Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 613

How to link to an article in another language
Writing articles about Silvia Serbescu and Liana Serbescu, I need to mention Constanta Erbiceanu. There is, however, no Wikipedia article about her in English, so I wish to link to the Romanian article. I tried to put "ro:Constanta Erbiceanu" between double square brackets, but this doesn't seem to work. What am I doing wrong?

Jpkent (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. You would need to add an interlanguage link, the code to add a link to Constanta Erbiceanu in Romanian Wikipedia is Constanta Erbiceanu, which displays the link as Constanta Erbiceanu. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . is right, but I'd like to explain a little more. What you tried to do creates an link in the list of languages at the side: they are supposed to be to equivalents of the current article, so that wouldn't be right. You could have got it to work with an initial colon thus: ro:Constanta Erbiceanu . That displays as ro:Constanta Erbiceanu; but the template Joseph suggeste, ill, creates a redlink to the (non-existent) English article, and an additional link '(ro)' to the Romanian article. If somebody at some time creates the English article, then the red link will automatically go blue (that is core functionality of the Mediawiki software) and it will also stop displaying the '(ro)' link. --ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is no Romanian article under that name either. Rojomoke (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you for this valuable information. Actually the Romania article does exist, but you need to use a cedilla under the t, and you find it there: Constanța Erbiceanu. Problem solved.

Jpkent (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Missing word
The web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun in the section titled Background has a missing word. I believe the word "year" is missing. The #### is where the word belongs.

The children reported a prophecy that prayer would lead to an end to the Great War, and that on October 13th of that #### the Lady would reveal her identity and perform a miracle "so that all may believe."[11]

Can you fix it? 72.25.92.191 (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi 72.25.92.191, welcome to the Teahouse. "Year" was accidentally removed yesterday in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miracle_of_the_Sun&diff=780205825&oldid=780154962]. I have fixed it. Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Under which licence to upload a personal photo
If I am writing an article about a living person, and I want to use a photo that was made with her camera by an anonymous passer-by, what are the licencing terms under whch I can upload it?

Another possibility is that of a photo made by one of her parents, now deceased. She is the sole heir of this material. No one else can supply an authorization. Under what licence terms can it be used on Wikipedia?

Jpkent (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello . Unfortunately, except where materials are in the public domain by reason of their age, only the copyright holder has the power to license them in a way acceptable to Wikipedia. So I'm afraid that there is no way to use the first one, unless the photographer can be traced to give permission. In the case of the second one, it sounds as if she would now be the copyright holder by right of inheritance. If that is the case, then she has the power (if she chooses to do so) to release it under a suitable licence. She (not you) needs to follow the procedure in donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, . On the first example above, I gather that there is some ongoing legal debate on the issue of "bystander selfies". Some legal scholars have taken the view that when a person asks a random stranger to take a picture of of the person, offering the person's camera or cell-phone for the purpose, the copyright in the picture remains with the owner of the camera, who is also the subject, and the person who has, in effect, composed the shot. I am not sure if any court has ruled on the matter. I think there has also been some on-wiki debate on this point. If the subject executed a free license on such a photo, I would be inclined to accept it. I don't know if WMF legal has taken a position on this issue yet. DES (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One could raise the issue at Media copyright questions, I suppose. DES (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Stub template
Sorry, in advance, for this novice question, however, how does one add a stub template to a page? Chetsford (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No need for an apology, the Teahouse is intended for novice questions! To add a stub template, you put (that's eight characters) near the top of the article, on a line of its own. Maproom (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . The documentation on stub says:
 * "'Place a stub template at the very end of the article, after the 'External links' section, any navigation templates, and the category tags.' (emphasis added)"
 * However, that page also directs one to WikiProject Stub sorting where many more specific stub tags. But if one uses the generic stub, it is not unlikely that another editor will replace this with a more specific stub tag. DES (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Re-ping . DES (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Maproom and DES! Chetsford (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding references to various contemporary artists
Hi everybody. I'm Robert, 36 (and counting... after winning a cancer fight), nice to meet you! I have my account since 2012, but I also wad editing in the defunct DMOZ (AOL shut it down) and now I feel like contributing on Wikipedia.

So, I have two months until I have to present my university (fine arts) graduation project and I have to write about various contemporary artists, low-key photography, symbols and more. Obviously, everything (besides the socio-philosophical concept) I state in my written project has to be referenced from notable books (which I borrowed from the library or purchased).

Question: May I add references I find relevant and useful to some artists' Wikipedia pages?

