article at this time, so the entire page should be editable. The introduction (above the table of contents) does not by default have its own edit button like the other sections do, which may be a source of confusion. To edit it, click either the "Edit" or "Edit source" button at the very top of the page, which will open up an edit page for the entire article. clpo13_(talk) 23:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 and Clpo13 If the idea that the absence of a specific "edit" link implies that editing the lead is "above the pay grade" of newbies, is a common belief, then we should probably do something about it. I've opened a discussion at VPI about this issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Article Has Been Problem Tagged, What Do I Do?

I have made the article Grand Trunk Western 4070 but it was tagged as having problems with the sources cited credibility. I cited five references and I don't know how to fix this problem since the references I cited were the only ones that I could find. What should I do?DolotheDolphin (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DolotheDolphin. Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason your article was tagged was not credibility, it was notability. Notability is what we call our standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia and it is based on whether the subject has been written about in detail in multiple reliable sources. The key in your article's case is the reliable part. I happen to be familiar with your subject matter here and I know this locomotive is notable, so I'm going to pull that tag. Sources do not have to be online and I'm certain the 4070 has been written up in both Trains and Railroad magazines. You should find them and cite them. WP:Referencing for beginners will show you how and if you have any further questions, feel free to come back and ask. I had a 4070 excursion go right by my home in SW Michigan in the late 60s. Good memories. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DolotheDolphin. Like John from Idegon, I am interested in historic steam locomotives. You may be interested in an article that I wrote about a famous example, Sierra No. 3, often called the "Movie star locomotive". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can my work be retrieved?

I do not know how it is being done but my computer keeps being switched off by someone. The last time I was in my sandbox for approx 5hrs putting together a page regarding floor springs just as I moved my cursor to save my work my computer was switched off and I lost all I had written. Is there any way to retrieve this? I have asked this question elsewhere but have not got a reply so I am repeating it here. Please and thank you btwRod Fathers (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are looking at the wrong sandbox. Your work appears to be in User:Rod Fathers/sandbox, not User talk:Rod Fathers/sandbox where you left another copy of this message. Meters (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Rod Fathers. Please take a look at User:Rod Fathers/sandbox for the most current version of your work in progress. It is a good idea to save your work every few minutes. There is no downside, and the advantage is that you reduce the risk of losing a significant amount of work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the "Contributions" button you can see the history of all of your edits (or the "History" button for everyone's edits to the current page). That way you can restore a previous version in case anyone ever does delete your work. My guess is that you left your connection open and it simply timed out. If you really did leave your Wikipedia connection open and someone accessed your account then your account is compromised and should be blocked. See WP:COMPROMISED Meters (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just reread the above. Computers shut down by themselves to conserve power. It does not necessarily mean someone has had access to your computer. The length of inactivity required before this happens can be changed, or the shutdown feature can be disabled, but it is never a good idea to leave open applications on a computer. Meters (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct or Request Reference?

I'm a noob here. I was reading an article of interest and an unreferenced statement was made giving a date and location that contradicts other published sources referencing the same event. I have no idea what the protocol is in such situations. Does one edit the article and cite the source or can you flag the statement as requiring a citation?

JKellough (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JKellough. If you have a source that meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability, and it contradicts the information in an article, you should be bold and change the information while also including a reference to the source. If someone disagrees with your edit and reverts it, you should discuss the changes on the article talk page. TimothyJosephWood 19:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JKellough. One of our most important sections of policy is WP:BURDEN (part of the verifiability policy). In short, any content that is unsourced (or sourced but not to a reliable source) may be challenged (typically by adding a {{fact}} tag) or simply removed, and the burden is anyone wishing to place back the material to provide a reliable source that directly supports the content, specifically using an inline citation. Where you have actual information, through a reliable source, that the existing unsourced or poorly sourced content is wrong you would always do as Timothyjosephwood advises here, rather than challenging the content while leaving it in place. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Repair the Styling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_Adventures_volumes_(1%E2%80%9320) i've been editing this page and adding plot details but suddenly all the page looks distorted and not in a single style. Please repair. HighnessAtharva (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It looks like you accidentally pasted a url in the middle of the graphic novel list template. TimothyJosephWood 15:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Approval Timeline

