Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 572

Redirects from two pages
I just added a second redirect to National World War I Museum and Memorial, and I am wanting to know if it is better form to list each redirect in its own sentence like I have it, or if I should do one sentence stating both, or if it matters at all. RM2KX (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey RM2KX. I have combined the two into one custom hatnote, which saves a bit of space. It's still pretty beefy though. I also wonder about the prudence of redirecting National WWI Memorial to this article. I find it hard to believe that the only National WWI Memorials in the world are in Kansas and DC. I wonder if this wouldn't be better as a disambiguation page, given that there are in fact articles on other nations' national memorials. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you right, Timothy Joseph Wood . However, the source of the redirect previously covered only one element within the topic of the destination, meaning it still has a talk page and edit history on that subtopic. How would I go about separating them from the disambiguation page, and would I even have to do so? RM2KX (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (I've seen how to do this now.) RM2KX (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * After looking, I am not seeing other memorials with that title, exactly, so for now I've included a category link in the adjusted hatnote. RM2KX (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Trying to talk to someone, but I don't understand what they are saying the problem is
Can someone help me figure out what the problem is with my suggestion for a change to an article? There is a user trying to tell me, but I don't understand his explanation. It is at the bottom of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mehmet_Oz. He says I'm doing OR and SYN, but I really don't think so. I'm trying explain why I don't think so, but he keeps saying I am. But I don't understand his reasoning. Maybe someone else can explain better? 45.72.157.254 (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, anonymous IP editor. The problem seems be with the use of the word "widespread". Calling something "widespread" when the cited sources do not use that word (or a very close synonym) can be considered synthesis and original research. Who says that four sources amounts to "widespread"? This is the sort of thing that needs to be resolved by talk page discussion leading to consensus. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  02:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I eventually figured out what he meant. It seemed really weird that it took the whole afternoon and so many messages to figure out what the issue was. Is it always like that here? At this point I feel like my head has turned inside out. Was I not being clear or was he not being clear?
 * I thought I addressed the point with quotes from the articles, but it seems like criticisms of Dr. Oz from doctors, the scientific community, journalists, and the US Senate in articles that are about his propagation of pseudoscience isn't a close enough link to say that the widespread criticism is about Dr. Oz's propagation of pseudoscience. Are those not enough people to be widespread? Clearly the two of us disagree, so hopefully some other people will chime in as well. 45.72.157.254 (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but most matters here are not as slippery as gray areas of OR and SYNTH can be. Just remember, the source or sources needs to directly support the conclusion you are drawing, in their text. If you are drawing a conclusion, as here, from an implication of the number of sources saying something, rather than from what the sources themselves say, then you are engaging in a form of original research. The most common form of synthesis I see is the drawing of negative implications. For example, the claim that the history/origins of some subject/matter is unknown or not well researched because the Wikipedia editor has looked high and low for sources and has failed to find anything. That gap in an article that screams for some comment on the subject's history to make it seemingly complete makes this a very alluring form of synthesis to engage in (it's driven me to some distraction myself in articles I wanted to take to FAQ or to good articles but meeting the comprehensive standard felt impossible without some comment on an apparent hole one would expect to be filled in a complete article). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good Wikipedia editors must rigorously cultivate the habit of saying nothing that is not an accurate summary of what the reliable sources say about the topic. That includes use of a term like "widespread". Fuhghettaboutit gave an excellent example. If, on the other hand,  a leading authority on the topic had commented that its origins are unknown,  then it would be appropriate to mention that in the article. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  05:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. That's very helpful. I still disagree that in this particular case I'm engaging in synthesis, but I can see how it can be a difficult area. And maybe widespread is just too loose a term - could be it needs qualifying like 'widespread criticism among scientists and doctors' or something like that. I've just put a proposal on the talk page, so other people can weigh in. Thanks again for the explanation. 45.72.157.254 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

