Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 340

Question about removing comments
Hello, am I allowed to remove comments that appear to contain possibly offensive material and do not seem to contribute helpfully to a discussion, such as this one (which was posted to this page)? CabbagePotato (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One more question, Should be that (IP) editor warned? If so what is the appropriate one in TW? aGastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 08:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi CabbagePotato / Acagastya yes you should revert/remove plain abuse/harassment see Civility and Harassment. Especially when like in this case it was not even part of a larger comment trying to make any actual point. In general the Uw-harass under "Behavior towards editors" is the one I would (and just have) use from TW. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you KylieTastic for answering my question (as well as Acagastya's) and removing the inappropriate comment. Really appreciate it! CabbagePotato (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you find content on your talk page which may offend ou then yes you are allowed to remove it, also keep in mind you can remove anything usually non-harmful content is usually placed in an archive, hope this helps TeaLover1996 (talk)  20:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Nonconstructive?
Is it permissible to remove puffery if this may cause there to be less information on the article, as in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Pedro_College_of_Business_Administration&oldid=661536484 ? Rubbish computer 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Definitely yes. If it's unsourced puffery it should definitely be removed. Even if it makes the article shorter, it vastly improves the quality- I've removed up to 80% of text from articles before as unsourced puffery. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a relief to know as I have already done this many times. Rubbish computer 21:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this i blog?
Is this is a blog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.51.205.186 (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, see WP:NOTBLOG. Wikipedia is not a blog or social network- it's an encyclopedia, written about notable things in a factual, neutral way. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Signature
How do I get my current signature to appear when I type 4 tildes?

My signature Tea Lover 1996  (talk)  00:00, May 2015 (UTC) as I have to repeatedly copy and paste my signature as I cant get it to work properly TeaLover1996 (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This will fit:
 * It produces:  Tea Lover 1996  (talk)  . PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this an alternative? aGastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 16:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Substituting a signature above 255 characters is not allowed by WP:SIGLENGTH. See also WP:SIG. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay PrimeHunter, I will notify the user not to follow it. But, why if the template is substituted and there will be nothing left except the code, which will also be generated by the ~ symbols? And how will one know is template was used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acagastya (talk • contribs)
 * The edit box is harder to use if it's full of huge signatures. I think 255 characters is bad enough. If we wanted to allow more then we could just request an increase of mw:Manual:$wgMaxSigChars. It's technically possible to substitute a longer signature but it's against WP:SIGLENGTH. Somebody may notice its length and complain. If a substituted signature is below 255 characters then I don't think others can see it was substituted. WP:SIG says it is "permissible but discouraged ". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit box is harder to use if it's full of huge signatures. I think 255 characters is bad enough. If we wanted to allow more then we could just request an increase of mw:Manual:$wgMaxSigChars. It's technically possible to substitute a longer signature but it's against WP:SIGLENGTH. Somebody may notice its length and complain. If a substituted signature is below 255 characters then I don't think others can see it was substituted. WP:SIG says it is "permissible but discouraged ". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse Host
I applied to become a host at the Teahouse, what do I do now? Tea<b style="color:blue">Lover</b><b style="color:red">1996</b> (talk) </b> 18:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Read this aGain and you will know that you are a host now! aGastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So I am a Teahouse host now? <b style="font-family:tahoma"><b style="color:green">Tea</b><b style="color:blue">Lover</b><b style="color:red">1996</b> (talk) </b> 19:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi TeaLover1996 - it's not an application but a public declaration by you that you want to help out as a host. As for what to do now, just check by here whenever you can and answer any questions you can. Obviously you may not be able to answer a lot of the questions at first as your relatively new here, but by reading the answers other give is also a great way to learn new things and as time goes by you'll be able to help more people. One hint (pokes on this one) is to mention the person in the answer, or use the  or  templates so people get a notification of an answer (does not work for anonymous IP editors). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I ping sometimes I leave on the respective talk page.  aGastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 19:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * : Ah sorry I missed that! Also good advise to do that for the IP edits (I always forget that tempate) Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This reminded me to actually sign up to be Teahouse Host, good work people. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or do the same two hosts pop up in that box in the top right that I swear was supposed to cycle...? Random question but does anyone know? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, It's HostBot's job, it just like picking the same people.... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * HostBot displays host images based on how active each host is here at the Tearoom. Since I have made over 2500 comments here, you will see my ugly old face quite often. Sorry about that. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Its funny because that is why I was commenting. I was wondering why it liked picking you so much, thanks for explaining... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello
 * You are a helpful person, always ready to help new persons like me.


