Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 628

Edit Count is differing according to time
I have recognised that my edit Count is having a slight difference of about 3Abishe (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have edited an article, and it later gets deleted, then the deletion will cause your edit count to drop. Might this explain what you observe? Maproom (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Also, there are several different edit counters, with slightly different results. If you accessed your edit count by different methods, different results should be expected. In any case one's edit count does not matter to that level of precision, normally. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki page
Hello,

I created a Wikipedia page for myself. I am a part time actor, having appeared in several movies and tv shows. I linked my IMDb page to it. Is this acceptable and also how do I add a picture.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maynor1972 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that the page as you created it is not at all acceptable on Wikipedia. First, and most important, It doesn't cite any reliable sources that discuss you in detail. A Wikipedia article must be supported by multiple independent sources. It must be about a notable topic, in the rather special eway that Wikipedia uses that term. Please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article.


 * I have moved the page to Draft:Todd Maynor. As a draft, the text is not so likely to be deleted prompt, which otherwise would be very likely. This gives you time to find and list those sources. If such sources cannot be found, then no such article will be able to exist. Don;t worry about a picture until the sources are found and listed -- it would be a waste of time.


 * You should be aware that the IMDB is considered a low-quality source, because parts of it can be changed by anyone without any editorial oversight. A linkedIn page is of course not independent, because you wrote it. What is wanted is newspaper, magazine, or book coverage, or the online equivalents. Not blogs, not fan sites, and not interviews (at least not ones where most of the content is your words). Nothing written by you or those closely associated with you.


 * Please remember to sign posts on talk pages with four tildes (, putting a   at the end of it. We allow only a limited amount of quotation, and something like that is clearly excessive. If there's doubt, you can use Cv-unsure. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the useful advice! I will try to remember it for the next time something like this occurs. Also, thanks for fixing up the article! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 19:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Archive Talk Page
Is there a way I can auto archive my talk page. For example could I have it autoarchive over a year old or something? Jadeslair (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . There are a couple of options for this outlined at Help:Archiving a talk_page. I use Lowercase sigmabot III, which seems to work quite well. Do ask again here if you go ahead with setting this up and run into difficulties. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Writing a band page and got a deletion notice
Hi, I am writing a page for band and received a "Speedy deletion" notification questioning the significance of the band. The band has made several records, has certain notoriety within it's genre toured the world so it is not a ding dong garage band. Wanted to see what I can do to correct the significance issue. The band is Speedealer if you need to see the content. Thanks in advance. Mike Noyes (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to ensure that your proposed article meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability is to include reliable sources that validate your submission. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 21:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * NsTaGaTr is being polite. I would have said "only way". Your submission cited no sources at all. Maproom (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * . I have moved the page to Draft:Speedealer, where it can be edited to conform to Wikipedia standards. I have also done a little copy editing on it. Please do not submit it for review until you have found and cited multiple independent published Reliable sources that support the statements in the text. Such sources are absolutely vital.
 * Please notiece that the first time a person is mentioned in a Wikipedia article, the full name is used. After that, please use the last name, never the first name.
 * Also, if you are the Mike Noyes mentioned as a member of the band, you have a pretty clear conflict of interest and must be particularly careful to remain objective to the best of your ability, and to include in the draft only what can be supported from reliable sources, not adding things based on your personal memory. This is particularly important with negative or contentious statements about living people. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site or business directory. It doesn't contain "pages for" subjects, it contains "articles about" subjects, which should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it. Wikipedia has little interest in what a subject (or people associated with it) have said about it, and no interest in what you (or I) know or think about it, or in how the subject wishes to be presented --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you invite a specific user to help editing a document in your sandbox?
... before you make it public and anyone can edit it? Albretch Mueller (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * just send a message to the user involved on that users user talk page, or by pinging them from any relevant page, and indicate that the user would be welcome to help on your sand box text. however, every page on Wikipedia is public. Anyone can find it via your list of contributions, or via lists of recently created pages, or by searching. And anyone is free to edit any page. Some restraint is advised on another user's actual user page, but drafts and sandboxes are generally considered open. Many editors won't bother woking on something until/unless it is moved to the draft namespace, but that is simply their choice. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the last part of what says: I have often said to people that while anybody can edit any page, normally people won't interfere with a user sandbox or draft unless invited to do so (or there is a serious problem like copyright violation). --ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Some will, some won't. Placing a page in the Draft: namespace is in and of itself an invitation to collaboration in my view, just as much as placing it in article space. In a userspace draft, not so much, but a good many editors (myself among them) will feel free to make constructive contributions without a specific invite, although they might well refrain if asked not to edit a page. a user sandbox is rather less inviting than a user-space draft; most editors won't change it unless there has been some sort of request for help, or there is a major problem. But as per WP:OWN, no editor has exclusive rights over any page, even the prime user page associated with the user's username. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