Hello, I have worked on creating a page for an author, Essel Pratt, who is an author of Horror, Fantasy, and Sci-fi. He has been published alongside Clive Barker, William F. Nolan, and H.P. Lovecraft, to name a few. In addition, one of his articles from the Inquisitr was used as a reference for a Wikipedia article on Vegan Cheese. He is a rather prolific author that has had his newest novel, Sharkantula, widely publicized on various Internet sites. However, the Essel Pratt draft has been in draft form for over a month now. I continue to update it as I can. However, I am worried that it may be lost in the sea of submissions. Can someone spread light on when I may be able to find out when it may be approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortalgaze (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Immortalgaze. AfC currently has a backlog of about 400 drafts, so it may take a while, but a volunteer will eventually review your submission. I know that isn't a very satisfying answer, but unfortunately there are many more editors submitting drafts than there are editors reviewing them.

In the meantime, I notice a couple of things looking over your submission: First, you include external links in the body, which isn't permitted. Either these should be formatted as refs, or they should simply be removed. Second, while there are a lot of sources provided, it looks like nearly all of them are works written by the subject. While this may establish that he is prolific, self-written works do not contribute to notability in the same way that pieces written by independent sources do. So it's probably a good idea to find some independent reliable sources, and try to add them. As long as it may take to get a draft reviewed, if it fails the review, the whole wait just starts over again. TimothyJosephWood 16:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, you should look for book reviews in mainstream news media or magazines, but avoid "reader reviews" such as on Amazon or goodreads, look only at professional reviews. Literary journals could also be good sources of information about the subject's background and career. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Immortalgaze, I'm afraid in its current state Draft:Essel Pratt will never be reviewed, because you have not actually submitted it into the review queue yet. To do so please add {{subst:submit}}, including the double pair of curly brackets, to the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What if an entire paragraph is plagiarized? Do I remove the all the material? Grace1701 (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with self-published article citation

I am looking at the Hitler Youth page and there is reference to a self-published article, or what I believe to be one. I can't access the source because this online company wants to charge me an 8.95 dollar fee to do so. Should I just delete the content that has used this reference? How often does this happen on Wikipedia? Can anyone just put in anything that was self-published?

Grace1701 (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Grace. See WP:SELFPUBLISH. Specifically Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. If this does not appear to be the case, the best thing to do initially, would be to see if you can find an alternate source for the information, and include it instead. If you cannot, consider tagging with {{cn}}, especially if the information seems likely to be true and there is likely to be, for example, sources available in another language you cannot read or access.

If however, the claim seems likely to be untrue or is particularly contentious, and you are unable to find a source, even a poorly translated non-English source, then it is perfectly acceptable to remove the information. If you do, consider posting on the talk page to give other editors a chance to weigh in, and potentially find other sources you may have overlooked. TimothyJosephWood 15:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Approval Timeline

Hello, I have worked on creating a page for an author, Essel Pratt, who is an author of Horror, Fantasy, and Sci-fi. He has been published alongside Clive Barker, William F. Nolan, and H.P. Lovecraft, to name a few. In addition, one of his articles from the Inquisitr was used as a reference for a Wikipedia article on Vegan Cheese. He is a rather prolific author that has had his newest novel, Sharkantula, widely publicized on various Internet sites. However, the Essel Pratt draft has been in draft form for over a month now. I continue to update it as I can. However, I am worried that it may be lost in the sea of submissions. Can someone spread light on when I may be able to find out when it may be approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortalgaze (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I've moved this question to the top of the page (in the proper chronological location) on 14:55, 25 January 2017. --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 15:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, Talk2chun. In future, it's best to cut and paste rather than copy and paste, so that we don't end up with two versions of the question. I've struck this copy out. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry I must have copied the question instead of cut it after an edit conflict arose (with SineBot, no less). I'll try to remember to cut it instead in the future.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 16:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Immortalgaze. The general answer is, no. Nearly everything in Wikipedia is done by volunteers, who do what they want, when they want to. But the more specific answer for Draft:Essel Pratt is that it won't get reviewed until you submit it for review! When you think it is ready for review, put {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top of. (I'm not saying that it isn't ready now: I simply haven't looked)> --ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Looks like this was reposted again at the bottom and I moved it again to the top by mistake. TimothyJosephWood 16:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyjosephwood, Talk2chun copied it to the top but left the original question at the bottom of the page, which you then moved to the top. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Too many answers are better than none. TimothyJosephWood 16:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken deletion of a new article?