42, you are missing the point here. It does not matter if you have 3, 15, 46 or 192 sources where 7, 42 or 1538 people have been critical of him. Unless you have a source that says he has been subject to widespread criticism, it is YOUR conclusion that the criticism us widespread. We do not interject our interpretations into what we write here. Ever. John from Idegon (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

removing template messages in an user space draft
I've been adding citations, they are numbered, yet don't show on the list. I'm afraid to leave the draft's page (superstition...) in order to read the related info. Can you please help? שוחרתשוחרת (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Without saving the draft, it's really difficult for us to guess what's wrong. Here are the instructions for citations anyhow: Help:Referencing for beginners – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I agree with Finnusertop. Other editors cannot evaluate any unsaved changes that you may have made. Based on the last saved version of your draft, those tags should not be removed, because the problems with the draft have not yet been resolved. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Unfortunately I do not read Hebrew, so I am not sure how to read your name. It's OK to use non-Latin script characters in your username per WP:UN, but it might make it a bit easier for others to communicate with you and help you if you added some easy to type characters to your signature as explained in WP:NLS. Not every editor is using a keyboard which can type Hebrew script, so they may not be able to address you by your username. You can customize your signature so that the Hebrew characters show when you sign your posts per WP:CUSTOMSIG, and then change your name to something a bit easier for more editors to understand if you want.
 * Finally about your draft, its seem from User talk:Kudpung you are trying to writie an autobiography. If you are the same he:קורינה_הסופרת, who is the subject of your draft User:שוחרת/Corinna Hasofferett, then I suggest you read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia's Law of Unexpected Consequences and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Hebrew Wikipedia and English Wikipedia are part of the Wikimedia Foundation family, but English Wikipedia probably has a lot more people from around the world editing it and sometimes some of these people do not do so with the best of intentions. Being the creator of an article or the subject of an article does not give you any final editorial control over any edits to the article per Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, so it's important to understand that right from the start. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all good people, Cullen, Marchjuly and Finnusertop. I'm indeed working intenslynon this article, as the perfectionist I am in all I attempt to do. It is still work in progress and will for sure take me a while, but I love it and am sure will continue to write missing articles for wikipedia, now that thanks to your continuous help I'm starting to grasp the handles and the behind the scene dramas. What I like most is the transparency. I wish we could import it into our daily political life. I will relate in good time to some of the issues you raised. Right now what baffles me is the fact that while inserting citations, they got numbered alright at the specific location, yet they do not add up to the single citation at the bottom list for citations. My question is why is that so and could it be remediated? In Thanks, שוחרת (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרת שוחרת (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרת
 * Hi again שוחרת. I am a bit confused. The draft you've been working on has no citations included in it at all. In a way, this gets back to the questions I answered yesterday, where I prefaced one of my comments by saying "[i]f the latest saved version is the version you are talking about..." Based on the above, it seems it is not. If you don't save your edits to the draft, then (still on the question from yesterday), you will lose that material if you log off and don't save (unless, of course, you save it offline, in a Word document or the like). Anyway, because it seems you have not saved the edits where the citation issue has come up, it's a bit opaque what the issue actually is. Have you included a dedicated references section with a template in it? Viz:
 * ==References==
 * Here's some links to pages that might help: Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1; more involved: Citing sources; there are numerous others, and each I've linked contains see also sections linking to additional help, guides and tutorials. Also, there's a visual guide to placing inline citations through  tags that I am posting below (just click show). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's some links to pages that might help: Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1; more involved: Citing sources; there are numerous others, and each I've linked contains see also sections linking to additional help, guides and tutorials. Also, there's a visual guide to placing inline citations through  tags that I am posting below (just click show). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so:. In order for these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code Multiple citation   use.
 * + Formatting references using inline citations
 * - style="vertical-align: top;"
 * colspan=2 | All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the "cite.php" form of inline citations, using the elements. Using this method, each time a particular source is mined for information (don't copy word-for-word!), a footnote is placed in the text ("inline"), that takes one to the detail of the source when clicked, set forth in a references section after the text of the article.

wiki badges
how do i get the link to badges ? or atleast the badgeometer? kindly discuss and let me know thanking you, jordanben jordan (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey jordan. It's not entirely clear what it is you mean by "badges". Maybe if you can be more specific, or provide a link to the type of thing you're referring to, then we can be of more help. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * i meant i hve seen many ppl /editors havin sumtin called barnstars .i want one too. plus i saw a link for a new barometer sumwere .plus one more question,how do i write an article and put it on wiki? jordan (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a page that describes writing your first article, Your first article. - GB fan 15:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey jordan. Barnstars are tokens of appreciation given by other editors as a way to recognize when they think someone has done a great job of helping to build the encyclopedia. So in a nutshell, the way to get barnstars is to do a great job of helping to build the encyclopedia.