Robertgombos (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. You may certainly add citations to articles about artists, or indeed to any article on Wikipedia, provided that they are to reliable sources as Wikipedia defines reliable. Read the page linked. Please also read Referencing for beginners and the pages linked from there to learn about the methods of citation in use on Wikipedia, which are a little different from any standard academic style. But I am sure you will soon pick them up.
 * I caution you, however, if you plan to use work on Wikipedia as part of your project, that anyone can revert or modify any edits you may make. If, however, we are simply getting the benefit of a byproduct of your research, please do go ahed and welcome! DES (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, . I am glad that your health has improved. Yes, you are welcome to expand and improve articles about these topics using high quality reliable sources. A perfect example would be if an article includes an accurate but unreferenced assertion about an artist. If one of the books you are studying verifies that claim, create a reference and add it. Another example would be if there is a hole in the existing article, and in its current form, it fails to describe a significant part of that artist's life or career. Summarize what the book you are reading says, include the book as a reference, and add that new content to the article. Referencing for beginbers may be useful to you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and ! I already read most of the rules, before starting to edit something. Just a quick check. Take a look at Vera Lutter's page. This is one of the books I'm reading: and she and one of her notable work (Venice Portfolios, 2007) is described on p. 354. That edit on Vera Lutter's page is valid?
 * The reference you've added looks good to me – though I know nothing about the subject and don't have access to the work you cited. I see you've also deleted the "CoI" tag from the article. I wondered whether that was justified, until I read the article's talk page and saw that some promotional content has been removed from the article since the tag was added, which I guess justifies your deletion.
 * So, yes, both your edits are constructive. Thank you. Maproom (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . In general, I agree with 's comments above. However, please do not include links to an Amazon.com page, or any other page for a bookseller. When you provide an ISBN (as you did here, thanks) a link is automatically generated to our Special:BookSources pAge, where the reader will find links to various ways to purchase a copy, and to find copies in libraries. Thus we do not favor one seller over another, and we do not include links likely to change. Amazon, in particular, is notorious for changing the targets of its links to a different edition of a book, and even in some cases a different book. I have removed the link.
 * Also, particularly when a source is not available online, it can be useful to include a quote= parameter, followed by a short excerpt from the source showing what the source is actually saying about the topic. This quote will appear in the citation, not in the article body. This is never required, and can easily be over-used, but it can help a reader understand just what a source has said.
 * What you have done is already very helpful, . But if you were to ad some prose indicating just what about the specific work Venice Portfolios is significant, according to the newly added source, (rather than just naming the work in parens) that would be of further help. Again, thank you for your contributions. DES (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand, thanks a lot, I'll do my best! (and no, it's totally forbidden to use Wikipedia as a source in a dissertation - I forgot to mention this in my first reply). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertgombos (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Difficulty inserting references
I'm creating an article on Marjorie Knott Eastman and have references I want to cite, but I'm having difficulty linking the URLs to the page. NPPRNashville (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The process for adding references is outlined at Help:Referencing for beginners. If you have any more specific questions about that process, or are struggling to follow the guidance there, do let us know. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for this tip . Will review this again. NPPRNashville (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, . Please read Referencing for beginners for a good overview. I recommend using citation templates to create references, because they prompt you for the bibliographic information and format the references consistently. Here is the one that I use for books.


 * Add the URL to the appropriate field, fill in the other relevant fields and you are good to go. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you . I'll review and let you know if I can't figure this out. Appreciate all the help! NPPRNashville (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing with a VPN Installed?
I recently connected my home computer to a virtual private network (VPN) service. I'm unsure how a VPN works, but apparently it masks one's IP address. I've tried two VPN "locations" through which to connect to the internet, and it looks like both locations' IP addresses have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for various reasons.

Assuming that my interpretation of what is going on is correct, then would you agree that the only way to edit Wikipedia would be to turn off the VPN while doing so? Or is it possible to grant a block-exemption for that IP address? (I doubt the latter would be possible since I assume the IP address is being used by multiple users.) Or is it possible to edit another way while still keeping the VPN on?

Thank you for your thoughts. Kekki1978 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is some additional info. The IP address changes depending on which location I select when turning on the VPN. Choose one location, for example, results in a web-host block. This block was implemented 2 months ago, and I've edited without using the VPN since then, so the block must be occurring because the recent use of the VPN is sending me to an IP address that's been blocked. I'm able to edit Wikipedia fine when I turn off the VPN; I'm just wondering if turning it off is necessary to edit or whether there is another way around this obstacle. Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * editing through VPN is prohibited except in a few specialised circumstances. You can find out why the ban and what the exceptions are at Open proxies. Nthep (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will check out the info at the link you provided. No harm was intended when I installed the VPN; I just didn't think about its effect on editing Wikipedia. Thanks for the guidance. Kekki1978 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PROXY and No open proxies say While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. Editing through a VPN is not prohibited, per say, it's just that the IP addresses used may be freely blocked at the slightest hint of trouble.  If  has sufficient reason, they could apply for IP block exemption. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle
I am trying some of the tools and I see that Twinkle has given me a rollback option. I tried it on my sandbox and it seems to work as I would expect ... I thought editors needed to be given permission to access rollback tools (as with huggle) - I am confused about this. Is it different from standard rollback? - I have never been in a situation where I would have needed to use rollback, but would I be allowed to use this if I needed to? Seraphim System ( talk ) 22:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Seraphim System. Twinkle does not require permission but note WP:TWINKLEABUSE. Its rollback feature reminds of the MediaWiki feature at Rollback but there are some differences. Standard rollback is faster and doesn't require JavaScript. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Seraphim System  ( talk ) 22:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of POV pushing
Hi guys. I edited Redskin (slang), initially to remove a minor claim with little supporting evidence from the Lead, and later to rewrite the origins part of the Origins and meaning section (which was poorly attributed and spread out over a massive rambling section). Another editor has taken exception to this and, after a bunch of reverts without edit summaries, and without attempting to discuss, has slapped a POV tag on the section.