 * And yes you are NOT ugly but sober and graceful


 * Best regards


 * Aftab Banoori (Talk) 08:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding new languages to existing article
Hi wikipedia....I am new and novice in' well everything at wikipedia. I want to translate pages to another language like English to Nepali or Hindi but I don't have any idea how to do that. I only edit pages which has already translated and does not have any information but I want add new languages to pages and it would be nice if someone can help me out with this...so, I can add some bytes to wikipedia database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightendark (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Lightendark, start at WP:Translate us and feel free to come back here if you need further assistance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nanografi Company
Gocmar07 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)I make a definition about Nanografi Company. I want to ask some question. I want to add some file and template.And ı had a membership 3 days ago.Is there rule for this situation?Gocmar07 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Gocmar07. The page you posted at Nanografi was a blatant copyright violation of that company's website, copying and pasting content owned by it. We cannot accept such content here. It also read as content written to advertise the company, which is how material written by a company, for itself, usually reads. So even if it was not a copyright violation, it was not the type of writing we would desire to see in a proper article. The process it was deleted under is called speedy deletion, which allows immediate deletion by an administrator of this encyclopedia if a page meets one of the criteria for that process. Here, the page was deleted as unambiguous advertising and as one that did not indicate by its text the importance or significance of the topic (though it also could have been deleted for the copyright infringement). You will see that these were the bases by clicking on the red-link for the company I placed earlier in this reply. Before ever reaching enhancements to an article like template and files, the fundamental issue of proper content would need to be addressed. We would need a neutrally-written page, containing no copyrighted content, no original research, and one that met our notability guidelines, by citing reliable, secondary sources, independent of the company, that wrote about it in detail. This would also allow verifiability of the content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this source reliable or not?
I posted it here about the neurodiversity site wrongplanet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wrong_Planet#Possible_Criticism_Section.3F Ylevental (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If I saw the same link, I would have used it. Just remember to cite it properly and make sure that the reference comes from a reliable and authoritative source.

-PotatoNinja123 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Indent?
How do I indent on a talk page? I look at the link that talks about indents, but it never said how to do it...Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Dunkleosteus77 you just use colons, the more colons the more indented - see Help:Cheatsheet Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

registration
How can i register my company herePrathamking8 (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you might misunderstand, Wikipedia isn't a place to register your company for free advertising or a social network-style profile (like LinkedIn), see WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Wikipedia has neutral point of view encyclopedia articles about notable companies- to be notable enough to pass WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP, a company needs to have significant, independent coverage from reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not adding here for promotion...as i think it will be good to see my company over there..such a trusted platform..nothing elsePrathamking8 (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, you cannot write articles about your companies, ergo you can give an idea in Requested articles, so other wikipedians may write it instead of you, if they decide that company is significant. With best regards, Ochilov   (talk)  11:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not true, you are allowed to write about your company, it's just strongly discouraged. If you think your company passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP, then I would recommend using the articles for creation process to create your article. This allows you to get feedback on and improve your draft before it becomes a proper article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Joseph. You gave some good info right there. You deserve a cuppa tea. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is place of online knowledge, the main role is to provide information and for users, to update information, You are not aloud to edit your own profile or your businesses for that matter, as this could include bias information, information which really shouldn't be here or publicity for your business. I must make it clear that as a user for Wikipedia, mainly for research, it is not a place for putting advertisements and the services and prices your company does, with your current account you can add your website, which provides this information (Z2a (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC))


 * I'm sorry,, while what you say is generally correct, I really don't think you are saying it in a way which is helpful to or anybody else. Wikipedia's purpose is to summarise already published information on notable subjects. It does not contain profiles (but users who register an account may create a user page about themselves: mostly about themselves as a Wikipedia editor, but a little outside information is allowed. A link to their company website would not be allowed). Advertising and promotional material is indeed not permitted, and users are discouraged from writing about themselves or the companies; but as  says, they are not forbidden as long as they follow the rules. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for discussion...Really I am not confuse more here and not going to try to create profile here anymore.