 * There are lots of ways that editors help do this, including fighting vandalism, copy-editing articles to improve grammar and punctuation, taking and uploading great pictures for use on the encyclopedia, and many others, in addition to editors who primarily work to create brand new articles. If you're interested in making new articles, you should check out our tutorial on doing so. But keep in mind that writing a brand new article is one of the more difficult things to do on Wikipedia, and it's far from the only way you can help. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi jordan. I can only offer you this advice concerning awards (aside from the useful information that Timothy Joseph Wood has already provided). I myself have received one barnstar, which I really appreciated. However, I did nothing to actively seek out that barnstar, nor did I do anything with the explicit goal of gaining an award. The barnstar I received was for my participation in improving Wikipedia (speficially, the Articles for Deletion section). I contributed by doing my best in researching whether an article deserved to be deleted in line with Wikipedia's established policies. Another Wikipedia editor appreciated my efforts, and awarded me with the barnstar out of his or her own consideration.


 * Therefore, I can only advice you not to worry too much about receiving awards right now. Instead, try to see where you can help improve Wikipedia (many options are already listed on Community portal). Try to start small (e.g. copy-editing, reverting vandalism, adding reliable sources where they are missing, etc.) and build up experience. The barnstars will more than likely follow your positive contributions to this community project.-- talk2Chun  (talk) (contributions) 18:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * thank u all for information and thank u joe roe.

jordan (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

trying to create wiki page for someone who has same name
Trying to create a wiki page for a person that has the same name as another person who already has a wiki page. Can someone show me an example as if the name I am writing a wiki page for Greg Lindsay but somebody else by the name of Greg Lindsay has already taken it? I already created it for Gregory Lindsay BUT want to edit it to read Greg Lindsay(producer) so I can establish it for Greg Lindsay the producer and not just regular, Greg Lindsay (from Australia, who already has taken it). Thelinzla (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The page you created is currently called Gregory Lindsay.  Before we sort out the best name, there is a more urgent matter - the article has been nominated for deletion.  Your first action needs to be to find references in reliable sources that discuss him in depth, in order to show that he is notable.  Without that, the article will probably be deleted.  --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Thelinzla, please note that IMDB is not a reliable source so currently your article has no valid references at all. - Arjayay (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * IMDB is a reliable source because if you click on a link from there it will take you to another site proving the credit. For example, Greg Lindsay has a credit on Charmed. If you scroll down to his Charmed credit and click on it, it will take you off his page and bring you to Charmed's page where it will prove Greg played the role of Trey on Charmed and the release date of the episode. These are done by the studios and production companies and not the actor's personal page. These links prove the role the person is associated with being a writer, actor, producer, director, etcThelinzla (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are links from other sources: https://newslinela.wordpress.com/page/22/?archives-list=1 https://www.facebook.com/pg/GregLindsay.net/about http://charmed.wikia.com/wiki/Greg_Lindsay vzhare.com/watch/932425686855353 celebrities.prettyfamous.com/l/315981/Greg-Lindsay http://celebrityimages.org/celebrity/512226/612803Thelinzla (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The first one appears to be a blog, the second purports to be his official Facebook page (but how do we know it really is his), the third one is a wikia, and the fourth is just a picture with text sourced to IMDB again. The facebook page can be used to establish personal details if it is proven to be his. None of these pages are of any use in establishing his notability. Blogs and wikias are WP:USERGENERATED. Meters (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi,. Please note we do not create pages &apos;for&apos; anybody in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not for promotion of any person, society or company. Instead, we create pages &apos;about&apos; people, who are notable. Please refer to WP:PROMOTION and Notability for some basic guidelines to choosing a subject for Wikipedia article. --CiaPan (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The criteria for Entertainers include having had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows.