How Far Can I Go In Editing A Page
I am interested in cleaning up the Jerry Ahern article and am wondering how far I can go. For example, the introductory paragraph gives his birth/death dates and then talks about his major book series. In a subsequent paragraph the book series is, again, brought up. The "flow" of information is not smooth. HankitoJ (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . You are very welcome to clean up existing articles, and making the article as a whole consistent is something that is often needed. There is not really any limit to how far you go: some suggestions I have are:
 * As far as possible, make many small edits rather than one big one, so that if somebody reverts one of your edits, they won't have undone the lot
 * Make sure you are familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:MOS has a great deal of information in it).
 * Give a meaningful edit summary with each edit. This will also reduce the likelihood of your edit being mistaken for vandalism
 * If you think any of your edits are likely to be contentious, discuss them on the article's talk page first
 * If somebody does revert one of your edits, don't just apply it again - engage with them. See WP:BRD.
 * If you need to make some large changes, or think you might leave the article in an inconsistent state during the work, you might like to use a template such as under construction.
 * Good luck! --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To add to Colin's answer,, the introductory section of a developed article will include things that are subsequently repeated/detailed later in the article, because it is supposed to summarise the article's main content. See Manual of Style/Lead section on this. The issue with Jerry Ahern is that its introductory section contains the extent of the prose in the whole article, so it is in need of restructuring, and expansion if possible. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I add a new page?
I want to add a new page on Harambe, but I don't know how 203.45.170.16 (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.170.16 (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor
 * First, review our guideline on notability, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your proposed subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
 * Second, read Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
 * Third, Disclose any connection with the subject that you may have.
 * Fourth, Gather sources. You want independent professionally published reliable sources that each discuss the organization in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop, an article will not be created. Sources do NOT need to be online, although it is helpful if at least some are. The independent part is vital in this case. Not press releases, nor news stories based on press releases, or anythign published by the organization itself or its affiliates. Not strictly local coverage. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the org in detail. But those significant sources are needed first.)
 * Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in your case with the conflict of interest it is essential.
 * Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
 * Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is rejected, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
 * Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have one addition to the third point of this splendid answer: WP:DISCLOSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean the gorilla from the Cincinnati zoo? We already have an article Killing of Harambe.  You need to consider whether there was anything other than his death that made him notable, or was he just one of the many gorillas kept in zoos across America.  Rojomoke (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks lots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.170.16 (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Can't find anything on Wikipedia about a non-profit organisation with member centres all over Australia
Hi all, I can't find anything on Wikipedia about Business Enterprise Centres Australia, which is a non-profit peak body operating all over Australia. In fact, they have 50 member centres that have over 70 offices in every state and territory.

I work for one of the member organisations, and that organisation alone is 30 years old, and has around 3,000 clients a year.

Do you think the peak body deserves a Wiki page?Germaine Muller (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . If this non-profit group has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, then it may be eligible for a Wikipedia article. Please read Your first article for a detailed explanation. Since you are an employee of an affiliated organization, you have a WP:COI. You should declare your conflict, and use the Articles for Creation process. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If an org appears to be defunct
I was randomly looking at think tanks and came across this page The Urban Energy Policy Institute - and they appear to no longer be in business. I don't have any real source confirming that other than website not working and not found listed on www.GuideStar.org. Just wondered how to flag it as potentially defunct?remando (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest commenting to that effect on the article talk page. If you are really interested, you could do a Google search and see if there are any articles in, for instance, the New York Times, saying that they folded, but it is entirely possible for an organization to fall apart without any news story to that effect.  Ask on the article talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. remando (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would agree with what says above. I would add that there is no particular need to "flag" an org as defunct. But if a reliable source can be found and cited that says that the org disbanded, or otherwise ceased to exist, that fact could and should be added to the article, citing the source.  In that case also change the lead sentence from  to . In general we discuss things that no longer exist (dead people, demolished buildings, disbanded organizations, ancient empires, etc) in the past tense, while things that still exist are written of in the present tense.  DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, the article says that it had 5 employees. An organization with 5 employees is seldom notable unless its founder is notable, and then it may be appropriate to mention it only in the article on its founder.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you both and, I have just put something up on the Talk:The Urban Energy Policy Institute page. Something just doesn't seem right about it. I almost think this organization never existed.remando (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies just found a site capture via Internet Archives https://web.archive.org/web/20111020150935/http://uepinst.org:80/non-profit-status/ - Have adjusted my Talk page. Thanks again. remando (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