I submitted a new article on Africa50, an investment fund for Africa, yesterday. I thought I had saved everything the way it should be through the article wizard but now cannot find any trace of it. Is there any way to know whether it is now being perused by editors or is there some way to get the content back (it took a fair amount of time). I tried through my account without success. thanksAfrica50 (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Africa50, are you sure you were logged in when you made the article? I presume the article was called Africa50? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Africa50. This is the only contribution made to Wikipedia from your account; and I can't find articles called Africa50 or Draft:Africa50 (which is why those links are red) or a log of a deletion of an article called Africa50. So I'm guessing that you did not manage to save your attempt - possibly there were blacklisted external links in it and you missed the message (that's one of the most common reasons for an edit not to get saved).

By the way, you need to change your username: user names that suggest that they represent an organisation are not allowed: it must be personal to you (it can be an alias: I use my real name, but many editors don't). Also, the fact that you are using that as your user name suggests that you may be associated with the company: if so, you need to be aware of WP:COI. --ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment...

Would you mind telling me what you think about the lead of West Coast Customs, and whether this revision hurt or helped? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does make it seemed much less biased User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited; still issues on page

Hi! I've just done my first edit of an article and some of the flags are still present. So I suppose I am worried that I am not doing an adequate job or that I am supposed to have reviewed by someone. How does this work?PeterGamen (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link to article in question Global Child Forum. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PeterGamen and welcome to Wikipedia!

First let me explain to you a few things about tags: People who place tags rarely look later to see if the article has improved and remove them, so unless you ask the person who placed the tag for an opinion (perhaps on their talk page, or on the article's talk page via the WP:Notifications system), they may not see it. I can see that Josve05a removed one of your tags, but this is not at all evidence that he actually read much of your article or made sure that the other tags remain appropriate, and let me explain why.

Sam Sailor placed the tag, but Josve05a removed it.
His edit summary contains the text AWB. This is a semi-automated computer program that some Wikipedians use called AutoWikiBrowser. It lets some editors, who like to do that kind of thing, make many small changes on the encyclopedia to things that computers can easily see: a computer can easily see that your article is no longer orphaned, but it can't so easily see that you've used reliable sources, for example.

OK, phew! Hopefully that all made sense.

So, you may be wondering, how do you get a review so you can get the tags removed? Well, after I post this comment I will head on over to the article talk page and give you some comments, and perhaps even remove some of the tags, but for future reference, you can ask here at the Teahouse for a review or you can request a peer review. You can also, as a new contributor, get WP:ADOPTed by a more experienced contributor who you can use as a sounding board while you learn the ropes. Once you think you're ready to handle article issues that other editors bring up by yourself, you're even invited to be WP:BOLD and remove the tags yourself (but don't be upset if the other editor adds them back, take it to the talk page and try to find out why they don't think your edits actually solved the problem).

Hope that all makes sense. Welcome again!

Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Thanks for the help! I've looked at your edits and will try to fix the issues you flagged. Being new I am wondering if my word choice/style/tone are appropriate. Also the 'This article reads like a press release, or is otherwise written in a promotional tone. (June 2014)' flag is still up. How do I fix that?PeterGamen (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PeterGamen, you are quite welcome any time. The press release tag is not included in error. During my review of the tags on the page I decided not to remove that one, as I felt it still applied to the current version of the article. I gave you some advice for how you can satisfy Wikipedia's neutrality, tone and other requirements at Talk:Global_Child_Forum. Please do read that over, and let me know if there is anything you'd like clarified. After you attempt to satisfy the requirements, I would be happy to re-assess the article and remove tags if appropriate. Note that I am going to sleep shortly, so I won't be able to reply for a good twelve hours or so (this includes me getting ready, eating, my commute, etc.

). Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign births in country year pages?

During an unrelated cleanup I noticed a great deal of actress births on pages like 1988 in Turkey are actually born in Germany and don't appear to have any presence/recognition in Turkey.

The biographies don't look notable and sometimes removing the birth makes the page an orphan. This is mainly affecting actresses and singers - other kinds of profiles look fine, which makes me think these biographies are being added by paid publicists.

Is there a policy on this? Are the edits below OK or is this overzealous?

See: [[1]] [[2]]

Cybela (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cybela, and welcome to the Teahouse! If they are not notable, you ought to pursue deletion and worry about other things only later. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Finnusertop. The biographies I've checked aren't sourced and notability is questionable but I've found deletions a little confusing so I'm looking for smaller cleanups to help with for now. So I'm still interested to know if these edits are on the right track, if you put notability aside. The UK and US year pages look strict about this, but Turkey year pages not so much, so I couldn't be certain. Cybela (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, I did some more checking to see if there's a precedent but even the most notable biographies of people with international ancestry don't get listed this way (1) Donald Trump isn't in listed in births on 1946 in Scotland and (2) Barack Obama isn't in 1961 births in Kenya for example. Based on this I'm feeling more confident to go ahead and clean up inconsistent births on year pages. Cybela (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cybela: I judge those edits to be legit and not at all zealous, since the information on these performers's pages clearly state that the births did not occur in Turkey. Notability is probably a concern, but it's quite likely that the entries are added by interested fans.

And what's going on with the styling of Kizil's page name? Within the article, it sometimes uses lower case "i" characters and sometimes uses whatever Unicode character that's used in the page name. Whether Kizil is popular/notable in Turkey is unclear from her article, but Evcen is shown as appearing in a couple of Turkey-based television shows. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmcgnh:@Finnusertop: Thanks jmcgnh. I went ahead and did some fixes for obvious cases, added a few tags for other pages with issues and have tried to find sources for the rest as you and Finnusertop suggest. My guess is that some of these pages were added when Wikipedia was less strict. I noticed that the Top Model international franchise wikiproject may be responsible for generating a large number of biographies for people who appeared on TV approximately once or twice to participate in the contest's cycles and franchises across the world but otherwise have no discernible modelling career. Cybela (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to get into edit mode to finish my draft article?CableHut (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to edit my first ever draft article "Jean Jepson: Dancer, Teacher, Choreographer". I am able to locate the draft but I am unable to actually get into edit mode to do the edit. Please help me to get started.CableHut (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CableHut, and welcome to the Teahouse! Press the edit button (see the image to the right). More help is available here: Help:Editing. If for one some reason you still can't access the edit mode, you can use this direct URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Jean_Jepson:_Dancer;_Choreographer;_Teacher.&action=edit

Hope this helps. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How Much Time Is Allowed to Complete a Merge

If I take on a merge of two relatively short articles, how much time am I allowed once the merge discussion is closed? Is it something I should try to do all at once, or can it be done in parts, with the merged article being deleted/redirected only after the target is complete? RM2KX (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RM2KX, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think there is a time limit, so try to balance efficiency and accuracy. The guideline is here: Wikipedia:Merging – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have also reviewed today how to mark an article as a merge in progress, so that is good to know. RM2KX (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting a draft for review