Mr. Lindsay has been involved in over 20 movies and TV shows. Including in these he has performed with or written for Academy Award winners, Emmy winners and huge box office entertainers such as Russell Crowe, Sylvester Stallone, Chelsea Handler, Ryan Gosling, James Cann, Will Ferrell - all of these can be verified through his credits on IMDBThelinzla (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Thelinzla. None of this is properly verifiable through Imdb. Even if the sources there were not to other user generated sites and the like, sourcing must be direct – not the attenuation you're championing of referrals to referrals – "see X (which is not considered reliable) but list Y which is". Cite direct reliable, secondary and independent sources. Also, we are not looking for a list of credits. We are looking for some depth of coverage, upon which a verifiable article can be built. Notability does not exist in a vacuum. Based on having looked for sources just now, I do not think an article is currently possible. One might be possible in the future, though, once the world has taken note of Mr. Gregory by writing about him substantively in the types of sources we need to exist for a person to warrant an encyclopedia article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how you feel someone who has produced and written multi million dollar movies, and acted in blockbuster movies, is not relevant enough. And his surname is Lindsay -- so he should be referenced as "Mr. Lindsay" not "Mr. Gregory."Thelinzla (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Because nothing presented so far proves that he's been involved in this way. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that information be backed up by appropriate sources, as Fuhghettaboutit says above, so that readers can check out the sources for themselves. Meters has explained why the existing sources are unsuitable. clpo13(talk) 00:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * SO are you saying you need more citeable sources? These would inevitably be more links that stem from IMDB and social media sites such as Faecbook. For example, Mr. Lindsay wrote and produced the $5,000,000 comedy feature "Reality Queen!" (with Mike Tyson and Denise Richards). How else would you want it cited other than through IMDB?Thelinzla (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * almost anything except IMDB, Wikia, or Facebook, will be better. Look for articles about Lindsay in actual newspapers or magazines; titles such as Variety, New York Times and others with similar status and reputations for reliability and independence. (These blue words are links to pages you should read.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For some users those blue words may appear green until visited, as they are links to redirections. --CiaPan (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, is there a user preference for such green links? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking there is such option, but I was wrong: there is a gadget for it in some Wikipedias, e.g. in my home pl-wiki. For a consistent appearance I've put appropriate declarations in my global CSS, and I think other editors may use similar trick (but OP probably is not one of them). --CiaPan (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested Article Redirect
I have requested a music article for the song "Handclap" by Fitz and the Tantrums, but when clicked, redirects to the article "Clapping" How do I fix this? Bedsidelamp (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Here you go. The song is mentioned with the capital C. Clifta 21:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifta (talk • contribs)

MUSICIAN ARTICLES
I read that you cant set up a wiki article for a band or mucisian yet I see plenty of articles. The artist I have in mind is already referenced in other articles so how di do this ? Jakandra (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no rule against creating an article about a band or musician, unless you are writing about yourself or a band you represent, in which case you have a conflict of interest. See Your first article for help on how to create the article. Funcrunch (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , your use of the phrase "set up" suggests to me that you are thinking of Wikipedia as being like social media, or advertising. It is neither. What you do with an article is to write it, carefully, making sure it is a neutral summary of what independent sources have said about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible to find a newly missing table from United States article?
This relates to the particular Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States. In the economy section of the United States article there was a great table from some official United States Government source (Census Bureau, GAO something like that). It showed the change in wealth from 1998 to 2010 in for different segments of the population. It was extremely easy to understand and politcally neutral. Can we get it back? Could I get the reference from some log? Sorry if this is not the right forum. I was too intimidated to ask on the talk page and wasn't able to meet the requirement of specifying the correct form of something that looked vaguely like this:. Very awesome that there is a place for beginners. DaKineStuff (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it one of the charts in Wealth_in_the_United_States? There was also a table recently moved to Income_inequality_in_the_United_States RudolfRed (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Screenshots and licenses
Hello! I'm currently making big edits in this article but I have questions about uploading of screenshots. Rights on this show are currently hold by one company, which owns separate site for watching, both of them have channels on Youtube and upload various episodes of this show, not without their logos in corner. Yet none of VHS rips on YT, from premier times and '00s retranslations, were taken down by copyright issues. So: MahtMBah (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * how critical is uploading screenshot with said logos or without them (after edit in graphic editor)?
 * with what licenses I should describe these screenshots?
 * can they be used in other language versions of this article (with or without reupload)?


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.


 * The fact that something was not (yet) taken down for copyright issues is not evidence.