,, I have nominated the page for deletion as non-notable. Defunct or not, no one but its own site seems to have ever mentioned it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, User:DESiegel. You have made the case that it was never notable.  The fact that it currently doesn't exist isn't a reason to delete.  The Roman Empire doesn't have a responsive web site, even in Rome, but the lack of third-party sources is the issue.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely true, . The lack of a responsive web site merely means that there is one less place one can go to try to find current sources and info. And less chance that it will become notable in future. But a defunct organization that was notable should not, of course, be deleted just for being defunct. I mention this largely for the benefit of  and any other interested editors who may read this.  DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Question
I have edited a page 2 times but another user is again n again deleting my content. All the contents are right also. Suggest me, how can i get these editions on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAM GUPTA CHANDAUSI (talk • contribs) 04:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have added a header so this doesn't get lost in the section above. Also here is the article in question . MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse.  This seems to be a dispute over content, so the best place to discuss your disagreemnt with the other editor is the talk page of the article.  Please remember that all content should be referenced to WP:Reliable sources.   D b f i r s   07:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hayman30:
@Hayman30: Dear Hayman, I don't know why you reverted my changes about "Ehsan Hajsafi". His correct surname as he has said many times is "Haji Safi". He is incorrectly known for Hajsafi because of media mistake. I did address that in my changes by adding a sentence about his incorrect surname. If wikipedia's purpose is to bring correct information to general public, you should really reconsider to keep my changes.

Thanks in advance Best regrads78.67.175.105 (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey person editing from 78.67.175.105. To ping a user, as you attempted above, you have to link their username in a post you sign in the same edit. I will fix that now: . I don't think the edit summary Hayman30 used was useful at all to advise you why he or she was reverting your edits (diff of revert). My guess is that the reason for the revert was because your edit was entirely unsourced. Reliable sourcing is the key to the Wikipedia kingdom. I suggest you read Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1. Use, depth, effect, manner... of sourcing is essentially what almost all of our core policies converge on. Do you know of any reliable source that states his correct surname is Safi, and Haji is separate from it? Also, if that was verified, then after the first mention of his full name at the article start, you would use just his last name for all subsequent mentions. Also, just be aware that at least one of your changes was conclusively incorrect. If indeed his name is as you assert without evidence, then regardless, you would never change the title of a new story cited in the article, because whether the name is in error or not, the news story's title is what it is. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Welp, I'm sorry for using that edit summary. All I saw was the user above changing names throughout the article, which doesn't match the article's title (Hajsafi → Haji Safi), and they provided no explanation or sources whatsoever, and that's why I reverted the change. Hayman30 (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

feedback on my article, if you could finde some spare time and a questions.
Hello, I recently created the article NSA Playset and it recently got reviewed. I wanted to ask if the article has any flaws that need fixig to upgrade it's quality.

The Playset also has some Conference Recordings on Youtube and I also wanted to ask if it would be a good idea to link those videos in the External Link section or if you would not recommend that.

Thank you very much.