Many people misunderstood me like I am doing promotion but my intention was to make Wikipedia more wide and cover all related information for that city.

Like we have started startup in India i.e. www.deebowl.com and its performing well so I think we should be display in Wikipedia page thats all.

If anyone can think, we are eligible to mention our story here please let us know because I am not able to decide so just check once and respond.

Thanks, Deebowl team www.deebowl.com Prathamking8 (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again, . The criterion for whether something should be mentioned is whether it is notable; that is: has there been in-depth coverage of the company, written by people unconnected with the company, and published in reliable places (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publisher). If there has been, then there is a information about the company can be referenced to a source, and it may be included in Wikipedia. If there has not yet been such coverage (and for most start-ups, there isn't) then it should not go into Wikipedia at present. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Referencing song genres
I recently added a genre to an infobox but had it promptly removed by another member who claimed that a reference was needed, even though it's fairly obvious that it's correct (don't bash me for this; I'm just saying...). Looking at other song pages, none of the genres seem to be referenced - at least not in the infobox - and It leads me to think that the references may by stated in the description of the edits. So I tried this once, but then had my edit reverted once again. Honestly I find this really frustrating and feedback would really be helpful.

-PotatoNinja123 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . The relevant policy is WP:Verifiability, which says "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." The question is whether the genre of a song is verifiable without giving a citation. I have no doubt that in general the answer is No, because there are some songs whose genre is disputed. If the song is one where everybody would agree, then you can make a case that it can be verified without a citation; but I'm not certain there are such songs, partly because the list of possible genres is open-ended. So my preference would be not to allow a genre without a citation; that is, without a reliable independent source. I have a suspicion that quite a lot of songs could not then be assigned a genre (though I may be wrong). I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Others might disagree with me, of course. One thing I am sure of is that just because other articles do something doesn't necessarily mean that's the right thing to do. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well where does the reference go then? I doubt it would go In the infobox, unless of course it is a note which can only be viewed unless you're editing --PotatoNinja123 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:REFB - the reference goes where the content is added. the info box is supposed to be a summary of the content about the subject, so references to genres should be in the body where the genre is discussed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statustop
Does anyone know what has happened to the template Ive tried using it on my userpage and sandbox but none is working any thoughts? <b style="font-family:tahoma"><b style="color:green">Tea</b><b style="color:blue">Lover</b><b style="color:red">1996</b> (talk) </b> 21:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's anything wrong with the template; the problem here seems to be that you're just missing a "Status" subpage. According to the template's documentation page, it seems like you need to make a subpage (if using default parameters the page should be User:TeaLover1996/Status for you) and place one of the five parameters given in the documentation on the subpage in order for the template to work. You don't appear to have that subpage, which might be the reason why it didn't work for you. CabbagePotato (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The template contained a "display:none" parameter, which meant the template's output wasn't displayed. I have no idea why it ever worked, but I've removed that parameter, and now it works again. Huon (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It worked before without me creating a subpage, so why do I need to now? <b style="font-family:tahoma"><b style="color:green">Tea</b><b style="color:blue">Lover</b><b style="color:red">1996</b> (talk) </b> 08:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't know that you don't need the subpage to use it. The template's documentation page said that you needed one, so I just assumed it was the only method available. CabbagePotato (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Having a problem with a template
Hi there, I'm having a problem with a template (for a book award) that I edited. The template was pointing to a disambiguation page. I edited the template so the link on it points back to the page it was originally pointing to (the page of an author, who was affected by a page move and the disambiguation page). I checked to make sure the edit was correct on the template and checked several of the affected pages to make sure that the template on those pages was now linked to the correct page, not the DAB. However, it's now been a day and the DAB page is still showing about 30 pages that all have this template link, and no other links to the author's name, still pointing to the DAB page. I got a Bot message about it. How do I fix this? I have been to most of the pages concerned and verified that the only link on those pages is the one in the book award template at the bottom - which I already fixed. If someone needs the specific template and pages name to help with this, I can provide it later - but I am really baffled and would like some help. Or is this something that just has to wait a few days for the change to "push" through the system? Many thanks in advance, TheBlinkster (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Edited to add, I got a message from the bot that DAB solver could be used to fix the links...but when I open up the DAB tool link and click it keeps saying there are no DAB links to fix (which is what I expected as I already fixed the template). The DAB page is Margot Bennett (disambiguation). Can someone please take a look and tell me if I need to do anything or will this go away on its own? I'm not finding anything to "fix." TheBlinkster (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to say that you have fixed the problem and the What Links Here page is simply out of date. This could be due to issues with the job queue, but all that matters is the problem has been fixed and it will eventually update, maybe after those other 26064771 jobs... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I will wait and see if the problem goes away as the page updates further. TheBlinkster (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've gone through and WP:NULLEDITed the handful of articles that transclude the templates you've edited, in essence bypassing the job queue (which for less than 60 articles I'm not too worried about). Does that resolve your issue? —  03:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see all the pages with the template that I had updated are gone from the "what links here" now, thanks loads! I saw there was one page left that needed a manual fix, I must have missed that one, so I just fixed it manually. I think I'm good now and thank you for your expert help. TheBlinkster (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I translated an article that already existed in 3 languages, but was denied because the topic was not significant enough??
As the title says - I translated an article (about Swedish Best Sommelier of the World Andreas Larsson) that already existed in 3 languages (Chinese, French and Swedish) into English, but my submission was denied because I was told he was not a significant enough person?? What makes him significant enough for 3 languages but not a 4th one? I am confused. SyrahQuaffer (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Every different Wikipedia has different notability criteria- just because things are notable for another language's Wikipedia doesn't necessarily make it notable under English Wikipedia guidelines. For English Wikipedia, you need reliable sources (in any language) that show significant, independent coverage. The relevant guidelines are WP:GNG, and also WP:BIO for biographies. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi SyrahQuaffer, your draft Draft:Andreas Larsson is currently unsourced. I can't speak for the Chinese, French or Swedish Wikipedias but, on the English Wikipedia articles need (1) sources to verify the information is true (2) reliable published sources (such as newspapers/books) to demonstrate that the subject/person is widely known and/or important (see WP:GNG for the 'notability' guidelines). Maybe there are fewer active editors and admins on the other Wikipedias, leading to articles like this one not being challenged. I wish you luck in improving your article. Sionk (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi SyrahQuaffer. Though I haven't looked at them to see if they contain the depth of coverage we require in sources that we do need per above, you might start looking for sources to add using this and this search. Focusing on books and news rather than a regular web search tends to concentrate reliable sources. Please note that the article was not "denied because the topic was not significant enough". The draft was rejected in its current state because it did not demonstrate notability, which in no way is an assessment of whether the topic is notable – as we use that word here to refer to the world taking note of a subject through substantive publication about the topic in reliable, secondary, independent sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello SyrahQuaffer, taking a look at what your signature implies, I have to ask: Are you by any chance sv:Andreas Larsson (sommelier) or do you have a close connection to him? If so, you should also read the pages regarding conflict of interest and Autobiography. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  10:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

How to solve "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline: error?
Hi, I had published an article about a wellknown Photographer in Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Domiri_Ganji

but there are some errors in the article: 1- This article uses bare URLs for citations, which may be threatened by link rot. (May 2015) I have added many links and references for any statement in the article, and i dont know why this comes.

2- The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (May 2015) What is this one?

Can someone help me to solve these? Thank you. Newyork3 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Bare URLs are where you only put the the URL address, not extra information- for citing web pages, it's recommended to add the URL, title, publciher, date and access date, see for example WP:CITEWEB. I fixed this.
 * General notability is whether or not the person is notable enough for an article, according to WP:GNG. This is determined by whether they have significant, independent coverage about them, which doesn't include things they have written. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 Thank you so much, I have searched the Public pages of other photographers on wikipedia but they were mostly empty and without any informations. some were just 1 line biography (this photographer is born on year/month and his photo collection named: "photocollection") but they did not have any error with them.

by Siggnificiat coverage you mean I have to add some new parts like Biography, Study, External links, Exhibitions ... to the Wiki page? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyork3 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Newyork3 (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia significant coverage means that their were works that focused on him or discussed him. Examples of significant coverage are, books, papers, and news articles about him. An example of non-significant coverage would be just his name on a list which included thousands of other Iranian photographers. Does that help? Winner 42 Talk to me!  16:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, what did i do was to add around 20 news Channels and known websites that were focused him and his biography.