He's then opened a spurious NPOV noticeboard case and effectively stated the article is locked until that's resolved, whenever that is. As far as I can see, he's just using this to bypass the usual consensus mechanism, presumably with the hope that I'll wonder off; it's been 8 months since I did any serious editing, and I wasn't really intending to come back, I was just fixing something that I happened across.

Is there any way to get admin or 3rd party review of the NPOV issue, so we can put that to bed? Bromley86 (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , an admin should comment on the noticeboard. A lot of them hang out over there. I'm a third party with no interest in the article or either side, so I may take a look and see if I have any suggestions. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Cheers, that would be appreciated. My main concern is that admins will just bypass it as the complainant hasn't really gone through the process correctly.  My recent post on NPOV includes links to my current version of the article (which was reverted), as well as the version that was in place before I started editing.  The dispute centres on the Origin and meaning section, which I renamed Etymology and subdivided.  Bromley86 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The whole article is about the word, not the subject which the word denotes. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I would be in favour of deleting the article, or transferring it to Wiktionary. Maproom (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Given the level of hostility to changing the article, I can only imagine what would happen if you tried that :) . I imagine it'd get merged into an article on the Washington Redskins name controversy, and then split out again at a later date?  Bromley86 (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Higher in Google Search Results
Hi.

I created an article called Charlie Heat. I need for the wiki page to be high in the search results on google. Currently, when i search it in google, the wiki page doesn't show at all, however, when I search in Wiki, the article is there. Please give direction.

Whitwins (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do you "need" "the wiki page to be high in the search results on google" ? Are you trying to promote Charlie Heat? do you have a conflict of interest? - Arjayay (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Whitwins - we have no control over how Google control their search results, and frankly, we are not interested in them.
 * Hello, . New articles are tagged with NOINDEX until they have been in place for 30 days, or until an experienced editor has "patrolled" the article and taken any steps that seem needed. NOINDEX requests search engines not to index the page. Google generally complies, although no one requires this.
 * The article Charlie Heat badly needs additional citations to independent published reliable sources in order to establish its notability. Please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article. I have removed some puffery from the article. If it were put up for deletion as not-notable right now, it might well be deleted. DES (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the direction DES. Im learning here.

Whitwins (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk Page Etiquette
I'm watching the old Woodstock documentary, and one of the more obvious 'themes' of the film is the prevalence of drugs. I wondered what Wikipedia had to say about the subject and looked up the article. Oddly, the word is only printed once, and that's in the Reference section. Seems like a significant omission to me.

Would it be in poor taste to point this out on the Talk page? I'm not knowledgeable enough to add the material myself, but if I could encourage someone else to add it...

127 O O 1 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . What you need to do is to find a reliable source that describes the drug use at Woodstock and how it was portrayed in the film. I am the main writer of an article about a similar but lesser known rock music festival, Goose Lake International Music Festival. I included a description of the drug use there because it was a major element in the reliable sources describing the event. If you find such a source, you can either add the content yourself or propose it on the article's talk page. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  20:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * But to answer your specific question: yes, you could certainly bring it up on the talk page. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss how the article could be improved. Comments of the form "I think it would be appropriate to discuss XYZ in the article" are entirely on topic. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , - Wouldn't the movie itself be at least in part a reliable source? It was cut in a way to be entertaining, but in fact wasn't it a documentary of sorts? John from Idegon (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * . It might be - but a source for what? Does it say that the prevalence of drugs is a theme, or does it just show lots of drugs? If the latter, it would be original research to draw a conclusion. --ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

How to use a Commons image (instead of an English Wikipedia image)
Hi! I'd like to use instead of, but the latter appears when I write. Could there be any solution? I'm also curious if the latter image could be moved to another title. Because it doesn't seem like makchang (beef abomasum), but dwaeji-gopchang (pork small intestines). Thanks! --Brett (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi when local and Commons files have exactly the same name the local file has "priority", it gets displayed and the Commons one is ignored. The solution is to move one of them to a different name, the easiest being to move the local file. Moving Commons files is a bit of a "dark art" particularly if the image is used on many other Wikimedia sites. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I couldn't find out how to move the file yet. If you happen to know how, please let me know. I would greatly appreciate it! 🙏 --Brett (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is actually a candidate for moving to Commons, which I can do. Please confirm that it the one that should be titled "dwaeji-gopchang", then I will do it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just read that dwaeji-makchang (literally "pig makchang") can mean "pork rectum". (I read it here. The same website also confirms that makchang by default is "beef abomasum" here.) I'm sure what is in the photo is not grilled beef abomasum, but I don't think I can tell grilled pork rectums from grilled small intestines. As the original uploader used the name "makchang", I guess it should be "dwaeji-makchang". Thank you again for your reply and help! --Brett (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will ask WikiProject Korea for input as the original uploader is no longer active (last edit in April 2014). Let's see if we can get a more positive identification. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