 * Since the material you are talking about is clearly covered by copyright, the only way you could use something like this on English Wikipedia would be under WP:Non-free content criteria.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  21:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As I understand: uploading for free watching =/= letting to use it or its fragments as free content? And logo issue doesn't matter since I should down-scale images before upload (which will occur anyway because of videos' poor quality)?
 * Thank you for answers!
 * MahtMBah (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi MahtMBah. The fact that content is allowed to be watched for free has nothing to do with copyright. A free image is one that has passed into the public domain (which has little to do with public display) or one that has been specifically released by its owner under as suitably-free copyright license—as demonstrate by affirmative evidence of the release upon the upload. Generally, where no free images exist, we only allow a single, representative, fair use image to be used for an article on a topic. Please see the Minimal usage criterion of Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. Since there is already a fair use image in use at Kalambur (newsmagazine), I do not believe the screenshots you are thinking of uploading would be acceptable under a claim of fair use and  you should not upload them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All right, thank you for explaining.
 * MahtMBah (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Submission not getting accepted due to referencing deficiency
My article has not been approved due to referencing problems. The reviewer has given a comment stating that more reliable and notable sources are to be included. I have included links from famous technical blogging sites as referencing. What other links will be considered as reliable? Shalini Rkn (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable, independent sources say about a topic. LinkedIn is not a reliable source. Quora is not a reliable source. No social media sites. No other Wikipedia articles. The vast majority of blogs are not reliable sources. Reliable sources include books by respected major publishers, technical journals, respected magazines and newspapers,  and established websites with a professional editorial staff. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

most of the newly added information for the American Name Society deleted
Can someone please give me answers to the following questions: 1.) why was the detailed information about the American Name Society deleted?; 2.) what changes need to be made to have the information restored?; 3.) what is the proper procedure for adding new information to the site?91.35.28.38 (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello anon. It looks like the information was removed mainly because it was a violation of our copyright policy. Information added to Wikipedia has to be stated in editors' own words, and cannot be copy/pasted from online sources, and this is true in nearly every circumstance.


 * As to how you add new information, assuming you are the same person that was behind User:Mirko.casagranda, now blocked for promotion, the answer is likely that you don't. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote or advertise for companies or organizations, and if that is your primary purpose, then the information you would like added is likely not welcome. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. For clarification, I am not the person behind the user name Mirkocasagranda. The reason for the American Name Society website is by no means promotional and is purely informational. The American Name Society is a 'sister organization' of several scholarly organizations, each of which has a wikipage. Three such organizations are provided below:

1.) The Linguistic Society of America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_Society_of_America

2.) The Modern Language Association: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Language_Association

3.) The Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_the_Study_of_the_Indigenous_Languages_of_the_Americas

Could you, or one of your colleagues, please explain what additions and/or changes would need to be undertaken to resolve this issue?

91.35.28.38 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC) 91.35.28.38 (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For information to be included on Wikipedia it should generally be sourced to reliable third party publications, and satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for neutrality as well as potentially other applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Even the other articles you point to did not, for example, include a comprehensive pages long list of every past president, which is both promotional and unencyclopedic. If any of these similar articles are also found to have content copied from their official website, the information should, and most likely will be eventually removed.


 * Just because these article exist, or exist in their current state, does not mean that they should. For example, the article for the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas is currently only sourced to the official webpage, and is liable to be deleted if no better sourcing is available. Whether the article is improved or deleted can take considerable time though, since there are more than five million articles, and much less than five million active volunteers.


 * If you do have information that should be added to an article, and also have reliable sources for that information, you can post a request on the article's talk page and add along with your comment. This will add your comment to a list of requested edits, and a volunteer will either accept and implement your suggestion, or will reject the suggestion and ideally leave a detailed explanation of why based on the content and the sources.  Timothy Joseph Wood  15:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

#1111
hey guys , thank you for your support .But as a rookie,i have many questions. Kindly help me. How long will it take for my article to get accepted? It shows that 509 articles ( drafts) need to be seen and decided. So, how long will it take ? I want an aprroximate/estimated answer if you guys know. And can i put a profile photo? if not why? cause i have seen editors having photos here in the teahouse. please discuss fast here and let me know. jordan (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey jordan. Welcome back. I have declined the draft in your sandbox as it duplicates an already existing article, RPG Maker. If you have additional content and sources, you should improve the existing article, rather than attempting to make a new duplicate one.


