Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 566

edit
How do I edit tell me please. Flash Caribbean (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. You will find many useful introductory links at WP:Welcome. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You just edited this page by adding this section. Click Edit source to edit the page.  However, you should read thru the WP:Welcome thoroughly, before doing so.  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I need to edit my wikipedia name...any takers?
I need to edit my wikipedia display name currently online as "Jonathan Williams (pianist)" Apparently, there is another Jonathan Williams who is also a pianist somewhere in the world that people are becoming increasingly confused about and mashing up facts with. I would like to enter my middle name "Bryan" and drop the (pianist) so that the display name would simply read "Jonathan Bryan Williams". This should clear up any confusion. Since I'm not very tech savvy with this, is there someone who could possibly help me out? I can manage the other updates and edits.

With the utmost sincerity and appreciation,

Jonathan Bryan Williams JBWBDP (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This Article is up for speedy deletion. Administrators, please wipe it from the face of wikipedia. I'm tired of dealing with it. Thank you.

JBWJBWBDP (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The article got redirected to Pat McGee Band. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Mont Mézenc and Draft:Meygal
Hello. I don't understand why my articles were deleted. It's not a hoax, its really exists. On the French Wikipédia, there is no sources and it seems not to be problematic. I added sources. What are we going to do now? Cordially. Jean Fume (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . First, your drafts have not been deleted: they have been declined, but you are welcome to improve them and submit them again. Secondly, each language Wikipedia has its own policies, and a topic may be acceptable in one and not in another. But in Engish Wikipedia, existence is not enough: since every single fact in an article should be cited to a reliable published source, and nearly all to a source independent of the subject, it follows that if there are not substantial reliably published independent sources about a subject, there is nothing that can go in an article about the subject, and it will not be accepted however it is written. Please see WP:42 and Referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Thanks for stopping by Teahouse. Want some good news? Geographic features have about the lowest threshold of notability of any subject on Wikipedia. All you need is a reference to some sort of official map that shows these features and the articles are good to go. John from Idegon (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK this is weird. Draft:Meygal has an official source on it so it is good to go. However, Meygal already exists in mainspace - as a redirect to the draft. I went to approve it and move it and couldn't due to the redirect. Hopefully an administrator will sort it. I tagged Meygal for deletion to make way for the move. John from Idegon (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Creation of Article
I have a request, I want a page to be created in English named: Syed Aman Mian Sharma, he is notable, he is an Indian Child Actor, this article is already on him https://hi.wikipedia.org/s/al4o but the problem is that it is in hindi. I can Give you more than 25 references and i have also made source code for it so you only have to create the article and add or remove points that i have already made. If You are ok. We can talk further. This is one of the 29 references i can give you - Read This http://www.fuzionproductions.com/sony-tvs-upcoming-show-peshwa-bajiraos-syed-aman-mian-speaks-character-show/ Regards MumbaikarLaunda (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A comment on User talk:MumbaikarLaunda suggests we can mark this .— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Did I do the right thing?
In the question "How to add images into an article ", which is located 2 questions above this question, one can see that there are two questions not related to each other that have been asked. I informed the user that made a question, below the user that made the question on how to add images to articles, that they placed the question in the wrong place. Did I do the right thing? If not what should I have done instead? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought new questions get posted on the bottom of the page, like talk pages. Its the second or third to last question.  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. On any other talk page new questions do get added to the bottom, but those who set up the Teahouse perversely did it the other way up (and confuse new editors by so doing).  Most of us would like this to be corrected.
 * But to get to your original question, yes, it was good to tell the other user that they had apparently posted in an existing unrelated section. What some of us might have done would be to add a section heading for the new question  if it obviously doesn't relate to the one above.
 * If you want to refer to an existing section you can link to it by preceding the section title with a hash sign, so in this case it is .--David Biddulph (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * archived.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I spotted this too and have moved both of the questions to the top of the page and given the second one a heading. Thanks for informing the second editor of their mistake, . Cordless Larry (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Rick Wakeman appears on BBC Radio 4, mentions Wikipedia
Rick Wakeman was on Clive Anderson's "Loose Ends" program on Saturday, in the course of which he mentioned Wikipedia and a fact he claimed we'd got wrong about him; from memory, he said that he played on the second Clive Dunn single in the early 70s and which didn't become a hit, not the one which became a No. 1 single (Grandad).

I think it's fair to say that he doesn't like us, and going by the article it's clear that he's made very adverse comments about us in the past. Is there a forum somewhere where his comments, and whether or not they should be responded to and if so how, has been discussed? Or would anyone think it more appropriate to comment on the subject here? Meltingpot (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wakeman is professionally grumpy. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure (and thanks for replying), but my impression was that he meant what he was saying rather than saying it for effect.