How do I verify that an edit I made is actually a verifiable fact?
I edited the Theory Z the other day, my first edit. Now this may seem silly, but I copied some of text verbatim into edit. Placed my reference in the wrong spot (thank you whoever fixed it). Then it occurred to me that I did not check the Authors reference source, and I do not know how to. There is a reference in the second sentence of the article (1969a). Is this a reference to his original notebook? If so how would I find it? I feel some of the Grammar I have used maybe an assumption rather than scientific fact. I hope this is alright to ask in the Teahouse? At least I am fairly confident that I cant break anything in here. Thank you in advanceFOI-enthusiast (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and I am glad you posted here about this. In this edit you added two sentances copied directly from your source (http://pages.stolaf.edu/psych-391-spring15/files/2014/02/Koltko-RIvera.pd), without quote marks or any indication that this was a direct quotation. This is not acceptable: Wikipedia articles must be supported by cited sources, but written in original words except when a marked, attributed, and cited short quote is used. Please do not do that again.
 * As to (1969a), and indeed (1943, 1954), they indicate particular sources listed in the bibliography of the source you cited, and are not fully meaningful apart from that source. If your cited source is a reliable one, we can trust the author to have properly evaluated his or her sources in turn, and the author of a Wikipedia article need not go back and verify the source's sources. If a source seems to be relying largely on a particular source, this fact may be worthy of mention, but when, as in this case, a source relys on obvious primary sources (here Maslow's own work), that can be taken for granted, especially as the source is online and anyone can verify it easily. DES (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you DES, for your answer and fixing my edits this is very much appreciated.

As best I can tell other works were based upon Abraham Maslows original work that was available at the time. Therefore this 'work that was conceived later' may or may not have had an influence on the theories that were developed, from that which Maslow disclosed to the public at this time. I would like to put the amended theory back into theory Z, but this time I would like to get it right. I clearly need some assistance with this being a new 'contributor', so I thank everyone for the welcoming messages, I have received so far. The issue I have with the statement "That Maslow conceived the idea in 1969" is as follows; Can it be proved that Maslow did not conceive the idea earlier? I am not trying to debunk this statement, I am merely trying to fact check as the rules tell me to, to make sure that if I should edit this again it is scientifically rigorous. I have looked up, Future Visions: The Unpublished Papers of Abraham Maslow by E.L. Hoffman (Editor) 1996. To read this I need to create another account and already suffering form information overload. Therefore I will postpone this for the moment. The fundamental reason that causes me to to question this is; I am sure that I read somewhere that Maslow suffered some sort "existential crisis" at some point. I am not sure where I read this or at which time in his life this occurred, if it did. Note;It did just occur to me though, that Wikiversity may be a better place for this, I am not sure what do think? My original thought though was; Could Maslow have had the transcendence 'picture/vision' in his head fully formed at the start of his work, and by continuing his work he was more able to articulate this to the best of his ability later on? Because if this is the case, it does not fit with linear learning theories, in my humble opinion. And if he did have some sort of existential crisis, could it have been caused, by having an idea that could help humanity but not be able to explain it at the time because society may have perceived him as 'crazy' or something? Which led onto, could Maslow have withheld his whole vision at the start and only release it after he gained 'majority' 'acceptance' of his more complicated work? Thank you again for your time and patienceFOI-enthusiast (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This may seem a little off track, but it may change the way that we think about things, that's important?

In my alphabet Z is the last letter.

So if you take all of the good from 'X & Y Theory' and add them to Z, would the SUM=Good?

Would the adverse be true as well i.e SUM=BADFOI-enthusiast (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again,
 * I have noticed that interest in this discussion seems to have died. I am sorry if I offended anyone on here with my thoughts. I simply feel that this appears to be an intelligent community, seeking to get closer to egalitarianism. I also fell that 'Theory Z'is underdeveloped at this time time. I am also concerned that the world is taking a lot of the bad from 'Theory x'and 'Theory y' to manage itself, I feel this may be better if the equation was reversed. I also needed to try and be heard, before the "Sometimes benevolent narrow minded leaders of our planet" blow us all up! Sorry if this is to BOLD. Thank you for your time, I will now cease desist from annoying you further. Kindest regardsFOI-enthusiast (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . I for one have not been offended, and i doubt that anyone has. But yours was a very long post for the Teahouse, and not really addressed to our major concern here, questions about how to do things on Wikipedia. You are arguing for a particular view of Maslow's work, and that is really a matter for the talk page of the article. Moreover, it seems to me (unless I have misunderstood you) that you are arguing for a particular interpretation of primary source materiel. That is what Wikipedia calls original research (or "OR") and it may not appear in Wikipedia articles. Unless, that is, some reliable secondary source is found which makes this case. Then it may be used in the article, cited to that source. If you have developed a new theory about Maslow's work and how it developed, then you should seek to publish it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Then someone else could include it in the article. DES (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again DES,

Thank you again. You have helped me develop a better understanding of how to use Wiki. I cannot say that that I even noticed the talk page on articles, but I will definitely go and have a look, cheers. I am sorry if I seemed like I was arguing for a particular view on Maslow's work, rereading it I could have articulated better. I also wouldn't say that I have that I have developed a new theory per se. It just occurred to me that the management styles that seem to run our planet i.e Theory X and Y, could be based on an assumption, I thought it was worth checking and still do as there is an old saying about what happens when we Assume, that is all. I understand now that this conversation belongs elsewhere, so thank you for your patience and courteous reply. Here is a question that belongs here though, how did you get the words 'how' and 'new', to show up in bold in your reply to me? And how did you put the hyperlink into 'reliable'? If you don't mind sharing that with me, as I wasn't able to anything like that. Thank you again, I will not post like this in the Teahouse, in this manner again.FOI-enthusiast (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Avoid deletion of article
The article Liana Serbescu has been proposed for deletion. As a beginner, I have a few questions.