It is included news notworks like CNN, BBC, MSN, Yahoo .. and photography societies like national geographic. I can add many more if required. do i have to do that?

Newyork3 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC) You can add as much to the article as you like. I've removed the GNG tag though as you have added a bunch of sources the show notability. Happy Editing Winner 42  Talk to me!  16:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The article does not demonstrate notability as per WP:ARTIST. Consider what is claimed of Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji (publication on the web and in magazines, and runner up in some unimportant competitions) in relation to WP:ARTIST: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."


 * Be careful, . The specific criteria (such as WP:ARTIST) are alternatives to the WP:general notability guidelines: they say that even if the subject doesn't meet the GNG, these are alternative criteria by which they may satisfy notability. On a quick look, Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji does seem to meet the normal requirements of notability (being written about in independent reliable sources) and so ARTIST need not come into play. --ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -Lopifalko (talk)

Declined Article and Interim Stub Creation
Dear teahouse staff,

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Northwood_Mortgage

How are you? My article about Northwood Mortgage was recently declined. Could you please let me know why and which of my references are not strong enough? How could I improve?

Also, could I start the page as a stub first before turning it to an article? I put the stub tags at the bottom and resubmitted it. Is the stub approval as tight and does it have to wait in line for review like article creation?

Thank you for your time and advice :)

Regards, Sam Ssmith1520 (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll try to critique the sources as best as I can. Mortgage Broker News.ca does not have any hallmarks of an independent source.  It looks, from what I can see, to be a republisher of press releases, and a website which exists solely as a promotional vehicle for mortage broker companies.  It is not an independent journalist, and as such, cannot count as an independent source for establishing notability per WP:42.  The National Post article does seem to be from a reliable source.  The Wikipedia article about the National Post makes that clear.  But the article in question is not about the subject of the article in any meaningful way.  It mentions them in passing, so the actual words "Northwood Mortgage Ltd." do appear in the article, but the article itself is about changes to the housing market in general, and not about the company itself.  In order to establish notability, the source needs to be actually about the subject, rather than merely featuring the name.  Newswire.ca is like the other source: It's a press-release republisher.  It contains only information published by the company itself, and is not an independent reliable source.  The deal is this, Ssmith1520: Wikipedia articles cannot contain text which is not verifiable.  That means, every single article can ONLY contain text that we can trace back to a reliable source.  If there is not any in-depth coverage of a topic in reliable, independent sources, then we can't have any text in said articles.  If there cannot be any text, there cannot be an article.  I hope that helps, and good luck finding good sources; however be aware that there is no guarantee such sources do exist.  There really may not actually be any such sources.  If there isn't, then there will also be no Wikipedia article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * and whether or not the draft is marked as a stub is of no relevance I'm afraid, . It is true that there are many stubs in Wikipedia which are lacking in sources; but this is generally because they were added before we were as careful as we are now, and they should be improved or deleted. They cannot be used as a model for new articles, whether stubs or not. --ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