 * As to adding pictures, if you own the rights to the image, which usually means you were the one who took the photograph, you can upload the image to https://commons.wikimedia.org. Click the Upload button and following the instructions, indicating that you own the copyright to the image and it is your original work. Instructions for how to include a photograph in pages once it is uploaded can be found at Picture tutorial. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the best way of archiving cited pages?
Have we got a good way of ensuring cited pages are archived yet? I'm rather concerned that Trump may cause many citations to become invalid and this may extend to places the government has contracts with and universities. Unfortunately archive.org will block old archives if subsequently a robot protection is put on the site denying access. I can see the point of that but it has no means of getting a review of the requirement for specific sites or archives. Also of course it would be better if there was a foreign mirror. Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Dmcq. This seems like it may be a better discussion for Village pump. They're a little more suited to complex or highly technical issues. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Does that mean we haven't got any straightforward system of doing the job or know of a good reliable archive site yet? That's bad. I know I looked at this a couple of years ago and people were talking about it but I do feel we're rather getting to crunch time. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * WebCite and Archive.is are good alternatives. WebCite only checks robots.txt at the time of archiving, but it's vulnerable to DMCA takedown requests. Archive.is ignores robots.txt entirely and is hosted outside the US, so it's probably your best bet. I also came across a manual archiving project, which looks intriguing. More on the subject at Web archiving and List of Web archiving initiatives. Hope that helps. clpo13(talk) 17:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for that, I'll look them up. I should have checked there was an page on Wikipedia itself about the subject!. Dmcq (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Linking

 * This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (January 2017). I am dull as I did link articles. So I am doing something wrong.

I Dennie2me (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . You've added links from Feminism in graffiti to other articles. You haven't added links from other articles to that one - as you can see by picking "What links here" from the sidebar. --ColinFine (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . As ColinFine pointed out, an "orphan" is an article which has no incoming links from other Wikipedia articles. If you want some information on how to "de-orphan" and article, please take a look at WP:DE-ORPHAN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * OH!! ok thank you that makes sense now!! Dennie2me (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to add a page of an aspiring singer but the page didn't get approved
I am trying to create a page for Ananya Birla who is an aspiring singer. She is the daughter of Kumar Mangalam Birla and Neerja Birla, and granddaughter of Aditya Vikram Birla. I have tried and gathered all the facts and reliable sources that I could but couldn't get past the approval. The reason that I received due to which article was not approved is "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

It would be great if I get some proper guidelines about the content and sources. Vickymehta03 (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . When you say that this singer is "aspiring", that is a strong indication that it is too early to have an article about her. Please read our Notability guideline for musicians (including singers). We include articles about singers who have had successful careers covered in detail by reliable, independent sources, such as those who have had hit records, have won major awards, and so on. You mention the singer's parents and grandparent. Here on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited and we do not accept articles simply because a person has famous relatives. It seems that your draft article also had problems with style. Our articles must be written from the neutral point of vieew, summarizing what reliable sources say, without any trace of promotional language in Wikipedia's voice. I suggest that you read and study Your first article, where the points I have mentioned are explained in greater detail. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * - The article was nominated for deletion because another editor and the deleting admin felt that it was an unambiguous advertisement. Some stuff like this seems like self-indulgent content written by the subject herself: "It was during her time at university that she started singing and playing the guitar at pubs and clubs on weekends in London, whose vibrant music scene and bustling gig culture inspired her to transform her passion into a career.", please also remember that there's a query at Talk:Kaabil that could use your attention. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

My First Article regarding my company got "Speedy Deletion Tag"
I cant understand which portions to edit for my Company. here is the link for my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Storrea

please suggest me what needs to be put and what needs to be omitted.

I am completely at a loss.

Please help me out.