First of all, the expressed concern: "Essentially no citations to reliable sources". It is unfortunate that the two reviews Carrefour and Compact are nowhere to be found on the internet. I only have them in hard copy. What do I need to do to make them reliable?

Second, whatever happens, I wish to save from deletion the mention of Mrs Serbescu's valuable contributions: her recordings, and her publication of Ethel Smyth's piano works at Breitkopf & Härtel. There cannot be any doubt there: the CD's and the piano scores exist and bear her name.

I am re-reading the books and articles mentioned in the Bibliography, in order to include inline citations to those works in the Biography section. I hope I will make it in time - 7 days is a short period for working through work the preparation of which has taken much more time.

All help is welcome! Jpkent (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do this right now: open the article with "edit source" (if that is not available, just "edit"), copy everything in there except the proposed deletion tag, and paste it to a Text file on your computer. Save it there to work on in the future.  If the article is deleted, you can repost it at User:Jpkent/sandbox to work on further.  Never carry out large projects on site (unless you're doing a long-term overhaul of an existing article).
 * You need to provide a fuller citation besides just "Carrefour." Is that the surname of the author, the name of the publisher, or the title of the source?  Two of those things are not given at all and the third is barely explicit.  I can somewhat tell that Compact is supposed a serialized publication.  Is it the one for this website?  If so, see if they have archives.
 * Existence is not the same as for notability. Wikipedia's standards of notability require new articles to cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources which are specifically about the subject but not affiliated with it.  The easiest way to write an article is to gather such sources (ignoring the ones that are affiliated, or more about something else, or only mention the subject in passing), paraphrase and summarize those sources as concisely as possible (sticking in-line citations at the end of each unique idea), and then arranging those sentences into paragraph format.  Then post those paragraphs (so that notability is clearly established in the first version) and expand from there with other reliable sources.  Ian.thomson (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do read or review Referencing for Beginners to understand how to format a reference citation on Wikipedia, even for off-line sources. Once you have even a few of the sources cited, you may remove the Proposed deletion tag, which will stop the 7-day clock. Note that deletion after 7 days is not automatic: an admin must review and approve the deletion. DES (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Did I adequately establish notability?
Hi all - wikipedia newcomer here. I created a page for mathematician Grzegorz Rempala which has been flagged for notability. Since the flag was added, I have done the following: I think that this page meets the criteria of notability for an academic. What else could be added so that the flag can be removed?Wgehring91 (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Linked to computing the permanent and central limit theorem pages which list Rempala's work in their notes
 * Added reference to Kosciuszko Foundation Collegium of Eminent Scientists which lists Rempala as a distinguished fellow
 * Added reference to announcement appointing Rempala to interim director position of the Mathematical Biosciences Institute
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. While I suspect that Rempala is in fact notable, I don't see that the article establishes that as yet. The sources cited so far mention Rempala , but say very little about his work, or are by Rempala. Of the points listed in WP:NACADEMIC, only #6 might possibly apply, and it is not clear if "intrim Director" really counts, nor if the Mathematical Biosciences Institute at The Ohio State University is "a major academic institution or major academic society."
 * What is needed, really, are sources by others but about Rempala. Sources that go into a bit of detail about him and his work, the impacts it has had, and the like. That would do it beyond question. DES (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Template for marking points as potentially irrellevant
Is there an inline template for marking points as potentially irrelevant for the subject of the article? If so, what is it? AtlasDuane (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcoeme to the Teahouse. I am not aware of such a template. In my view, the best way to proceed with such points is to make a post to the article's talk page, describing what you think should be removed and why. Alternativly, if you are confident, simply be bold and edit the irrelevant content out, describing what you are doing in the edit summary and preferably on the talk page as well, if there is significant change involved. If anyone reverts or objects, follow the Bold, revert, discuss cycle and try to reach a consensus non the talk page. DES (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, nevermind, I found it, it's &#123;&#123;relevance inline&#125;&#125;. Thanks anyway. AtlasDuane (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Our Corporate Page Keeps Getting Declined. Need Help.
A couple of months ago, our corporate Wikipedia listing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:M-Files) that had been active for several years was suddenly declined. We scrambled to address the issues provided as the reason for our removal and resubmitted for inclusion. Last month, we received notification that our re-submission was declined. The reason cited this time was:

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of websites and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

We again worked on our Wikipedia page's references to ensure all are accessible and from notable sources such as CMSWire, Forbes and CRN. We again resubmitted only to wait several more weeks to learn that we were declined again. This time the reason given was:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

All of our sources are from very reliable sources. We just don't know what to do next. Any direction or guidance that you could provide to us would be greatly appreciated.