tagging users in teahouse comments
If I write a comment/question under a Teahouse question, is it possible to tag other users in the question? How does one do it? What is the advantage of tagging them, do they get an email notification, or.......? Greg Dahlen (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One way to tag people is with . When the user is on Wikipedia, this gives them a notification that they're being mentioned, so they can look back. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, you can tag multiple people using this format:, which gives:   Anon 124 (+2)   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Using social media as a reference
Would we be allowed to use social media - in this case, twitter - as a reference, especially if it is a primary source of information? For example, if Martin Garrix stated on his own twitter account that he had collaborated with another artist to create x, would that be an accurate and reliable source of information? -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  11:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Really? Not even if the source is confirmed to be true? I find that a bit strange... -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:RSN <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  13:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:TWITTER, there are possible cases where tweets from verified accounts might be acceptable sources, in the same way as other self-published primary sources (and with all the same provisos). It's unusual for that to be the case, though, and generally other sources would be preferred. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 13:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's confirmed to be true, that must been other sources agree with the Twitter account. In that case, you can use the other sources instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with this policy or anything, but it's a tad obscure as to why a source generated from the original social media post is actually more reliable than the social media post itself. -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The main concern is that primary sources can be self serving rather than secondary reliable sources which tend to be more neutral. In this specific case, I would use twitter as a source if other sources cannot be found yet as the claim appears to pass through WP:TWITTER as a primary source, though this is usually not the case. Winner 42 Talk to me!  13:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, if no secondary source reports or comments on the tweet it means "nobody cares" thus we don't either. Take an example of some pop star tweeting that they had peanut butter on toast for breakfast. We can probably accept it as accurate but that alone is not enough. If no newspaper or other mainstream media sources cares to report or comment about the pop star's breakfast it means the meal is of no significance to the world's view of the star's work or persona. Wikipedia only cares about stuff that reliable sources already have cared about enough to report it. A somewhat absurd example but I hope it is illustrative. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect categorising
Is, for example, 2012 Icelandic presidential election (the redirect, not the page this leads to) an alternative name or incorrect name for Icelandic presidential election, 2012? I have used the R from alternative name template but am not entirely sure. Rubbish computer 16:32, 10 May
 * , it's an alternative, I don't see how it can be described as incorrect just because the words are not in the right order. Nthep (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, that makes sense. Rubbish computer 22:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Specific manual template
When part of an article appears to be written like an instruction manual, as in Concave cake, rather than like an encyclopedia, what is the suitable template to use for this? Thank you. Rubbish computer 22:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Rubbish computer. Manual seems to fit the bill. I would use the <tt> </tt> option. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Creating a new question on an article talk page
Dear helpers, I was looking at the talk page for the article "Mold": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mold  I would like to create a new section in this talk page which would contain my particular comments and questions, but I can't see how to do it. Can you tell me? Thank you.69.230.179.59 (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Thank you, KylieTastic. I had just seen that and was trying to delete this Teahouse question when you answered. But I can't see how to delete a question. Is it possible?69.230.179.59 (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi 69.230.179.59, to create a new section on talk pages just click the "New Section" tab at the top-right of the page. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, questions get archived automatically after a while and if you find an answer just edit and add that you found it rather than delete it. KylieTastic (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If that doesn't work just enclose your question with 4 equals signs (2 on each side) and a new section with a heading should be created.

-PotatoNinja123 (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can also go into Edit, go to the bottom of the page and type " == Your heading == " and write your comment on the next line. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

U|PotatoNinja123 and U|KylieTastic, do you mean add my edit to the last section created by someone else? Greg Dahlen (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, so long as your header is written like ==Your Header== it will give another section. Same works on article. I don't want to do demonstrate for real here, but you can try it out on your talk page or mine to see how it works. Hope that helps! Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 01:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

An audacious and preposterous assumption of knowledge
Rejected my page for True School Entertainment LLC,( User:Lion126/True school Entertainment LLC ) as being not notable. While I can certainly understand why someone in the "Northern Cape province in the semi-desert Karoo ecoregion" has no idea who I am and has never heard of my business. However, the hip hop icons/legends listed on my page (Full Force, Kangol Kid, Chuck D, etc), that wikipedia found notable, find TSE notable. I was told by your "live help" so called editors that there were no news articles, interviews, etc that they could find.

Of COURSE not... TSE primarily provides Executive Personal Protection. There isn't exactly a publication called "Bodyguard Monthly Magazine", and you wont find "12 Hottest Bodyguard Calendar" for sale at your local Barnes and Nobles. However, if you spoke to the likes of Bowlegged Lou of Full Force, or Sir Mixalot, and asked "Who is Lion/True School Entertainment" you would find that not ONLY does TSE provide the most professional personal security available, but also the absolute BEST in media relations as well.

I am fully willing to provide contact information for the INTERNATIONAL RECORDING ARTISTS that are my clients, for the purposes of verification, upon request. In fact, this would be one of the few times you wouldn't be met with the words "Please refer those questions to my publicist Lion at True School Entertainment".

This needs to be reconsidered, researched by persons able to actually do so, and published.