WiktorManczarski (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi WiktorManczarski. I have boned up the attribution of all of the references by populating the publisher field ( |publisher= ) for each. When I first looked at the article, my immediate thought was I can tell very little about the nature of the cited sources solely by looking at the references, partly because of that lack. Full attribution of sources is important. What we are looking for in the main in sourcing – in order that the topic of the article is demonstrated to be notable – are 1) published, 2) reliable, 3) secondary sources that are entirely 4) independent of the article topic, and which 5) write about it in substantive detail. Verifiability of the information is also important, for which sources are also the key, though how sourcing interacts is slightly different. For example, primary sources, which are useless to demonstrate notability, may be used to verify content so long as the information the source verifies consists of straightforward statements of fact that contain no analysis/evaluative content/synthesis and is not unduly self-serving. Even after adding the publisher field I am not sure about various aspects of the sourcing such as reliability, though I am quite unfamiliar with gaming publications and the like. I note that one is certainly a blog and some others may be as well. What I am getting at is are there any better sources to use? I would not place any further external links. Please see External links, and WP:LINKFARM. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for populating the publishers. I don't know how I missed that >.<, silly me. Also thank you very much for pointing out the relevence of sourcing and what to look out for. Understanding what one looks for in sourcing helps me already a lot. Regarding the Verifiability and the use of better sources: Officially the NSA Playset has been presented on some sercurity reasearch conferences but I couldn't find anything good to reference until now. The only thing I found are either the slides or video of the conference, where it was presented at, itself, but thats not really something I could reference, or at least I#m not sure how I would. I'm trying to find some reasearch papers regarding the technology or tools that I mention in my article or anything else that is more reliable than what I referenced until now.I'm sure at some point I will find something that will be reliable enough. Overall your insight was a really great help and a superb starting point for me to do some more reasearch and diggin to help my article. Oh and after reading External links and WP:LINKFARM I decided to not post any more external source, exept they really benefit the article. The conference videos are easily found if anyone should be interested in them and don't need additional linking on Wikipedia. Thanks for that too. Thank you very much again for all of your help.WiktorManczarski (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

How can i create an article
Hello community of good will people. I created an article for a governement organization and the page was not approved. please someone help me. i am newbeeAbanda bride (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. Please understand that successfully creating an article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, and most new users who dive into creating articles first things experience difficulty.  New users who start small by making edits to existing articles and learn how things work here are more successful in creating articles.
 * Regarding your page itself, it does not have what we call independent reliable sources that tell what makes a subject worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. This is called notability.  Not every organization merits a page here.  A government organization would be more likely to merit a page, however I'm not clear on how "Anafoot" is a government organization from reading it.
 * I would suggest reading this page which has good information to help new users who want to create an article. You may also want to use the article wizard to create an article. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

How can Joe Novak be added to Wikipedia
It has been suggested by many Wikipedia users that I (Joe Novak) be added to Wikipedia in light of my many accomplishments as an artist since 1981 and prior to that, as a Harvard trained lawyer.

A recently published edition of my memoir, "Something To Do With Wings" summarizes the trajectory of my life. My question is: What is the process by which a new person is added?