-Todd McVeigh M-Files todd.mcveigh@m-files.comToddmcveigh (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse I have taken a quick look at your draft and I agree with the other reviewers that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The  sources, , ,  only mention the software in passing. Wikipedia requires there to be in-depth coverage in reliable, independent published sources. We have no interest in what the company says about itself and if there are no reliable sources about the product then we cannot have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to work out what the history of this case is. The article was nominated for deletion in February (see Articles for deletion/M-Files) and the discussion closed with a delete verdict by . However, the article never seems to have been deleted, and shortly after the AfD close, moved it to draft space. Was this by request, or was there just a failure to act on the AfD closure and the move was incidental to that? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ron restored and moved to draft in response to a request. Nthep (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a mention that Wikipedia does not host "corporate Wikipedia listing"s, and that articles do not have owners. Perhaps the move to draft was a generous second chance to add independent WP:Reliable sources to establish WP:Notability, and this has not been done?    D b f i r s   16:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Request at OTRS 2017031310016663, with claim of more info to be added - Moved to Draft, and explained it cannot be moved back to article space, without a successful review or it's likely to suffer a WP:CSD Ron h jones (Talk) 16:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying and . Apologies for the confusion - I was looking at the log for Draft:M-Files rather than for M-Files, which is why I mistakenly thought it hadn't been deleted following the AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

article ready for review in my sandbox
Hi- I am very new to trying to write and submit an article. my draft is in my sandbox. How does someone know to go review it and then get a final version posted? thank you for your time. Mary Anthony StartzMaryAnthonyStartz (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, to request review you simply place subst:submit on the page, either at the very top or bottom will do. Be sure to include the double curly braces. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , if you use tls, then you don't have to type "subst", and the link will work, thus: {{subst:submit}} displays as {{subst:submit}}. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Page merge needed
I think the page Turritopsis nutricula should be merged into Immortal jellyfish or it should be speedily deleted. It contains only content already mentioned in Immortal jellyfish. GermanGamer77 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Immortal jellyfish redirects to a different, but closely related species Turritopsis dohrnii. It's quite common for articles about closely related taxa to have similar content. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW the chances of an article about a species (that is properly proven to exist or have existed) being deleted from en.WP is vanishingly close to zero. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh. OK. And I think these are pretty cool creatures. GermanGamer77 (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My editions to "North Africa" in article on "Holocaust."
I am really sorry, but I don't know how to enter discussion. Thank you for putting an eye to this important article.

My goal is that Wikipedia allows me to edit the article, using the same books and authors mentioned by other editors. Wikipedia's editors and administration shouldn't select what to quote from same authors.

And my editions, based on Longerich, Bauer, Yahil, and Gilbert, clearly show that Wikipedia should not have a section called "North Africa" which Yad Vashem, a partisan group, does. Longerich, Bauer, Yahil, and Gilbert, narrate the history of the Jews in Vichy North Africa and Italian Libya, as an integral part of the Holocaust in France (comprised of the Metropole and its overseas territories - see Poznanski, Bauer, Longerich), and Italy respectively.

So, administration of wikipedia should allow me to use Longerich, Bauer, Yahil, and Gilbert to present the Holocaust of the Jews of Europe/European Jews, as inclusive of the persecution of the Jews living in Europe's overseas territories, because the Holocaust was a political and not a geographical process: it was the state-sponsored - by state laws and policies- persecution of the Jews and other undesirables, and evolved according to geo-political borders, and not continental borders - as very clearly presented in Yahil, Bauer, Longerich, and Gilbert. During the Holocaust period, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Libya didn't exist as independent political entities, but were governed by European nations, in the context of the new imperialism. The Holocaust of the Jews of Europe/European Jews took place in the political context of of imperial Europe, as presented by Bauer, Yahil and Longerich.

And, nowadays, serious Holocaust and genocide scholars agree that the Holocaust was not an event or a genocide, like descibed by Yad Vashem, sometimes, but a project and process, as described by Longerich.

1. First, Henia (Hanna in Polish) and Rachelle (my granma's name) are the same person (I opened a new account with my laptop, because I didn't remember my password - I will now use only one account.

2. My purpose is not to plagiarize, but make sure that if wikipedia editors cite authors or let other editors cite authors such as Bauer, Yahil, Gilbert, Longerich and others, those editors should allow other quotations by same authors from same books by me, and not delete them - of course, I will be more than happy to comply with wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Please, ask the editors to specify, in details, the copyrights violations - I don't have the books of Yahil, Longerich, and Bauer with me, as I just moved to CA. I have put valid references to my editions. I have only quoted separate sentences, that was allowed by wikipedia (I did read the Wikipedia chapter on citations". I did read in 'wikipedia citations' that one sentence can be quoted.

3. Why are some editors allowed to support their definition of Holocaust by mentioning only the name of the authors, but not the book, and not the page, like in:

The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also referred to as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which some six million European Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, and the World War II collaborators with the Nazis.[3][b] 3: Snyder 2010, pp. 389, 413, chpt. Numbers and Terms b: • •  Further examples of this usage can be found in: Bauer 2002, (2002). Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Cesarani 2004, Dawidowicz 1981, Evans 2002, Gilbert 1986, Hilberg 1996, Longerich 2012, Phayer 2000, Zuccotti 1999.

Bauer's definition: “Let us be clear: … Shoah, Churban, Judeocide, whatever we call it, is the name we give to the attempted planned total physical annihilation of the Jewish people, and its partial perpetration with the murder of most of the Jews of Europe.” Rethinking the Holocuast, Bauer states: : “The Holocaust is an extreme example of the context of despair. It was motivated by a murderous ideology.” A racist ideological war, and Nazism or National Socialism was the ideology behind the Holocaust. Therefore, the racist national domestic, and international goals of the main perpetrator, Nazi Germany led by Hitler, and the characteristics of Nazism determined the definition of the Holocaust and its victims.”