Anyway, I take it you think we should just let it go? Meltingpot (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a forum for discussing the process of editing Wikipedia, . We're glad you found us and we're happy to help you with any issues you may have editing Wikipedia. Obviously, this is off-topic. The only conceivable place this discussion might be topical is at the talk page of our in house newspaper, The Signpost. They have a regular feature on Wikipedia in the media.  Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse! If you want to return here with a request for help we welcome you, but please add your question at the top of this page. I know it's the opposite of everything else in Wikipedia,  but that's where it goes. John from Idegon (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, it certainly would be appropriate to fact check the article he referenced. I'd encourage you to do just that! John from Idegon (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I can't do that without Rick's help since no one else is likely to know, for example, what records he played on as a session musician, and that isn't likely to be forthcoming. Also, though I have some of his music I am not an expert on his career. Meltingpot (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, . If a claim requires help from the subject to verify, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Period. If reliable sources say that he played on a certain recording, then that is what we say. If his denial of this is published somewhere long-lasting, then the article may say that he denied it, but should not attempt to resolve the disagreement. If reliable sources don't mention it, then the article should not. The article Rick Wakeman doesn't currently mention Clive Dunn. --ColinFine (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , as usual hit the nail right on the head. You see, what makes an encyclopedia different from other sources is this:  We don't write about a given subject, we write about what is written about a given subject. Remember that little nugget of wisdom and you'll be a very successful Wikipedia editor! John from Idegon (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You could log this at Wikipedia on TV and radio,, although that page seems rather inactive as the most recent incident is something I logged in 2015. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Some editors seem to be logging radio coverage at Press coverage instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments everyone. I have updated the "Wikipedia on TV and radio" page now. Meltingpot (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Problem with "Copyright, notability and conflict of interest"
Reviewers marked web page [made by me] for quick deletion. They accused me of:


 * copyright problem - I have removed the list of topics that our journal is interested in but I think it is hard to use own words for e.g. software engineering
 * notability - Journal is included in many notable scientific search/index engines - especially open access - references are included at the bottom of the page. Citations of journal paper are available on Google Scholar.
 * conflict of interest - as preparation of the web page by the owner is strongly discouraged, I have put only neutral and informative words and sentences.

What could I do to be in compliance with Wikipedia rules?

Wojciech Thomas (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, welcome to the Tea House! . As per the provisions of WP:COI, you should not edit any articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. You should be transparent about your conflict of interest and disclose it on your user page. This does not mean that you get no say in what the article about you or your company says, but you must request edits be made to your page and not make them yourself, so a non-involved editor can review and make them if he feels that the sources you propose to use are reliable and that what you wish to include really exudes a neutral point of view. (See WP:EDITREQ) Lots more good information is available at WP:PSCOI, I recommend you read that whole page. Remember that you can make edits about topics unrelated to your conflict of interest the same as any other editor. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

CONTENT ELIGIBLITY OF AN ARTICLE
Dear house,

Can I create a page on a yet to be launched Movie series, giving detail about the series, it's cast, producers, directors and other related info?

Ohamsugo (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Probably not. If the film has begun principle photography and is so heavily anticipated that the production process itself is notable (i.e. has been written about extensively in the press) then perhaps, but generally Wikipedia doesn't want to have articles on films until they have actually been released. See these guidelines for the specifics. Unless you're writing about something like the next Avengers movie, the answer is probably "no". Yunshui 雲 水 16:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Stanley Leopold Fowler
The atricle has a tag for speedy deletion and as I am new I am worried it will be deleted. They are citing poor reference and reliance on youtube. This person's daughter has posted on youtube original footage of her father and the building of Shsakespeare's birthplace and Anne Hathaway's Cottage in Armadala, Western Australia. Unfortunately, this happened in the 70's so not much online! I did include references to articles in newspapers and web links that do mention the information about him. I asked where the 'contest speedy deletion' button is, but the focus was on how poorly formatted the article was. I guess I need help in many ways but trying to not get this remarkable man deleted is possibly number one. Thewayweis (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've removed the deletion notice (which was through the proposed deletion process, not speedy deletion, to be exact). Be sure to put those references after the sentences or paragraphs supported by them, rather than just at the end of the article. Please read referencing for beginners. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
How to make friend in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaMeShk (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a social networking website, but it is an encyclopedia which welcomes new contributors.  You can find more at WP:Welcome. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Village
How to make a Wikipedia page of my village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhavkengg (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are confident that the village meets Notability (geographic features), follow the instructions at Your first article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jhavkengg. All villages should have Wiki pages, especially your own, but try to keep it impersonal and well referenced. I've mainly done Nottinghamshire ones from scratch over the years. My lead is usually about whereabouts and population, unless Isaac Newton, say, was born there, or it grows the tallest tulips in the Fens. Short, sharp subtitles cheer up a page no end. I usually go for some of the following: ==Governance==, ==Heritage== or ==History==, ==Historic buildings==, ==Notable people==, ==Nature==, ==Amenities==, ==Transport==, ==Schools==, in no particular order, I'm afraid. Here's one I did about a year ago that's been topped up by others in the meantime: Scarrington. Bmcln1 (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there an advantage to a commons user page?
I'm a newbie with, apparently, quite a juvenile sense of humor, but that's beside the point. I've been uploading images to the commons, and have finally come to realize (I think...) that the reason I keep seeing my username in red on the commons is because I haven't started a commons user page. From my point of view, it seems that by starting one the only thing it would do for me is to force me to keep track of yet another page. Is there some benefit to having a commons user page that I don't realize as a newbie? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the Teahouse, . A one sentence user page stating that you prefer discussion here rather than at Commons would facilitate communication and eliminate the red link, which hints "newbie". Of course,  there is nothing wrong with being new.  Cullen328   Let's discuss it  18:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can also make a global user page. See Global user pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Can I create an entry for a non-profit educational organization if I am a member of that organization?
Hello,