My website is www.joenovak.com.Kiva10 (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. I would first say that it is very highly advised that you not write an article about yourself.(though it is not forbidden for you to) Please see the autobiography policy.  Article subjects here must have independent reliable sources that indicate how the subject meets notability guidelines, in this case those for biographies. Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject states about themselves, but what others independent of the subject write about it.
 * If you have independent sources indicating how you are notable, and truly want to attempt to write a page yourself(though I would restate that it is highly discouraged) you would be best to use the Article Wizard to create an article(which allows for a review and feedback before posting).
 * If you would like someone else to write an article about you, you can make a request at requested articles. Since this is a volunteer effort, however, it likely will not be done quickly.  If you have any questions, please post them here. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , requested articles is so badly backlogged, that I no longer advise anyone to bother listing a request there. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information and advice, I was not aware of the extent of the backlog. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, the creation of autobiographies is strongly discouraged, primarily because it is very hard for anyone to remain neutral and objective when writing about him- or herself, or about something that one is closely connected with. Therefore it would be better if one of the "many Wikipedia users" other than yourself created such an article. Secondly, the question is whether you are "notable" in the rather unusual sense in which Wikipedia uses that term. Please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule, Our guideline on the notability of biographies and our guideline on the notability of artists. For there to be an article, someone must find and cite multiple independent, published reliable sources each of which discusses you or your work in some detail, preferably at least several paragraphs. Not blogs, not fansites, not press releases or anything published by you or anyone closely associated by you (such as a gallery that sells your work) and not purely local coverage. Regional or national newspaper coverage, magazine articles (or the online equivalents), books published by mainstream or recognized niche publishers, scholarly journals, or the like are generally good sources. If such sources can be found, then the article should be based squarely on what they say, not on personal memories or other unverifiable content. Such an article should not include any opinions or judgements except those that are clearly attributed to a named person or entity, preferably in a direct quotation, and are supported by an inline citation to a source. The article must not be or seem intended to promote you or your work, but rather to summarize what others have already written about you and it. I would strongly urge making use of the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. In this way an experienced editor will review the draft before it is taken live. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Joe Novak, I looked at your website and the Amazon listing for your book. I have not yet done an independent search for coverage of you. First of all, the book does not contribute to your notability because it is self-published and does not appear to have been widely reviewed. Your website indicates that several museums own your paintings, and that your work has been widely exhibited and reviewed in many publications. Your website has excerpts of many of these reviews. This is a favorable indication that you may meet our notability guideline for artists. I have written several biographies of artists. If you contact me on my talk page, I will give you some further advice and will consider writing an article about you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Interwiki links
Are there any policies or guidelines about interwiki links to foreign language wikis? Seraphim System ( talk ) 15:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, see Link. Ruslik_ Zero 18:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Placement of TV movies in filmography tables?
If a film and TV director's filmography is split into 2 tables ("film" and "television") which of those should a TV movie be placed in? I am unsure because it is on TV, and made for TV, yet still a film. Thank you, I'm just starting out as a wikipedia editor! Editor m 666 (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is an editorial judgment, to be settled on the talk page of the article involved. In general i would favor the television table, but there might be reason in a particular case for another result. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Making an Article?
I was wondering how I would make my own article?Alezomar (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a new article is often challenging for new editors. Begin by reading Your first article. Ask questions here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What is a Lead section
Hi, could someone please explain to me what a sufficient lead section is? In the Datone Jones article, I've been told it doesn't have a sufficient lead section. So can someone please explain to me what it means and which parts of the article lacks it. So can someone give me a example of which part of that article doesn't have a sufficient lead section. Thanks! -- UCLAgirl623  (Whats up!) 03:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Have you looked at WP:LEAD? On the surface, that would appear to answer your questions. --ColinFine (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen the WP:LEAD article but Im not really sure which parts in the article Datone Jones lack it. -- UCLAgirl623  (Whats up!</b>) 15:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The problem with the lead section of this article is that it only has two sentences and is therefore too short for an article of this length. The lead should summarize the content of the whole article, and I think that two full paragraphs would be about right here. Perhaps the first could summarize his early life, high school and college years, and the second paragraph could summarize his professional career to date. When I look at the article, I think that some information about why he was an NFL first round draft pick belongs in the lead. Please read WP:LEADLENGTH. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Should it look something like this:? -- UCLAgirl623  (<b style="color:#007DC3">Whats up!</b>) 01:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . That version still has only two sentences in the lead section (The part before the table of contents). I suggested two full paragraphs. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * now how does the "Early Years" section look? Does it have a good lead section? -- UCLAgirl623  (<b style="color:#007DC3">Whats up!</b>) 02:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I do not know why you are discussing the "Early Years" section when this discussion is about the lead section, the summary part of the article that comes before the Table of Contents. The current lead section is too short, consisting of only two sentences: "Datone Wayne Jones (born July 24, 1990) is an American football defensive end for the Minnesota Vikings of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football at UCLA and was drafted by the Green Bay Packers in the first round of the 2013 NFL Draft." I suggest two full paragraphs for an article of this length. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay I get it now . I thought it was the "Early Years" section but the words you mentioned in quotes is the lead section. -- UCLAgirl623  (<b style="color:#007DC3">Whats up!</b>) 03:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, i am looking for feedback on my article (currently a draft, waiting formal review )-for libby Birch
Hi, i am looking for feedback on my article (currently a draft , waiting formal review )-please for libby Birch

thank you Beerch (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Your draft article is filled with extremely promotional language like "a natural and extremely hard working athlete with an elite mindset", stated in Wikipedia's voice. That violates the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Any evaluative language must be referenced to an independent reliable source. There are also violations of our Manual of Style, such as capitalizing section headers and referring to the person by her first name instead of her surname. I suggest you read Your first article and review our notability guideline for athletes. It is unlikely that this draft will be accepted in its current form. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no indication that Draft:Libby Birch has been submitted for review. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The indication was in the line  at the foot of the draft.  There was, however, an unterminated comment above it, so the submission was not effective.  I have corrected the unterminated comment in . --David Biddulph (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit which left the comment unterminated (and thus removed the draft from the submission queue) was . --David Biddulph (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