Again, 1) I am asking that the editor who mentioned "Bauer 2002, (2002). Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Cesarani 2004, Dawidowicz 1981, Evans 2002, Gilbert 1986, Hilberg 1996, Longerich 2012, Phayer 2000, Zuccotti 1999" cite the name of the books and the page; and 2) that Wikipedia allows me to cite Yahil, Gilbert, Bauer and Longerich to show that the persecution of the Jews in Vichy North Africa and Italian Libya is an integral part of the Holocaust in France and Italy respectively, and an integral part of the Holocaust of the Jews of Europe/European Jews, as clearly supported by Yahil, Bauer, Longerich and Gilbert.

Thank you again for following up, and your kind attention. Henia Perlman (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

. I didn't use the book of Satloff but books by Longerich, Yahil, Gilbert and from Yad vashem website.

The current paragraph "North Africa" is not supported by the evidence and valid sources. I mentioned above. Henia PerlmanHenia Perlman (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . It is very difficult for a new editor to make major changes to a high visibility/high importance article like The Holocaust. Many highly experienced editors (including me) keep an eye on this article and will insist that any new content complies with our policies and guidelines scrupulously. We are especially strict regarding copyright, plagiarism and attribution. I have not evaluated the situation in detail, but it looks like some editors have concluded that you are trying to introduce copyright violations into the article. This will be resisted forcefully and you may be blocked from editing if this behavior persists. I suggest that you explain at Talk:The Holocaust precisely what you wish to add to the article, and why. Defer to more experienced editors regarding the proper way to accomplish your goals. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This doesn't look to me like a content dispute. Rachelle Perlman made some additions to the article, which were then deleted as unreferenced. There was an edit war, which Henia Perlman joined in support of Rachelle. I can't see what the Perlmans were adding as their recent edits have been redacted; but yesterday's addition of 8,399 bytes looks like more than "separate sentences". I think the Perlmans need to understand that additions to an article (particularly a controversial one like this) need to be supported by references to reliable sources, not by extensive copying from such sources. Maproom (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem—or one of the problems—with the added content has been that the formatting (or lack thereof, such as the complete absence of ref tags and a dearth of quotation marks) has made it difficult or impossible to differentiate what was being said in Wikipedia's voice from what a source had said. This was compounded by a complete lack of edit summaries. Replies to feedback and attempts to help have been sporadic, and the existence of two accounts hasn't helped matters. (I'm assuming there are two editors, but how can we know?) I suggested yesterday (on Rachelle Perlman's talk page) that it might be better to propose changes on the article's talk page, then let experienced editors evaluate and, if appropriate, add them in wikified form. I still think that's the most workable way to resolve this, but I could be wrong. (pinging Ealdgyth and Diannaa just to ensure they're aware of this thread) Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   16:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @Henia Perlman: You added to your initial comment here after some people had replied, which makes this thread difficult to follow. I'd like to suggest at this point that you post any further thoughts related to The Holocaust at Talk:The Holocaust—not here at the Teahouse or on anyone's user talk page. It's just too difficult to keep track of a discussion when it's happening in different places, and the place to discuss changes to an article is on that article's talk page. Thanks.  Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   19:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

REQUEST for DELETION of PATAS (Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society) wikipage
Greetings from NYC, USA. The PATAS page was vandalized again and once too many.... I tried to edit, change and restore the original page. I am stupid with computers so forgive me if I did something wrong.. But is moot and academic. This society has no more website,  because they are trying to erase the history. I am the founder but I am tired of visiting this wiki PATAS to see myself vilified again and again. better to remove this page once and for all. Thank you for understanding. Kind regards, Marissa Langseth, RN, MSN Hapimarissa (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For reference DES (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Erasing history is hardly a noble aim, and not one that would be supported by Wikipedia; however, nearly all the references are to publications by the subject, so we could delete on the grounds that PATAS was never WP:Notable. What does anyone else think?    D b f i r s   16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Pending further investigation, I would oppose such a deletion. It would need to be done via AfD in any case; I would surely decline a PROD, and this is far from speedy territory. I think what is in the article right now is enough to show notability, and I would try to find and add additional sources. If the organization has actually disbanded, and a source can be cited to say so, that should be included in the article, but that does not make it non-notable while it existed. There seems to have been a slow edit war, or it might be called mildly persistent vandalism, over the identities of the founder(s) and some other details, some of them BLP violations (accusations of improper conduct not sourced). Most of this seems to have been from IP editors, and semi-protection or PC1 protection might handle this. DES (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability seems to be ok, I've found two sources that are not (yet) cited in the article - https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/03/new-atheists-philippines/518175/ and http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/95240-secular-humanism-philippines-religion I think PC1 should be sufficient protection. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine if we add independent sources. (I object to erasing history!)  There is more to this dispute than I'd realised.    D b f i r s   17:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello there.. thank you for the response.. Yes, there are a lot of outside sources that confirm I am the PATAS Founder.. however, it was taken over by self entitled arrogant narcissists, some with intention to discredit me and my effort when I founded it in 2011.. posting some notes vilifying me and the like, more disputes are in order but you may not understand it because of our Filipino culture. Oh well. The Atlantic just picked up my new society and I even mentioned PATAS.. Geez, another proof that I am the founder. Well, as long as the history is not erased and it say the TRUTH.. then it is all up to you. Thanks and kind regards. ms M Hapimarissa (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I even made my own personal blog because I know the PATAS website will be liquidated due to no funds when I left them in 2013 to make HAPI : http://narsdoktorsausa.org/2016/05/ Check that out... it was originally in the PATAS website.. but they cannot sustain that website.. that I gave them when I left.. ms M Hapimarissa (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone also vandalized the PATAS logo.. It is no longer in Imacron and not in Norway. so this wikipage are all blatant lies.. It is better to delete that page in my opinion.. because the true members would bot even edit it for their own good to put the real address and their location. But they will spend time vilifying me.. that is how most Filipinos work.. crab mentality and poverty contributed to that mentality. Thanks for understanding , ms M Hapimarissa (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