Now that I have created a draft of an article in my sandbox, how do I post or send it for review? RLGraham (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've added the {{userspace draft}} template to your sandbox, giving you a "Submit" button to use when you are ready. I have also added a "References" section heading, and the {{reflist}} template. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has now been declined by an editor who took two minutes over this draft and then continued declining several drafts per minute. The assessor is unlikely to have had time to visit a library to refer to the printed sources. The comment left was misleading – notability for artists may be assessed using the normal notability guidelines, not only museum collections and major art reviews. The AFC assessment process is a serious problem for Wikipedia – it penalises substantial articles and rewards short, sound-bite articles on recent topics (with online references). I would have moved the draft directly to main space, so avoiding the AFC process. At this stage, I suggest removing all the material referenced by adverts and other non-independent sources, then shuffle the material so the best references are used at the top of the article. If that leaves something that would be attractive to someone looking at it for 30 seconds submit it again and hope to get it accepted. Later you can restore the article to how you would prefer. Thincat (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting photos for painter's wiki

How do I post images I was given permission to post on behalf of an artist onto their wiki pages? I want to post images just like how this artist's page looks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masami_Teraoka Songuitar333 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Songuitar333 and welcome to the Tea House!

Permission sent to individual Wikipedia editors is not valid for the purposes of Wikipedia's stringent rules to protect copyright, unless that permission is also clearly stated publicly online by the artist. Not to worry though, if that permission was sent to you, you may forward it to c:Commons:OTRS. Or, if the permission was only verbal or non-email, you may request the copyright holder to send her own email donating the images to Wikipedia by following the instructions at c:Commons:OTRS. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Songuitar333. The fastest and easiest alternative is for the copyright holder to open an account at Wikimedia Commons, and upload the images themself. Then, the images can be used by anyone for any purpose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Songuitar333. It addition to what Cullen328 and Psiĥedelisto, I feel it's important to the point out the difference between non-free content and freely licensed content when it comes to image files. A free license basically means that the copyright holder is agreeing in advance to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime for any purpose, including for commercial purposes. For example, some could actually download the files and use them in a way to make money and there's not a lot the the original copyright holder can probably do to stop them. It's important for the copyright holder to understand that this permission cannot be revoked once it has been given. That is why you don't find many artists agreeing to freely license their work and uploading them to Commons.

The other option is non-free content. Non-free files are uploaded locally to Wikipedia only for a specific use in a particular Wikipedia article. The permission of the copyright holder is not needed and the files are only required to be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free use policy. This might seem a perfect solution to your problem, but the non-free content use policy is very restrictive and places a number of limitations on how a file may be used on Wikipedia in order to protect the rights of the original copyright holder. The tricky part about non-free content and works of art has to do with contextual significance required by non-free content criterion #8. For example, a non-free image of a painting can be fairly easy to justify in a stand-alone article about the painting itself, but much harder to justify in an article about the artist who painted it. That's because in the former the entire article is about the painting so the context for NFCC#8 comes from everything written in the article, and the image of the painting serves as the primary means of identification at the top of the article. In the latter, however, the article is about the artist and even though there may be some mention of the painting within the particular article, it might not be enough of a mention to justify non-free use. Generally in biography articles about artists, etc., a picture of the person is used as the primary means of identification and non-free images of their various works are only allowed when the work itself is the subject of sourced discussion within the article; in other words, simply wanting to show the painting as an example of the artist's style, etc. is not enough.

The images of paintings you see in Masami Teraoka were uploaded as non-free content, but simply because such files are being used in that way in that article does not necessary mean it would be OK to do something similar in another article. It also does not mean that files are being used correctly in that article per WP:OTHERIMAGE. In my opinion, one of the images used in the Teraoka article seems for sure to not comply with relevant policy and the other two others have some iffy aspects about them, so I would not be so quick to use that as article as a model when it comes to acceptable non-free image use. Anyway, sorry for the log post, and hope some of what I've written is helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being asked to rewrite but don't know why

It would be helpful if someone could give me an example from my attempt, that indicates specifically why it needs a 'major rewrite' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Digital_Literacy_Coach eg, you have written this "...", which is unacceptable because "..."... please? I've modelled my post on other Wikipedia articles and asked friends to proofread, and can't see how to move this forward. Having already committed many hours to this, this is now extremely frustrating. :( Mistermchugh (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mistermchugh and welcome to Wikipedia!