I'm a member of the Vintage Fashion Guild (my role varies year to year -- I'm currently on the Board of Directors). I just read in the instructions that you can't write about your own business enterprise. That makes sense -- it's akin to advertising and is unlikely to be unbiased. But the VFG is a non-profit and its online reference libraries and public forums are accessible to anyone. What are the rules here? I don't want to put a lot of work into this already time-consuming volunteer gig only to have the article pulled down. Best to ask up front. Thank you for your help.

Liza

Sparky091601 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . You definitely have a conflict of interest so I suggest that you create a user page where you declare that conflict. Please read Your first article and take a close look at whether the group is notable. Write a draft article and submit it for review through the Articles for creation process. Experienced editors will review it. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  20:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

How to edit a misspelling in a title that I composed.
I just created a new entry the title of which contains a misspelling. I wrote "Coalminers' Strike of 1873..., instead of Coal Miners' Strike of 1873... It's not apparent how to edit titles. WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. As you have probably found out by now, you can't change the title of an article in the same way as you edit its contents. Instead, to change titles, articles are moved. Since you are not autoconfirmed (yet; it requires 10 edits from your account that needs to be at least four days old) you cannot do this by yourself. Since all Teahouse hosts are autoconfirmed (I imagine), you can ask us to do so, as you have done. But you really should read up the policy on article titles to find out what's wrong with your request as it stands. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As it stands the article is The Coalminers' Strike of 1873, NE Ohio and NW Pennsylvania. I suggest moving it to Coal Miner's Strike of 1873.  As FinnUserTop stated, we can move this article for you.  Let us know. Justin15w (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why the extra capitals & why that positioning of the apostrophe? Wouldn't it be Coal miners' strike of 1873? --David Biddulph (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * D'oh. Yup.  My bad. Justin15w (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Can soomeone add information about Aquarius Group, in the USA
It is about cell phone towers, and their use for mind control. Thank you! :)I do not know much more than that.2602:306:36B4:CF00:A143:42BB:3BA7:322 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a conspiracy theory but in any case, material such as this would need to be accompanied by a very reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Natalia Toreeva
Hello, I was restricted to do editing the Draft:Natalia Toreeva saying COI, and someone was suggested to create the sandbox, so the volunteer editors could use the material from the sandbox and move the info from there to the Draft. I created the User:Toreeva/sandbox, so it can be used as the source for the Draft. What is the next step? Can you find the editor(s) can help with the article, and who is not bias politically, with good faith, and has enough knowledge in Russian/Soviet art, specifically to 1970th time. And after the editing the Draft, can someone to submit it for the article? Thanks in advance,(Toreeva (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Natalia Toreeva has not been submitted for review, and it hasn't been edited since November 2016.  It appears that you have carried on editing User:Toreeva/sandbox instead of the draft.  I get the impression that probably some of what you want to use is in the draft and some in the user sandbox.  If that is the case, you need to put the 2 halves together in one file, sensibly the draft, and then submit it for review.  The article shouldn't need anyone to have detailed knowledge of the subject, because it should be referenced to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * David Biddulph, I was told that I need to create the sandbox with any additional info I have, so any editor can use the info from the sandbox and include it into Draft to improve the article. And then the Draft would be resubmitted by that editor. So, I need help with this kind of editing. Thanks,Toreeva (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I now see from Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281 that you are not permitted to edit the draft directly. (This wasn't clear from your original question.)  The question then is whether there is an editor who can spare the time to put your sandbox material into the draft, tidy up the duplication, and who could then convince themselves that they could legitimately submit it for review.  Because such an editor would need to satisfy themselves that each of the references does indeed support the relevant text (and that overall the sources demonstrate notability in Wikipedia's terms), this would be a very time-consuming exercise for the amount of material which you are proposing.  I would have thought that you would have more chance of success if you had a smaller draft which was clearly able to demonstrate notability.  The discussion at Articles for deletion/Natalia Toreeva does suggest that the article as it stood at that stage was not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.  We'll wait to see whether another editor comes to a different conclusion.  You will, I hope, now understand why Wikipedia recommends that editors should not try to write an autobiography;  if the subject is really notable, someone without a conflict of interest can write an article in due course.  --David Biddulph (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * David Biddulph, that's why the suggestion was made to create sandbox, so other editor(s) can use any info from the sandbox and to put into Draft. The article does not need to be as big as sandbox, even it can be smaller, just use any info to improve the article, so it can be submitted for review. Hope, the Teahouse has someone with the good faith to do this small task. Thanks,Toreeva (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Citations on Non-Online Info
Hi, I am somewhat new at this and have been trying my best at editing some articles that I am knowledgeable about. This seems to be a great community. I was wondering, when referencing a source in an article that is something I have seen (movie, TV show, etc.), how should I cite? To be clear, these are things that don't have an online link that I can access, like specific plot information. Thanks! Dragontrip1 (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I also wanted to ask another question, sorry if this is the wrong place. When revising outdated information that cannot be updated, such as specific statistics that cannot be verified in the years since a source was last updated, should this just be removed?