Hasib cse05 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * if your objective is to improve Wikipedia, I strongly recommend that you get some months of experience of copyediting, adding references, and other useful tasks, before you try anything as difficult as creating a new article. If you objective is to advertise a company, then you should use some other web site, Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. Maproom (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. is correct: while you are encouraged to do research and improve any topics that interest you, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not considered appropriate to write about yourself, your family, or your company. When people attempt to write about subjects close to themselves they have a conflict of interest. You can read more about this at the guideline page available here: WP:COI. Best, Darouet (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Asking for clarification if uploading pictures with permission of photographer
I am in contact with someone who has indicated that they are willing to supply me with one or more photographs that they have taken themselves. I have permission to upload them to Wikipedia and would like to put them on Wikipedia Commons for wide use. I have not uploaded images before or gone through the licensing options in detail, although it seems that there are two preferred licenses (Creative Commons and GFDL) and that both should be applied. My questions are 1) Am I allowed to upload this person's work with their permission? and 2) If I am, how can I best describe the license options to them, since they are not a Wikipedia Commons user? Thanks, Kumboloi (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Thank you for asking. I'm afraid that permission from them to you to use them on Wikipedia is not enough in two different respects: first, permission must be either public or communicated directly to Wikimedia; secondly, permission to use materials in Wikipedia is not sufficient, as part of the aims of Wikipedia is that all its material be freely reusable. The easiest way for the copyright holder to release the images is for them to create an account here, and upload the pictures to Wikimedia Commons themselves, licensing them under CC as they do so: see Help:Upload. Alternatively, they can send an email as explained in Donating copyright materials, and you can then upload them. Either way, they need to release them under a suitable licence, which will allow anybody to reuse them for any purpose (including commercially) as long as they attribute them. --ColinFine (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you for the reply. I will send an email to the image-owner outlining his option to either upload the images himself or provide an email donating the copyrighted materials. He has a background in publishing and is probably more familiar than I am with these types of issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumboloi (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Hi Kumboloi. First, the permission must come directly from the copyright owner, not secondarily from you (to be clear it is possible to do it secondarily but it involves complicated legal hoops—for example, a legal contract or power of attorney so let's bypass that). Second, make sure the person is aware that the permission is not for their use but for them to release the images into the public domain or under an irrevocable, suitably-free, copyright license allowing anyone to use them even for commercial purposes, with the only requirement of use being to post the license and give suitable attribution to the owner upon a re-use. What you can do is provide this link to the person: https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/ Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks for helping clear this up. I knew that I couldn't just claim to have permission but wasn't certain how best to communicate the image-owner's intent to Wikipedia Commons. The less involvement I have the better. I will include some of your points in my next email outlining the options and see what he wants, or is willing, to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumboloi (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

ResearchGate Reliability
Is ResearchGate (https://www.researchgate.net/) or the articles posted upon it considered to be a reliable source of 2nd or 3rd party information? AWearerOfScarves (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . It appears that ResearchGate is a social network for scientists, so therefore, content on that site itself would not be considered a reliable source for anything except the personal opinion of a scientist who posted there. I am sure that the site includes vast numbers of links to other reliable sources, though. Accordingly,  it should be useful for doing preliminary research on a topic. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  21:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SELFPUB for further guidance. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If an article has been published (e.g. in a journal) and subsequently posted on ResearchGate, then cite the published version, . If it's on ResearchGate but hasn't been published (e.g. it's a draft), then it probably shouldn't be used as a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia isn't for business listings"
The person who rejected my article simply said her reason for doing so was because my article was about a business. Since there are thousands of wiki pages about businesses, I do not understand why my article could be rejected simply because it is about a business. I received all of my information from either the business's website or from interviews with the employees and founders of the establishment. Please help me figure out what I did wrong. AllyMP17 (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your business website and interviews with connected people are not independent sources. You need to find sources where the business has been written about in newspapers and other WP:Reliable sources.  You also have a WP:Conflict of interest in creating an article about your own business.  There is some advice on your talk page.   D b f i r s   21:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It isn't my business? And their website doesn't count as a reliable source? AllyMP17 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For uncontroversial claims about the business, it can be reliable,, but you need significant coverage in independent sources to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my assumption, but you still have a conflict of interest if you work for or have some connection with the business. I said "independent", not "reliable", but please read Larry's link above for clarification.  Also, websites are regularly created for fake businesses, though I'm not suggesting that this applies here.  If the source of some of your information was personal interviews with the founders, then this is WP:Original research.   D b f i r s   22:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi AllyMP17, welcome to the Teahouse. It is important for Wikipedia editors to work based on the established policies. This also means, sometimes, that certain terms (such as 'reliable sources') means something different in general than on Wikipedia. If you read some of the links that Dbfirs left, you'll see that for example for Reliable sources. Here at Wikipedia, reliable sources means that the sources are published, that cover all majority and significant minority views (see also Neutral point of view). Some types of sources are especially considered as not reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia. This includes self-published sources; the website of a business, which presents information about itself, is considered as a self-published source, and therefore not sufficient to meet Wikipedia's standards. There are many other types of sources which are not sufficient, including blogs and sources with a poor reputation for fact checking. Please also note that if you're creating a new article, there are certain, stricter, requirements which must be met (including the aforementioned Conflict of interest, Notability (organizations and companies) and the General notability guidelines. I hope this answers your question about the sources that will be needed.-- talk2Chun  (talk) (contributions) 22:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