need help improving an article
so i recently made a page about brian wecht, a member of the band ninja sex party, because he is a notable person that deserves at least a stub article. but it has been put up for deletion multiple times, and whenever i fix one thing, something else is brought up. this time, i dont really know what to do to fix it. it said something about disambiguous links?? i dont quite remember. could someone look over the page and tell me what i can do to improve it, in a way that a newbie like me can understand? thanks in advance. Irelynkennedy (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem is that the cited sources are mostly by Wecht, rather than about Wecht. Wikipedia articles must be based on independent, professionally published, reliable sources. Sources from the subject or those closely associated with him (such as his employer) may be used, but do not help to establish his notability, a key concept on Wikipedia (with an unfortunate name, in my view). A source such as https://necss.org/brian-wecht/ would be good, except that conference bios are usually supplied by the subject, and so are not independent. What we need is citations to newspapers, magazines, books, journal articles, or the like (any of which may be online or offline) that have written about Wecht. He sounds notable, but we need to have the sources to demonstrate this. Interviews with the subject are of limited worth, and so are links to the subject's own work. Does that help at all? DES (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

regarding my artical
i have made edition to that artical because the previous artical is not satisfactory and the people who want exact knowledge this artical is for those, as you have declined my artical i want it to be publish and help me out with that my artical is vibrio cholerae.

Jskrn94 (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you find the article Vibrio cholerae unsatisfactory, then you should make improvements to that article, not try to create a new one. It might be best to discuss your changes on the talk page of the article before making major controversial changes.  You also need to be aware that the original article has eighteen references.  Your proposed replacement had only one.    D b f i r s   06:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing wording that's promotive of the subject
Hi dear Wikipedians

I'm new to Wikipedia and I would greatly appreciate some help on editing my very first page 'Simon Cohen (communication expert)'. I would like to learn how to make improvements to make sure the page is written in a neutral and objective voice.

I alone have not written the article but I'm responsible for posting it, and I have a conflict of interest since I'm currently working together with the subject of the page. I hope that some of you more experiences members of the Wikipedia community can help me to edit the article so that it is well written and provides information in a relevant manner. Thank you!MatildeZ (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hewllo,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The page Simon Cohen (to which title it has been moved recently) does indeed have a number of problems. I see that you have declared your COI on the article talk page. This is very good. The remaining tasks are, roughly:
 * Make sure that all current content is supported by the sources cited and that all of those are Reliable sources. I notice that several sources are by Cohen himself, or by entities closely connected to him. Those can be used to source his statements and views, and for basic non-controversial facts, such as his place of birth and education. They should not be used for any controversial facts, except perhaps with a prefix of "Cohen says ..." or "Cohen claims ... " or the like. Some other sources, such as the Huffington Post, may not be fully reliable.
 * Remove any promotional wording. First look for adjectives (and verbs) that are really editorial comment, such as "inspired". Look for phrasing that is praise rather than reporting, and remove or rewrite it.
 * Look for additional reliable sources. Use them to expand the content in the article, or offer additional points of view, being careful to give them due weight. In particular, look for properly sourced critical views of Cohen. Surely there are some. They should be added to the article, unless they are mere fringe views.
 * I hope these suggestion are helpful. I have made some small edits to the article myself, mostly formatting issues. DES (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi

And thank you so much for your kind reply and patience. It now seems several editors have helped in improving the page and I'm of course very thankful for this. I understand now what should be removed and why. The template of issues / COI etc. that was previously on the page has now been removed. Does that mean I should not continue working on it? Is it approved as a page?

Following your advice, I have found a critical source / an additional point of view that would be useful in the page. Should I add it or is it best I let the article stay as it is, given my COI?

Thank you so much for helping out! MatildeZ (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

editing with different languages
How can I edit with several languages without changing the whole page language?

AlHarbi 09:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdusalam Mahmoud (talk • contribs)
 * That's not possible. Content on the en.wikipedia site does not affect any other languages.  Each language-version of Wikipedia is effectively it's own site hosted under the Wikipedia domain.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Formatting Help
Twinkle Messed up my AFD request here 1 and I am not quite sure how to fix it or what is the correct format. Help! Razer Text me 09:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ by removal of a surplus open-square-bracket <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  09:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Neighbourhood and suburb are both same? If not which one should be used as a settlement type for merged villages in Indian towns and cities?

 * Example: Hyderabad - its original areas are Charminar, Khairatabad etc.
 * Merged areas into the corporation (earlier non metropolitan areas) like Balanagar, Malkajgiri. Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   07:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A suburb traditionally is a specific type of neighbourhood, more on the outskirts of a city. However in some countries this distinction has disappeared. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)