Dragontrip1 (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Sources cited in article do not have to be found online, but they are required to be reliable, be published and be used in proper context. Of course, being online makes does make it easier to verify sources, but being offline does not mean a source cannot be verified by someone somewhere. Please take a look at WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and try to provide as much information as you can about the source per WP:CITEHOW to give others a better idea about it.


 * As to the second part of your question, outdated information should be replaced as needed if the new information can be supported by a citation to a reliable source. Care needs to be taken, however, and cited information should not simply be removed because it is old or because the website, etc. being cited is dead since it may still have some value to the reader per WP:RECENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This was turned down
Good day, I was trying to put up a entry on our magazine Backroads. I know it is frowned upon writing your own entries, but I closely followed other like magazine entries.I did my best to have it not sound like an advertisement. Here was the reply we got back...

User talk:Brian Rathjen Any thoughts?Brian Rathjen (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there and welcome . Here is what the reviewer stated: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."  I agree with this assessment.  You need more reliable sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY.  In addition, you may have a conflict of interest. Justin15w (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ? What articles about magazines did you model your article after? Also, there is no maybe about it. You are in violation of our policies on WP:COI and in violation of this website's terms of use in regards to PAID editing. As the founder of the magazine, you stand to financially benefit from an article on this subject here. Your draft is not an encyclopedia article, it's a press release. A cursory web search showed absolutely nothing written about your product by reliable independent sources. I'm going to request your draft be deleted as advertisement and you would be well advised to heed the warnings you stated you were aware of about writing about yourself or your company. If and when your magazine becomes notable, someone will eventually create an article on it. John from Idegon (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

How to cite Gartner magic quadrants
Background: Gartner is a company that provides analysis and advice on information technology/software products to corporate customers. They describe themselves this way: "the world's leading information technology research and advisory company". Gartner evaluates software products by categories and rates the top products in each category in what they call "Gartner Magic Quadrants".

My question: As Gartner is highly respected in the IT industry, their Magic Quadrants would be relevant as a citation for an article and for establishing notability. Can anyone suggest what would be the correct way to cite a Gartner Magic Quadrant? One of the difficulties I find is that Gartner requires a (paid) login to access their quadrants, so generally on the public internet one only finds press releases from companies announcing that their product has been named by Gartner in the latest Magic Quadrant for a given category.