The reason your draft was rejected was primarily one of WP:TONE. As reviewer David.moreno72 wrote:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

That is good advice. Following the advice on the pages WP:NOTESSAY, WP:TONE, WP:MFA and WP:SMOS will help you get your article approved. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mistermchugh. Your draft does not read as a neutral encyclopedia article about the topic of a "Digital literacy coach" but rather a review of the literature discussing the topic and also as an advocacy piece more or less arguing that this job title is a good idea. It comes off almost as a manual for implementing the position within an an organization. There are stylistic issues as well. We do not use the formula "Smith and Jones (2005) argue that . . ." Instead, we provide full bibliographic information in footnotes (also called references), rather than shortened bibliographic information in the body of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've already rewritten the article in a neutral tone, this seems like an extremely subjective matter, so I'm asking if someone could illustrate exactly how the tone of my article is inappropriate with a specific example. I've read the pages you've linked to, but I feel the text confirms these expectations. Specific feedback would be far more helpful than generic criticism.

Mistermchugh (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen that's more helpful, I used the text in this Wikipedia article as guide, who use exactly the formula you've described.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formative_assessment For example where they say, "Kluger and DeNisi (1996)[26] reviewed over three thousand reports on feedback..." So it's acceptable in that post but not in mine? This is the subjectivity I'm struggling with. Again, a specific example would be far less ambiguous and far more productive. Mistermchugh (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The use is just as wrong in that article as it is in yours. Generally, if you want a guide from which to base your article off of, you should use a featured article. Some new users choose to create articles themselves after having become auto confirmed rather than via the WP:AFC process, or articles are simply updated by newer users who don't know the proper way to WP:CITE; thus some sections of Wikipedia receive more scrutiny than others. But the existence of a problem with one page does not justify the existence of a problem on another. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not acceptable in that article either, Mistermchugh. That article should be copy edited to remove that type of prose. We have well over five million articles and probably one to two million of them have glaring problems and need work. That does not mean that we should add new articles that also have glaring problems. Instead, we want well developed new articles that comply with our core content policies and at least approximate compliance with our Manual of style.

As for a specific example, consider this sentence: "Attempting to provide technical skills training onsite to teachers in the use of technology has been found to be insufficient, and teaching skills in isolation can be ineffective in ensuring that teachers develop this kind of knowledge, for example, how to use technology to teach content in differentiated ways according to students' learning needs, or technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK); how technology can be used to support the learning of specific curriculum content, or technological content knowledge (TCK); or how to help students meet particular curriculum content standards while using technologies appropriately, (technological pedagogical and content knowledge, or TPACK) in their learning; this is where employing the services of a dedicated DLC has been found to be useful." With all due respect, that sentence is excessively long and convoluted, uses excessive jargon and acronyms, and is confusing to me even after I have read it several times. Instead, we want neutral, descriptive prose that is concise and clear, and avoids any trace of advocacy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim, this is much more helpful. Trust me to pick an article as model that is flawed. This gives me the direction I needed, your time and specificity is much appreciated.

MisterMcHugh (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there's another issue, unrelated to those described above. The writer is too close to the subject, and "can't see the wood for the trees". The article appears to be addressed to readers who already know what a DLC is. many readers won't know, and the article doesn't tell them. For example:

The first sentence says that DLCs are employed at schools that have "a 1:1 provision of devices". It says nothing about what kind of device. A fountain pen? A cricket bat? I guess it means a personal computer; if so, the article needs to say so.