Regards,

Wade C. "Lion" Lindwedel

President

True School Entertainment LLC Lion126 (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would be wiser to read what he said when he told you the references did not show your organisation to be notable and reflect on why we deprecate massive conflicts of interest?
 * You need to study WP:CORP and reconsider the way you have handled this, please. Provide references thus: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42, bite the bullet and do the work. Fiddle   Faddle  21:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * First, were this true, I would not be spending such an inordinate amount of time making corrections to the wholly inaccurate information provided on your page about my client Kangol Kid


 * Second, the independent sources would be those who you have ALREADY published pages on, IE Chuck D, Full Force, Sir Mixalot, Kangol Kid, UTFO, Force MDs, who are listed as MY CLIENTS (former or present)who are able to verify for you with certainty, who I am, who TSE is, and the notability within our industry of myself and my company.


 * On second thought....nevermind. I have operated for 16 years without wikipedia's help. Lion126 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, but your contributions record shows no edits whatsoever to Kangol Kid, and none made since January 2015. It has, however, been nominated for deletion. Thank you for drawing it to the attention of another editor as being a poor article. the Streisand effect is worth remembering.
 * Were what true? All I told you was, with precision, that you needed to read the words of the reviewer. Please understand that Wikipedia is not her for you to use for promotion or as personal web space. Take a moment to reflect and then please behave properly. I have no idea what you are speaking of with regard to independent sources. These must be referred to within the article that requires verification and backed with references.  Fiddle   Faddle  21:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have to know anything at all about the subject of any draft I review, all I look for is that the writer has provided reliable sources that specifically back up the claims made in the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning your clients with equally terrible Wikipedia articles. Many of these are now up for deletion, as they don't show any notability either. Satisfying WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC are the only way you can get your clients' articles to stay. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do delete them. I will merely rewrite them with the correct information (that should have been there to begin with), and repost them. However, were I you,I would check with WP's legal dept first and make sure that's how they want this handled. Good day to you all.Lion126 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ....and so they stood, shaking their fists in the street, yelling "You hurt our feelings, so we're going to delete pages that have incorrect information, to teach you a lesson!"
 * Making legal threats, you won't be making any articles, because you'll be blocked. Also, if anyone tries to create them without significant improvements, then they'll just be deleted again, under WP:CSD. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Lion126 has been blocked indefinitely. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Issue in interpreting "Planned"
In the article of Vikrant-class aircraft carrier,there has been a dispute regarding the interpretation of facts since the existing information on public domain is clumsy and the editor's interpretations are different from one another.So is seek a clarification on the issue in this question, the difference between saying "having confirmed plans for 2 carriers" and "there are only 2 carriers planned".Please help to solve this issue. M.srihari (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . To me, both phrases say pretty much the same thing, but the prose of the second phrase is clearer to me. If there is unconfirmed speculation about a possible third carrier in this class, then perhaps the article could say, "there are only two carriers planned, as of 2015". <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The way I read it the first phrase leaves the possibility of more carriers open while the second means there will never be more than two. So imho unless there is an authorotative source that definitively states that a third will never be built, it is more correct to use the first phrase. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