Thanks in advance! Mmundt (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings Mmundt, welcome to the teahouse. There is no requirement for a source to be publicly available on the Internet for it to be used as a reference. That is always preferable but not a requirement. And I agree with you, the Gartner articles, especially the Magic Quadrants are often very valuable references for topics in Information Technology. You can site them the way you would any other reference to a journal article for a publication that wasn't freely available online. As long as people can get a copy of the article without undue effort and I think that is possible for the Gartner articles. I'm pretty sure I got one a while back via the Resource Request feature because I needed it as a reference for an article: WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request I think that some of the older Gartner articles are also freely available so its a good idea to check to see if you can find it but if not its Okay to use it anyway. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Should I finish this article?
Other languages have articles about their profanity, but I'm wondering if User:Psiĥedelisto/Tagalog profanity was really such a good idea after all...what do you think? I started it because I was reading Spanish profanity and noticed that Tagalog language has no similar page. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems a shame to waste all that work! Sourcing seems OK, so why not? If you're getting bored, rember there's no WP:DEADLINE! O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  13:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The topic is quite juvenile I am also concerned, because I currently have an open Wikipedia Library request at WP:Gale, that if a reviewing editor sees this in my recent changes they may be less likely to approve my application (I didn't think about this when I started the article) because it is a juvenile/offensive/risque content.  I also was not aware of WP:DEADLINE, that's a relief  Psiĥedelisto (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think WP:Gale are probably made of stronger stuff. They probably hear worse at faculty meetings :) Wikipedia, as you know, is a broad church and caters for all tastes. never mind juvenility: if it's sourced, neutral and independent, we want it. Actually your article is almost Critique of the Gotha Program compared to some we have!  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  13:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just read the article and had about half a dozen belly laughs! I guess that means I have a pretty juvenile sense of humor...8-( Please finish it and let me know when you do! And dumi on Gale if they don't like it! DennisPietras (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help guys, I won't abandon it. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding a magazine that has been sold in stores since 2006.
Walk into a 7-11, and other stores in the Boston area, and you'll see the "South Shore Puzzle Journal" on the magazine racks next to more famous magazines. What is the best source of information that would make Wikipedia realize that the "South Shore Puzzle Journal" is real enough to have its own Wikipedia page2606:6000:6011:D400:25C2:766F:A1E8:CDAD (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, 2606. Existing isn't the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is. If the subject has been written about in detail in multiple reliable sources, it is notable and can have an article. If it hasn't, it can't. Generally, magazines that only circulate in a limited area would not have the requisite coverage. Can't speak to the specific magazine in question, as I have never heard of it. John from Idegon (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Automated Huggle Welcomes.
Recently I found out that Huggle for me sends all users, whose edits I encounter a welcome message. I Had a discussion about this on my talk page. Is there any way to stop this? I searched all preference pages and found nothing. Friy Man talk 06:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there, how do you skip to next edit in Huggle? I mean, do you use any shortcut key or just jump to next by clicking? Some shortcut key could be causing this problem. I used to use Huggle but never faced it. — RainFall 07:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I skip by pressing good article button or revert warn button. Friy Man  talk 07:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Errors corrected?
I'm quite new at writing entries for Wikipedia. Three days ago a notice was put on my Wiki page indicating that I needed to use a common style for my footnotes. I believe all my footnotes now conform to the same style. Can someone take a look and let me know what they think about my corrections? I'm open to all suggestions for improving the formatting of my entry. Here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_miners%27_strike_of_1873 WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What is of more concern than the format of the footnotes is the question of whether the material has previously been published elsewhere. Google searches for many of the phrases in the article lead to https://www.joomag.com/magazine/la-gazzetta-italiana-italian-heritage-2016/0187751001475346350?page=26.  This is a subscription service so I can't see the text concerned on the website, but if the text was previously published in "La Gazzetta Italiana" it would presumably be a copyright violation for it to be published in Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I will cut the copyrighted section and keep my original commentary that precedes it. Thank you for pointing out the violation.

WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Copyright violation corrected, my original content footnoted.

Thank you so much for calling the violation to my attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_miners%27_strike_of_1873 WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Pages for the newspaper citations need to be added. Will do so later, when I received the information from my assistant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_miners%27_strike_of_1873

WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * One of the references was to Wikipedia. That isn't permitted (see WP:CIRCULAR) so I've removed it, but of course if there is a valid and relevant reference in that other Wikipedia article you could use the same reference in your article.  And when you want to link from a talk page like this to another Wikipedia page, it is neater to use a wikilink rather than a URL, so Coal miners' strike of 1873 renders as Coal miners' strike of 1873 rather than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_miners%27_strike_of_1873. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with your removal of circular reference. Thank you.

WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Help with references formatting
I need some help with figuring out reference formatting.

I've got an article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Rubel

I need to get the references in line on the article and I'm not sure where to find the processes for making a reference list and how to insert that into the article. I'm sure it's not that hard I just couldn't easily find it.

I also need to set up disambiguation for "Robert Rubel".

If anyone can give me a hand/link/or some time it would be greatly appreciated.

All respects,

Klok kaos (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find the process for references explained at Help:Referencing for beginners, and the disambiguation process is explained at WP:Disambiguation. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that, it was really easy I just needed to figure out what the format was.