could i have further feedback on the latest draft Libby birch please thankyou.
could i have further feedback on the latest draft Libby birch please Also is this draft libby Birch submitted in the waiting list for official review please thankyou .Beerch (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See the section above. You don't need to start a new section to continue the discussion. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

draft article libby Birch has been modified according to your valued suggestions .please re review thanks
draft article libby Birch has been modified according to your valued suggestions .please re review and if possible provide further feedback on libby birch many thanks Beerch (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you didn't read what I said above? Please do NOT start a new section when you are continuing a discussion on the same topic.  Your draft in now back is the queue for review (along with more than a thousand other drafts).  While you are awaiting review, please take the time to read some of the links on your user talk page, and particularly WP:Your first article, WP:Autobiography, and WP:Notability (sports). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The draft in question is Draft:Libby Birch. The referencing is a mess, with no working links to the online sources. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

draft review and feedback Libby Birch thankyou
NewYorkActuary many thanks for your suggestions and feedback If anyone else has any further suggestions and recommendations for my draft article Libby Birch than i would be thrilled to receive them also is this draft libby birch in a que for official review thankyou Beerch (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For reference: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * How many more times do you need to be told? When you are continuing to discuss the same subject DO NOT start a new section.   Yes, your draft is still in the review queue, as indicated by the big coloured box at the top of the draft.  I have reverted (twice) your removal of the comments which you received.  Comments and review feedback stay in the draft to help you and other reviewers;  they will be removed if and when it is published as an article.  --David Biddulph (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I am very sorry for any inconvenience i have caused and deeply apologise as i was not reading your comments as i had not found them re Libby Birch. Thankyou for your help David Biddulph it is greatly valued. Is there anything else i should do as i note my Beerch user name is still in red ?? again Thanks Beerch (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason that your user name is in red is that you haven't yet created a user page. You don't need to do so, but information is at WP:User pages.  Please read the advice at WP:Autobiography if you haven't done so already. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou again, i have red the section on autobiography and this is definalty not an autobiography as i am not the notable person in the article draft Libby Birch and have no bias as such. but thankyou Hi my name is Greg. Also just to check i have also read the section on user pages and dont fully understand the difference between what i thought was my user name Beerch and wha i have ...sorry ...but just to confirm i can still create articles with what i have yes ? again thanks for your help ..Greg Beerch (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)..Greg I think further reading has helped me understand that i have a user name but not page and that still allows me to contribute ? thanks Greg Beerch (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, does anyone have any further feedback for the draft article .Libby Birch thanks Greg Beerch (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Considering that "Beerch" is very close to "Birch" — in most languages, the letter "i" is pronounced like English "ee"— I must ask, are you related to Libby Birch? Because if you are, you should not be writing this article, as it is a major conflict of interest. See WP:COI. --Thnidu (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi and thankyou for your query, when i was trying to create the wikipedia account as a beginner i made a mistake and used beerch for the first proposed articles name in stead of the family name "Kennedy" for myself. i tried to correct this and re enter the user name Kennedy on the same day but it was subsequently denied for some reason ?. As discussed in one of my thankyous i am merely a supporter of this sporting club and hoping to put up a draft article for all the women players(who dont have a wikipedia page on as some already do eg Katie Brennan ). now that i have got the draft with the help of others including yourselves for this first player on the notable womens players list(in alphabetical order beginning with rookie libby Birch) , i have begun to write in my sandbox other drafts for the other players in alphabetical order. If you have advice as to how i can change my user name to kennedy then that would be great to save any confusion .I have tried to follow all the guidelines as stipulated by Wikipedia and understand and respect the importance. thankyou Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beerch (talk • contribs) 04:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC) oops i forgot to use the sign off sorry i am trying but make mistakes so if you have any help then please feel free to provide advise at any time thankyou Greg Beerch (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For information on changing your username, please see Changing username. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC) thankyou for your asssitance i will try to find a name close the one i want that hasnt been used Beerch (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi i have an image in my commons uploads that needs to be deleted while i get a new Wiki template signed by the image author. unfortunalty i dont know how to do that yet and cant seem to work out how. So I Was wondering if someone could help me and delete File:Western Bulldogs lib birch.jpgin user name Kennedygregb many thanks Greg kennedygregb (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