using website as citation
Dear helpers, possibly I will be adding a section to the article "Mold" about artists who have used mold in artistic projects. Apparently if I mention a specific artist, it is good to add a citation about that artist? Is it reasonable to use the artist's own website as the citation, as opposed to an article about the artist? Thank you. Greg Dahlen (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on what I've seen so far on Wikipedia, I would recommend using a source that is written about the subject, as autobiographies and celebrity generated websites can be a tad biased and opinionated. But if there isn't any other source then in guess you could use it as a reference, as long as it is reliable and authoritative. -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . It's always best to use an independent source if you can find one; but you may use a non-independent source for some kinds of information: specifically, uncontroversial factual data. I imagine that whether or not an artist has used mould probably comes into that category, so it would be OK to use their own website (though I can imagine some claims about an artist's materials or working methods which some would think were factual and others would dispute). However, I have another concern about what you propose doing: are you basing it on published articles or books about artists using mould? If you are, that's fine, but if it you are basing it only on particular artists saying that they use mould, then I think this would count as WP:original research, and not be allowed. --ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, U|ColinFine, their web pages from their sites show pictures of their art: http://www.danieledelnero.com/p/after-effects.html and http://magical-contamination.tumblr.com/. In my estimation these are not notable artists (do you agree?), but I think the idea of using mold in art is notable, and I need to mention some specific artists so people can see what I'm talking about? Greg Dahlen (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You would either want notable artists (ideal those with Wikipedia articles) who use mold or secondary sources discussing the use of mold in art. Almost everything has been used in art at one point or another, you need reliable sources to show that mold artwork is significant.Winner 42 Talk to me!  17:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed., in Wikipedialand, "notable" does not mean "important" or "significant" or "well-known", or "influential" or "popular". It means "has been the subject of substantial writing by people unconnected with the subject, and published in a reliable place". However, I don't think the notability of the artists is what is in question here. If there is a reliable source that talks about the use of mould in art, then the article may cover this, and any artists cited in those sources may be mentioned whether they are notable or not. If there is not, then I believe that writing about the topic in the article mold would be original research. --ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . Would you mind taking a look at the section I added to the "Mold" article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mold, Section 7) and see if it qualifies as "notable," the reference I cite (http://discardstudies.com/2012/01/02/the-art-of-mould/) is written by a person who is generally in the field so it might not, but on the other hand it is a good synopsis of the use of mold in art. Greg Dahlen (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I think that is fine. You're citing what appears to be a reliable source, and saying only what is in that source. It would be even better if you could find a second source, confirming that the use of mould in art is a "thing", but as the section is only three lines, I think it's acceptable as it stands. --ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Pull info from one article's infobox into another article
I'd like to add a "date of last update" column to a list of software, and that information is usually in the infobox of each individual application's article. I'd rather pull it from the infobox than manually copy it, especially since manually copied data will go out of date quite quickly. Is there any way to do this? Something along these lines perhaps? Anjefu (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Anjefu This question is a bit too technical for the Teahouse, you will find the apropriate experts at the Technical Village Pump. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Anjefu and welcome to the Teahouse. If I read your intentions with this new "App" right, I'm far from convinced that such a thing would be good for the articles here. Having a photo of a person updated automatically may work on Facebook and other social media, something that the Wikipedia is not. The photos here are chosen with great care to illustrate the articles. Some of them are so called Featured Pictures, that means they are pics of very good quality that go well with a good article. I don't think it would be in the encyclopedia's interest to have such a picture automatically exchanged for a poor quality mobile snap made by an inexperienced photographer, just because that pic is more recent. And what if an older pic of the subject was to be uploaded from say a book that had just past the mark of free copyright? The timestamp on that pic would be "newer", but the photo itself could be older than the one in the article. You may have only new pics of currently notable people in mind, but changing an infobox may change all the articles that use that same infobox. Best, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  09:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think you're misreading 's question: they're not asking about updating pictures - "Photos" was just a word in their example. They're just wanting dates to get updated in the list article from the individual articles. I doubt if there's a way to do this, and in fact I don't think it's possible, because a tool that puts a date into the list without a cited reference would be a bad thing; while typically the date would be one of several pieces of information cited to a single source in the specific article. So a tool would have no way to reliably find the appropriate citation. --ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you ColinFine, for another interpretation of the question. My answer was just based on mine. Let's hope some of it brings a bit of clarification for the editor. Otherwise Roger (Dodger67)'s answer is probably the best one. ;) Best, <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate articles
Louis-Hector de Callière and Louis-Hector de Callières appear to be about the same person. I couldn't link the first one as there appears to be a problem with my computer. Rubbish computer 17:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * An approach is the one I have taken, proposing a merge. A History Merge is likely to be needed too. Fiddle   Faddle  17:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Rubbish computer 17:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Template for unnecessary links?
Any template exists for those articles with really really unnecessary links? 117.222.91.108 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! For that I would recommend using . Hope this helps! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably that would be perfect. Thanks. 117.222.91.108 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you have some time, can you please help me in the clean-up of Lorentz force? 117.222.91.108 (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at it, but I know absolutely nothing about physics I'm afraid. If there are problems with wikitext or grammar, if you point them out I can maybe help, but that is quite outside my expertise zone. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, but some of the terms likeThe magnetic force component of the Lorentz force manifests itself as the force that acts on a current-carrying wire in a magnetic field. In that context, it is also called the Laplace force. Where the links are really ridiculous. Either daily terms or commonly known terms! 117.222.91.108 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)