Now I just need to make the disambiguation page and that's one project down! Woo hoo! Klok kaos (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * With regard to Robert J. Rubel Wikipedia cannot reference itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, you will need to replace all the Wikipedia citations with reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Permission/discussion to edit article?
Hi - I'm new to Wikipedia, and am just starting to get my feet wet. I am naturally gravitating towards familiar subject matter as a goal for my first edits, and noticed some errors/ key omissions / citations and was wondering about etiquette on edits. Should I add a summary of what I want to change in the "talk" page of the article before making any edits, or can I just go ahead with the change? For example, I want to edit the section "Still Photography Division" to correct the note about the NFB becoming the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography in 1985 (it didn't) and note about the splitting of the archive and fix footnote 83 (not related to content) and 84 (dead link). It's a start! :)

Thanks! Ottawaorrell (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia ! Actually, the etiquette in this case is that you be WP:BOLD in updating pages, and if there is a problem with your edit which you did not catch, it will be reverted. This is called the WP:BRD cycle. Make sure that everything you add to articles is properly sourced, of course!  Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! I will give it a try and be bold! ;)Ottawaorrell (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * And,, I strongly advise you to write meaningful Edit summaries, so that nobody will mistake your edits for vandalism. --ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding an article for a company when one already exists under that name, but for a different company
I would like to start an article for Phoenix Labs, an independent game studio based in Canada. There is already a Phoenix Labs article for a company that no longer exists, so I'm not sure how I should move forward. Thank you! Kogath (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Why not just rewrite the page putting the current company info with valid citations first, and then keep the current info at the bottom of the page under a heading like "former use of the name by a company that no longer exists"? If they aren't in biz anymore, I don't see why anyone would object. After a while, if no one objects, ask if you can remove their info completely since it is an out-of-business company of no relevance, and therefore not worthy of wikipedia inclusion. Deadvoodoo (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I object, and I expect many others will. An existing article should not be quietly destroyed without a dicussion process. And being defunct is certainly not a reason for deletion, see e.g. Digital Equipment Corporation. Maproom (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . I do not recommend you follow the advice that gave above since doing such a thing may lead to a number of problems and create a situation requiring an administrator to clean up. We simply do not overwrite entire articles about a subject just because we want to create a different article under the same name. Wikipedia notability is what we use to determine whether a stand-alone article can be written about a particular subject, and the fact that a company may no longer be in business does not mean it loses its Wikipedia notability. What is typically done in such cases is that one of the article titles is disambiguated to differentiate it from other articles of the same name. Which title is disambiguated depends upon which of the subjects is considered to be the primary topic, which can sometimes be fairly easy to determine and other times be fairly hard. Since you want to create an article about a company, the first thing you need to determine is whether it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you think it does, then you can begin working on a draft version for submission via WIkipedia:Articles for creation. New articles can be really hard to write because they must be written in accordance with various policies and guidelines, so I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Your first article. The AFC process is optional, but submitting a draft to it will give experienced editors a chance to review your work and offer suggestions on how to fix any problems they might find. These reviewers will also be able to help you with diambiguating the title of the draft if such a thing is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Kogath


 * I agree with Marchjuly, may be someone needs info about old "Phoenix Labs", I am in favor of keeping both the articles.


 * Aftab Banoori (Talk) 15:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

how do i delete an page i created
i recently created apage. but later came to know that it is not elligible as a wikipedia material and has been put up for deletion. i realise my mistake and i would like to delete it. how do i do it? (Paula andersons (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Blanking the page, as you did, is taken as a request for deletion, so I've deleted the page. Should the same situation occur in future, you can accelerate the process by replacing the content with the code, which will alert an administrator to the need for deletion. Yunshui 雲 水  16:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't add Infobox Company using Visual Editor
Hi everyone. I am having some issues adding a Company Infobox on 2 pages I am working on. When I search for the template (using visual editor) if it finds it and I press INSERT it doesn't show the pre-set fields. If i create them one by one and then add the information when I save the changes it doesn't create the entire infobox. The pages I am talking about are: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atradius   for this page I can't find any template and if i try adding them manually it doesn't create the template.

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atradius   for this page i can find some infobox template but not the company one.

Can anyone please help me with some information? Many thanks in advance :) Clau clau19 (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like you had some success in adding the infobox to the Norwegian Wikipedia, it just displays at the bottom of the page. To insert an infobox using the Visual Editor, you should make sure that your cursor is at the very beginning of the article, before the first word ideally. As far as the Swedish Wikipedia is concerned, I don't know the language; but you should be aware that not every Wikipedia project will have every template as every other project. The Japanese Wikipedia is especially notorious for this, on 柴犬, a table is used instead of an infobox! Psiĥedelisto (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response Psiĥedelisto. The infobox for the Norwegian page was added in one of my "try out" but if i edit it now and add information in the fields they don't show up in the infobox. Although it's goo to know that not every wikipedia project has every template. I will try working around it somehow Clau clau19 (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I may understand your problem - if you add information to an infobox, you may only add the fields defined in the template, exactly how they are spelled in the template. Normally, you can find a list of all of the fields that a template has for you to choose from and use those in the Visual Editor, but some templates will not have this information. Digging into the source of your edit, I can see that you attempted to add the infobox to the Norwegian Wikipedia with all of the template parameters in English. However, if you look at the source of w:no:Mal:Infobox company you will see that the parameters have names like "organisasjonsnummer". You're going to have to use the parameters under their Norwegian names, and note that not every enwiki Infobox company parameter will have a Norwegian version. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Psiĥedelisto I managed to add with the Norwegian Company Infobox! It worked, yey! Thank you. The only issue I still encounter is at the logo & headquarters image, there are some extra markup words that I dont know how to erase. Clau clau19 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "extra markup words", the page looks fine to me... Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Somehow it is fine now. But either way, many, many thanks for your help  Clau clau19 (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