The second paragraph preaches aboout how schools don't employ enough DLCS. But while the reader has no idea what a DLC does, it is unclear why they should employ any at all. There's a mention of "expensive hardware": maybe the DLC's job is to prevent the pupils from stealing the "devices"? Maproom (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your confusion. While I cannot say with certainty that the duty of a DLC is not to assure that devices aren't stolen, I believe that the main job of the DLC is to help teachers learn about and use the technology that the school is paying for. I agree that this absolutely should be stated in the article. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maproom as hard as this is for me to admit, you've probably hit the nail on the head with the 'wood for the trees' comment, now there's way too many idioms in this thread. Part of the reason for wanting this post on Wikipedia is that I'm hoping it will open this up to a wider audience, but for now, despite my arboreal proximity, I'm the only one who is prepared to write this, and also knowledgeable about the role. My hope if it ever gets published is too put out to a wider community to invite a wider discussion.

Psiĥedelisto you hit the nail on the head, so there must be something in the article that makes sense. MisterMcHugh (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC) MisterMcHugh (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Mistermchugh, wanting to "open this up to a wider audience" is a bad place to start in writing for Wikipedia. This is a bit paradoxical, because obviously people do write articles specifically because they think they should be there. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion: it reports on topics which have already been written about. If your purpose is opening up a topic to a wider audience, there are other places which fit that purpose better. --ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine We can nitpick about the semantics and sensibilities about what you may or may not feel are my possibly nefarious motivations for creating this post—but let me assure you, I have one motivation, to add to the existing body knowledge; that is it. I have no agenda, I do not stand to benefit personally from this article, I created it because quite frankly I was/am amazed that there isn't already an article dealing with this, which is also more than a little ironic given the nature of the role. So, to clarify, as I see the whole point of Wikipedia in large part about opening up knowledge in general 'to a wider audience' ie not just those who are have paid for access to an online encyclopedia. That's it, is that so hard to accept? MisterMcHugh (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

Error: Protected edit requests can only be made on the talk page.

Allee raza (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

allee raza

Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know what you were trying to achieve with this edit, but a semi-protected edit request needs to be placed on the talk page of the article which you wish to be edited, and it needs to specify exactly what you want changed. For example, you could say "Please replace "abc" by "def"", and you also ought to provide a reference to a published independent reliable source to support the change. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allee raza, please read David Biddulph's reply, just above this comment.

@David Biddulph: Allee raza won't have been notified of your reply, because you just typed their username without [[User:...]] or any of the templates, like {{u}} or {{reply to}} (a.k.a. {{ping}}), that would trigger a notification. --Thnidu (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: If you look at who typed what here, you'll see that I didn't type Allee raza's username here, and you may wish to look at User talk:Allee raza to see the notification. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Url for a citation linking to an archived copy of an article is not working.

Source #31 on the Timeline of the Virginia Tech shooting leads to "page not found" when clicked. So I used an archived version from it (archived in 2014) and used the citation that is used for archives. However, it's still leading to "page not found"? Depthburg (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Depthburg and welcome back to the Teahouse. I see you're still posting questions at the bottom of this page, but I'll answer it down here anyway.

It would be a good idea to clean up the URLs that you use in citations so they don't include unnecessary cruft. If the URL contains a question mark some parameters, try removing all of that and checking to see if the url will still work. Also, it's important to get the deadurl= parameter correct so the links will display appropriately. If "yes", then the archive link is presented first. If "no", then the archive-url is just a backup.

As of your last edit to that article Timeline of the Virginia Tech shooting, both the archiveurl and original url are the same, pointing to 404-space on Computerworld. The previous version looked to me like it was working, except for the extra url cruft and the wrong sense of dead-url. I suggest fixing these two things to see if you don't get something you're happy with. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the unnecessary parameters and providing "deadurl" a "yes" helped, thank you. Depthburg (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I write an article about myself?

I want to write an article about myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashant Raut (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Prashant Raut.

Please read the policies on Conflict of Interest and Autobiography to see why what you are proposing is not such a good idea. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Citation text.

[2] Citation text2.

[multiple-3] Citation text3.

[wood-4] Wood, T (2017) How to use ref names. Retrieved 25 January 2017

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]