How to replace an image, how to validate my edit on the James the Cat page
Hello Soni I'm just learning my way around the Wikipedia page for James the Cat. I'm the creator & director of the James the cat series and can see that the page badly needs major corrections and updating. How do I replace the image that's been uploaded to the page? Also how do can I validate that I'm a reputable source of information? Thank you. Best wishes Kate Canning Chalcot38 (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Since we have no way to verify your identity, being creator and director doesn't help, in fact you are required to declare a WP:Conflict of interest in editing here. Having said that, you are in an ideal position to spot any errors, so please suggest corrections on the talk page, and provide references to WP:Reliable sources so that the information can be verified.  Is your image copyright?    D b f i r s   21:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . You're very welcome to make suggestions for improving the article on its talk page. The more specific you can make them, and the better referenced they are, the more attractive it will be for a volunteer editor to consider them. As matter of policy, every piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be supported by a reliable published source: personal recollections and other unpublished information is never acceptable; and self-published information only in limited ways. (Since the current article contains no references at all, it could be deleted at any time.) It is worth drawing attention to your suggestions by adding edit request to them (with the double curly brackets): this puts them on a list of such requests.


 * The existing image is used as a "fair use" image, complying with all Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. It would be welcome for you to replace (or supplement) it by other images from the series; but Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and requires that the images are not just permitted to Wikipedia, but licensed in a way that anybody may reuse them for any purpose, though with proper attribution. If you hold the copyright to some images from the series, you are able, if you choose, to license them accordingly, and can do so as you upload them. If you do not, but the copyright holder is willing, then they can follow one of the courses of action in donating copyright materials. Please see Help:Upload for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Colin

Your information has been very helpful. I'll follow through the WP COI and clarify the copyright situation. If my suggested updates are accepted, I'll update a better image of JTC with the correct copyright attribution. Thanks again Kate Chalcot38 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Solicitation for additional feedback on COI request
Editor Devopam recommended I come to the Teahouse for help. Devopam and I were discussing my edit request on the Lubrizol Talk page. The editor said he did not think my request could be made, but later said, "I may be wrong in my assessment so I will leave it to some other editor to work on this rather". I have since posted notes on WikiProjects Companies, Ohio, Technology and Cleveland, yet I have not received responses. Are there any other venues you would recommend that I (as a COI editor) request a review? Because of my conflict, I am keeping my involvement on Talk pages. Thanks for any help. Lz maor (Talk · COI--Lubrizol employee) 21:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to Teahouse. Thank you  for referring Lz maor here. I am not the best person to judge where a review of the article Lubrizol might be conducted. However, looking at the article, I concur that it is in need of revision. I am not certain that material currently included should be removed. Nevertheless some information is redundant, and the article should be expanded significantly considering the number of Lubrizol's employees, the scale of its operations, and its coverage in the media. For instance a brief search on LexisNexis Academic demonstrates that there are over 900 references to Lubrizol in readily available media sources. -Darouet (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

My Host Page
I made a typo on my Username for my Host profile. How can I change it?Bluespikez14 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Teahouse hosts are expected to have a comprehensive understanding of Wikipedia's major policies and guidelines. Since you only have 18 edits so far, I do not think that you are prepared to take on that role. You are welcome to ask questions here about editing at any time,  though. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  23:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your post is no longer on the Host profiles so the typo is irrelevant now. You are welcome to use the Guest profiles link instead. That's for new users and others asking questions. Note Guidance for younger editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

YouTube link doesn't start at time 0
Hi again folks! There is a YouTube video that I (as a science geek) think is terrific. While viewing it, I stopped it at the 23 minute mark to generate a URL which I included in an "external links" section of one article, which is cool. Now, I have inserted it as a reference (#48 currently) in Synthetic biology. I want the video in Synthetic biology to begin at 0 time, yet it starts at the later time stamp. sigh. I'm going to include the link here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwu_djYMm3w&t=1334s, to see if it does the same thing here. Can any of you please tell me how to get it to start at 0? Also, can any of you tell me why we don't have a "show preview" option when asking a question here? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi DennisPietras.  in the url asks YouTube to start playing at time = 1334 seconds (22 minutes 14 seconds). You can simply remove it from the url. Never include a   parameter in YouTube links unless there is a good reason to skip the start. The Teahouse has a special optional script for making posts here. It has some guidance for new users but omits many of the normal features. You can get them by using the normal edit links instead. We place new posts at top. You can for example start a new section by clicking "edit" at the first section and write your post above the existing text with   around the heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was perfectly clear and I feel perfectly silly for not noticing the time stmp at the end of the URL. Duh! DennisPietras (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)