How much information to include?
I am considering editing an article about a mountaineer. The wikipage about this mountaineer is very specific to his mountaineering history and specifics about the mountains he climbed. He has been in some small and larger films & there is a very small amount of information about his life growing up and what he does with his time besides mountain climbing even though this information is easily publicly available in magazine articles and interviews. Is adding this type of information to an article appreciated or does it create a cluttered article with too much information? I could not find guidance on this anywhere. Thanks to whoever can help! :) Adorabutton (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as you don't go overboard (see WP:TOOMUCH), all of that stuff sounds like useful additions to me that would appear in other biographies on the project. The appearances in films and widely cited facts about the personal life of a notable person are useful additions. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Your in luck. One of our regular hosts here is somewhat an expert on mountaineering articles. Let's shoot a ping at and see what he can add! John from Idegon (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Yes, I have written and edited quite a few biographies of mountaineers. A biography should be an overview of the person's whole life,  so if you have information about date and place of birth,  education,  career outside mountaineering,  place of residence,  spouse,  children and so on, add that information with references. Rely as much as possible on respected mountaineering publications since general circulation newspapers often screw up articles about climbing, because the reporters often lack a deep understanding of the sport. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  19:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Would this article be allowed for publish?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mark_Alchin

Its my first time to submit an article and would like know if this article falls under the criteria for allowed contents to be published.RamonaJF (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. In fact, if that wasn't a user page I would have already deleted it under WP:NOTRESUME.  For proper criteria, see WP:42.  Basically, you need to cite multiple professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources with no connection to the subject (but which are still specifically about the subject). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am confused that you are referring to the user page User:Mark Alchin when your account is RamonaJF. Are you using both accounts? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming they were just using that as an example. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It had something to do with the offsite link being in a top right hand box, and was in something like -((reflist))- (very unsure of this it was a while ago), but the gist of the message ws that I'm not allowed to alter reflist :( Deadvoodoo (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Correcting a link on a WikiProject Albums page.
Trying to correct a broken or moved link/citation to the AllMusic website on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Sail Was told I didn't have permission, and got no response on the TALK page. Just want to make a very simple edit to make Wikipedia better. Deadvoodoo (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . There have been no successful edits to Four Sail since last September. Is it possible that you were trying to add a link to a blacklisted website? That is one possible explanation for your story. This is an article that gets little attention from other editors. More details would be helpful. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  07:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don"t see why it would be blacklisted - the link is still at AllMusic (with a favorable review, as are all of Love's AllMusic's Love reviews), and Love was a band that was very influential in it's time. One of the band's many famous fans was Jimi Hendrix, who actually played on one of their albums, and the band is listed by many famous musicians as being influential to their musical styles. Deadvoodoo (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just fixed the link. Do you remember the specific text of the error message you got when you tried? Funcrunch (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe it was part of something called a (reflist) in a box at the top right corner. It said I didn't have permission to access reflist Deadvoodoo (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * PS thank you ::! Deadvoodoo (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Trying to publish new article but cannot find "move" tab
Hi,

I finished my draft and saved it. I'm in a "read" mode but I cannot find the "move" tab. Can someone help me find a way to make this visible to public please? Or any help in finding the move tab is appreciated.