ST_How long before my page appears when searched for section of wikipedia
ST_Hi to Wikipedia, How long does it take before my page appears when searched for section of wikipedia Geelongsbestbusker (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi,, and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is all about.  An encyclopaedia cannot be used for advertising, as on your user page.  You are welcome to contribute genuine articles on topics that are suitable for an encyclopaedia (WP:Notable), but your user page will never be accessible in an internet search, so it is pointless to put advertising there.    D b f i r s   06:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

How to access and edit when reflist appears
When I attach references in the body of the text, below under the title of references...I see only reflist. I can not find how to see, or edit the individual references to clean them up, or attach URLs into the refs. Now I am attaching the URLS directly into the body of the text as refs..because I cant construct or edit in the References itself. I am specifically trying to clean up the Karol Hutten-Czapski page which is being reviewed for acceptance --Gzegosh (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Gzegosh, welcome to the Teahouse. There are different reference systems but references are usually written and edited where they are used in the article text and not where they are displayed in the references section. Click a symbol to the left of the reference to see where it is used. See more at Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

nfl template
Hey can you please help me with the NFL template again? I updated it again. Also on my page for 2016 nfl starting qbs, how do I get all the names for the injured qbs section in the center of the block. Can you please help, thanks. Vinnylospo (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you want help with regarding Template:NFL lists? In 2016 NFL quarterbacks win–loss records you had an unwanted pipe at the end of row styling . The recommended code is  . If you want to do it in all rows then it's easier to just do it for the whole table.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_NFL_quarterbacks_win%E2%80%93loss_records&diff=786415232&oldid=786395358] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Updating page after rebrand
The company I work for rebranded at the end of the month and I was wondering if it was possible to have our Wikipedia updated as the website, logo and name are now out of date. The rebrand was not formally noted in press, instead recent articles published about the company have simply used the new name. This means that there is no verifiable evidence in the eyes of Wikipedia. However, the website link noted on Wikipedia now auto-redirects to the new website.

213.131.113.2 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I suggest posting an edit request on the article's talk page, as described at Edit requests, or giving us a link to the article here so that we can look into it for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

If you could look into it that would be much appreciated. Here is a link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CKD_Galbraith A link to the new website: https://www.galbraithgroup.com/ A link to our publications that state there has been a rebrand: https://issuu.com/ckdgalbraithpropertyconsultant A few links to where the new name has been used in press: https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2017/6/the-buy-to-let-market-in-scotland-is-a-viable-investment-option-for-landlords http://www.northern-scot.co.uk/News/Galbraith-says-Moray-housing-market-has-had-good-start-to-2017-06062017.htm

82.110.141.241 (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article to Galbraith (business) and have performed a basic update of the text to reflect the rebranding. I haven't uploaded the new logo as I'm not an expert on image copyright. Perhaps another Teahouse host could help with that? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. Your help has been very much appreciated. 213.131.113.2 (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for Editing a Content on Wiki Page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saheb,_Biwi_Aur_Gangster Ashu Gaur &#38;#124&#59; Business &#38; Technology Consultant &#38;#124&#59; (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Produced by Ashu Gaur &#38;#124&#59; Business &#38; Technology Consultant &#38;#124&#59; (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Rahul Mittra Ashu Gaur &#38;#124&#59; Business &#38; Technology Consultant &#38;#124&#59; (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Sunil Bohra Ashu Gaur &#38;#124&#59; Business &#38; Technology Consultant &#38;#124&#59; (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Now the second name Sunil Bohra was not a producer (It was a legal issue of manipulations of him getting listed as Producer). For reference a news in leading Print Newspaper: http://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/sahib-biwi-aur-gangster-co-produced-by-karanveer/story-YNo1VyngnWRh8Qp3bTJoCM.html Ashu Gaur &#38;#124&#59; Business &#38; Technology Consultant &#38;#124&#59; (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

So the Producer was only Rahlu Mittra (Other name needs to be deleted) Ashu Gaur &#38;#124&#59; Business &#38; Technology Consultant &#38;#124&#59; (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . If Bohra as producer is not stated in a reliable source, then you are welcome to remove it: unsourced material may always be removed. (I started looking at the references to see if it was, but gave up after I found several of them to be dead links). If Bohra as a producer is mentioned in a reliable source, then you are welcome to add that this has been disputed, citing the article you link to above; but it is not Wikipedia's job to resolve disagreements between sources, only to report them.
 * If you are not happy editing the article directly, then the article's tak page Talk:Saheb, Biwi Aur Gangster is the place to suggest and discuss changes.
 * On another subject, Ashu Gaur, your question above was hard to understand, because you have got your signature wrong: you need to make sure the "Treat the above as wiki markup" button is checked when setting your signature. My personal opinion is that your current signature is inappropriately promotional anyway, but others may not agree with me. --ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I submitted my first wikipedia article and get *declided*, because its more like an essay than an enciklopedia article.
I'm looking for feedback and more detailed comments on my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:One_swallow_makes_the_summer

I dont realy know what to change: - the title? - more references? - the wording?