Thank you!Bahn.jh (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the TeaHouse.  I presume this question relates to Draft:Glow Recipe.  Do you have a conflict of interest here?  I ask because the article reads rather like a press release instead of an encylcopedic article.  If you do have COI, then be sure to follow the instructions at WP:COI.
 * The reason you can't move it is because you are not an "autoconfirmed" editor yet - that will come with time and more edits. To nominate your draft for review at Articles for Creation, add the code  at the top of the article.  It will then be reviewed and moved if appropriate.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Uploading photos to Wikipedia article
I am preparing a Wikipedia article on my Mother Choreographer Director in Ballet Ireland in the 1950's60.. I have photos taken of her and her productions in our private family collection which were used for theatre professional purposes.Photos of her were taken by her brother and given to our family. Both my Mother and her brother are now dead. Can I upload these photo's ? Penelope.Collins (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . If your mother's brother left all rights to those photos to your family and you are an authorized representative of your family's estate, then you can freely license the photos under an acceptable Creative Commons license and upload them to Wikimedia Commons. They can then be used in the article you are writing,  and by anyone else for any purpose, without restrictions other than attribution. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  21:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Images can be important to help enhance articles, and what posted about copyrights, etc. is quite important. However, it's important to try and not put the cart in front of the horse when it comes to article creation. After looking at your draft User:Penelope.Collins/sandbox, the thing that stands out is that you have provided no citations to any reliable sources for verification purposes or more importantly to show how your mother satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people). The basic criteria for a subject to considered to be Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written about it is that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, preferably sources which are completely independent of the subject itself. Without clearly establishing the Wikipedia notability of your mother, it's going to be very hard for any article written about her to last very long and is something which will most likely end up being deleted.
 * In addition, since you've stated you're writing an article about your mother, I think it would be a really good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing . Many people who try to write articles about subjects that are connected to either personally or professionally often have problems because they are not very familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Writing an article from scratch is a pretty hard thing to do, but writing an article about a subject you have a conflict of interest can be extremely hard because most of what you may personally know about the subject is not suitable for inclusion in the article for one reason or another. COI editing is not expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is something that is highly discourage because COI editors often find it hard to maintain the neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires. You can keep working on your draft, but I suggest when you finish that you submit it via Wikipedia:Articles for creation so that it can be reviewed by more experienced editors. These AfC reviewers will point out any problems they find with the draft and provide suggestion on ways to fix them as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing a page
I was editing a page on a friend of mine and I put in true information but the page admin, Oshwa, flagged me for vandalism. (Zman9er (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You added information that did not comply with WP:NPOV. This is why Oshwah reverted you.  All information must be verifiable, neutral and encyclopedic. --  Dane  talk  02:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on what Dane said, these edits added information about a living person that was not supported with a reliable source. Making exceptional statements like "he is referred as the greatest athlete who ever attended Walter Johnson" requires exceptional evidence. this edit added an infobox parameter that, while invisible, would be considered vandalism and a violation of the WP:biographies of living persons policy. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the helpful feedback. In which format should references be cited? (APA, MLA?) Zman9er (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Try taking a look at Help:Referencing for beginners for some more details. As explained in WP:CITESTYLE, Wikipedia does not have a house style when it comes to citations, so either APA or MLA would be acceptable. The important thing is to try and remain consistent and use the style being used in the article per WP:CITEVAR. If all the citations are being formatted a certain way, then you should use that format as well. If a bunch of different citation styles are being used, then perhaps you should post something on the article's talk page and try to establish a consensus for one particular style. The fact that different styles are being used may not be ideal, but it's not a uncommon thing to find in a Wikipedia article and not something that is technically a major problem requiring immediate action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, would the website of a baseball organization Keith once coached for reliable? Zman9er (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That depends on how the information being cited. If it's simply just to support a simple statement such as "He coached the ABC baseball team from XXXX to YYYY.", then it's probably OK. If, however, it is for something pretty extraordinary such as "He is the greatest coach ever in the history of baseball", then it's probably not. Sources are required to be used in proper context per WP:RSCONTEXT and extraordinary claims, especially about living persons, require citations to some pretty solid well-established, well-respected unquestionably reliable sources. Any sources which may be seen as connected to the subject of the article are going to likely be considered to be primary sources and using primary sources in articles about living people needs to be done with extreme care per WP:BLPPRIMARY.


 * Finally, since you seem to have just started editing yesterday and the total focus of your edits so far has been to Keith Gordon (baseball)‎, it might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Single purpose account. New editors tend to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and therefore my find their edits occasionally being undone by more experienced editors for a variety of reasons. News editors who focus on a single article about an individual and refer to the subject of the article by their first name in posts, etc. often are connected to the subject in some way and have a conflict of interest. Being new, having a COI, and being focused on a single article are not automatically bad things, but they are things which in combination can easily create a perfect storm of problems with other editors if you're not careful, so it's best to know how to avoid that from happening. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

My talk page
Hi, i think a glitch got onto my talk page, and the wikipedia sidebar came onto the editing space everytime I edit. Can you check if this if it happens on you and how to fix it, thank you! Josvan  Talk  03:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The Wikipedia menu appears on the left side of every page by default. That includes the edit window since people may need that information while actively editing. I am not sure why you see this as a problem. There may be a custom setting to suppress the display of this menu, but I see the menu as helpful rather than as a problem. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  03:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It happened for me too. You commented out a table end in your edit notice.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JosVan/Editnotice&diff=760577016&oldid=759459840]. I have fixed it.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JosVan/Editnotice&diff=next&oldid=760577016] PrimeHunter (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Josvan   Talk  07:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)