If you can spot some parts which are god enough for this criteria (or parts which aren't) I'd be more than happy! Hgazsi (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . The feedback says "Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research." The thing to realise is that Wikipedia has no interest in what you (or I!) think or know; and in an article about van de Rijt's research it has almost no interest in what van de Rijt thinks or says. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with him have published about his research, and the article should be based almost 100% on that. I've looked at the first two references you give, and while they are certainly reliable sources, neither of them appears to me to be independent: the first seems to be based on an interview, and the second on a press release. You need to find some sources independent of him, and base the article on what they say.
 * There is also an issue of tone: you are telling a story, not giving a neutral summary of independent accounts. You also draw conclusions, ask further questions, and draw a moral: none of these is remotely appropriate to an encyclopaedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinates
Hi, where does WP obtain its coordinates information - e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnhout in the info box on the right? Is there a sort of database of this available? 148.177.129.211 (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, IP user. Please have a look at WP:Obtaining geographic coordinates, and come back if that doesn't answer your questions. --11:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot anonymous user! I'm logged out as I'm at work :) 148.177.129.211 (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That was (see Special:Diff/786424626). :) CiaPan (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Advice on referencing notability
Hi, I wrote an article recently but it got declined because the references weren't adequately able to show the subject's notability. I don't understand what this means. Could someone point me in the right direction or show some examples to explain this point of view please? Thank you.Bmoy94 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Below are my current references for my article.Bmoy94 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Chaker, Anne Marie. "America's Next Top Super Berry", The Wall Street Journal, Retrieved on 13 June 2017.

Chaker, Anne Marie. "The Veggie Burger's New Dream: Be More Like Meat", The Wall Street Journal, Retrieved on 13 June 2017.

Hunt, Kevin. "A focus on food texture", General Mills, Retrieved on 14 June 2017.

"Are you a 'cruncher' or a 'smoosher'?", News.com.au, Retrieved on 15 June 2017.

Hartman, Lauren R. "Formulation Trends for 2017", hartman-group.com, Retrieved on 15 June 2017.

Manuell, Roy. "New Food presents…the ‘The 10 Top Trends of 2017", newfoodmagazine.com, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Starostinetskaya, Anna. "Dairy-Free Milk Market to Hit $16 Billion", vegnews.com, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Green, Elizabeth. "Special Report: The Indulgence Factor Innovators Play with Texture, Mouthfeel and Freshness", [foodingredientsfirst.com], Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Shoup, Mary Ellen. "Booming plant-based drinks market set for more category innovation", dairyreporter.com, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

"Increasing the appeal of dairy-free drinks", foodmag.com.au, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Nunes, Keith. "Got milk alternatives?", foodbusinessnews.net, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Cabel, Denice. "Global plant milk market top US$16bn in 2018", asiafoodjournal.com, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Hensel, Kelly "Setting Meat Aside", news.ift.org, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Bmoy94 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The article is Draft:Innova Market Insights. It would have been useful if you had told us that, so we don't have to go and search your contributions.  I've only looked at the first three or four citations, but they all seem to just have passing mentions of Innova.  We need reliable sources that contain in-depth coverage of the subject.  Have you read WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources?  Rojomoke (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * To amplify the above reply: You need to find articles that are specifically about the company "Innova Market Insights" itself. Passing mentions of the company in articles about other topics are of little value. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Rojomoke, thank you very much for your response. I'm sorry I forgot to put in the article name. I will remember next time. So, I need to find articles that have more in-depth info about the company, right? I have read some parts of the Notability and reliable sources sections. Thank you. Bmoy94 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Roger, thank you very much for your helpful information. I have a much better understanding now that you have simply explained it. I hope that I can find those articles.Bmoy94 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)