Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 712

Reliability of British newspapers as sources
Good afternoon. I have read in an AFD that the British Daily Mail is prohibited by Wikipedia as an unreliable source. If this is so, then I wholeheartedly agree. Can you please confirm that it is banned as a source and is the same true of any other British newspapers? The Sun and the Daily Express are both unreliable too, to say the least, in my opinion.

I may have reason to use two regional newspapers, the Liverpool Echo and the Southport Visiter for sourcing but I really cannot see any reason why they should be prohibited. Ziggy (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Not answering your question regarding other papers, but the discussion regarding the Daily Mail was at WP:DAILYMAIL. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I enjoyed reading that. I must completely agree with the verdict. It looks as if it was singled out and so I'll assume that all other British papers are allowed, unless someone tells me otherwise. Thanks. Ziggy (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My guess would be that the Liverpool Echo and the Southport Visiter (it really is spelled like that) are regarded as reliable. But they're local papers; they don't have the authority of a credible national. Maproom (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I entirely agree, but I would only use them for sourcing matters of local interest as they provide information that doesn't make the nationals. Thanks. Ziggy (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you sourcing? -A la d insane  (Channel 2)  01:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

New article on local history topic, twice rejected, seeking input before 3rd submission
Hello The Teahouse members. (and thank you to person ahead of me for using that address, cool!) I have been exploring the process of creating new articles for a few months. One of the ones I was most interested in doing is the one I've now completed the draft of, but it's been rejected twice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rondo_Neighborhood,  Since that 2nd rejection on 1/13, I've removed some text and done some re-wording and so on, so right now I feel like I've addressed the issues. This one has been difficult for me since the topic itself is an emotional one for the community. I know emotion needs to not be part of the text, and with these recent changes I feel like that's been removed (had felt like I needed to construct the accurate document, then after that remove what was necessary to comply with policy). I have added a great deal of references since the first rejection. If possible, it would be enormously helpful if anyone was willing to look at it and let me know particular areas that need further work, or if you think it's good to go at this point. I am familiar with encyclopedia's, and I'm a long-time reader of Wikipedia, and this process of attempting to join in to the editing-wikipedia process is fascinating! Hoping to continue to accelerate my process of improving my skills, with your help. Thanks very much in advance! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As a technical point, your draft was at Draft:Rondo Neighborhood, (notice the comma). When you gave the url as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rondo_Neighborhood, the parsing of the link asumed that the comma was part of the punctuation of the sentence and linked to Draft:Rondo Neighborhood which didn't exist.  I have now moved the draft from the title with the comma to the title without, as I assume that the former was an error. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the case (I wasn't the one who moved it, but I'm assuming it was not intentional). Thanks very much for fixing that! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've spent a few minutes looking over the draft. You have inline citations supporting some of the content. However you are including details that are not supported by your sources.  Perhaps from local general knowledge you have or published sources you haven't cited.  I've added one  to the draft as an example.  Keep in mind that all of the content needs to be verifiable through published sources. Gab4gab (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also a few minutes. I see no references for the list of businesses nor the list of organizations. If true, either reference or delete. Recommend the latter. Naming businesses and organizations - unless independently notable - adds no value to your article. David notMD (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that feedback.

Yes, the one failed verification citation you added - that is the case, it was due to text I moved around. I was mainly focused on the rejection comments, which were about the tone of the article not being encyclopedic. It was my understanding that facts mentioned in the article need to be verifiable, not necessarily each one independently cited. Each of those facts regarding the workplaces can be backed up with an appropriate source. The list of businesses and organizations can be backed up, in the short-term by first person narratives, which I know are not the type of source allowable. With more time in the library etc.. could absolutely come up with official city records etc.. for each one. In the meantime, I can delete those lists. The value that I saw them adding to the article is in 'showing, not telling' information to the reader about the neighborhood that existed. In any case, I've removed all the lists, and also that first line in the community section about the major employers. Thank you for the feedback!ClarityKTMpls (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * fyi, looks like it's pretty close to me but keep in mind that it is not required for an article to be NPOV to exist - existence requires only notability and verifiability. When you get comments about NPOV, hopefully the crew at Articles for Creation is being clear that they're helping you to create a high-quality article, not an article that meets the minimum standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia (AfC is a bit controversial lately about that - see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)&oldid=820422591#AFC_discussion_summaries_and_moving_forward). Also, it's easier to create a small article limited to the most important citations and a summary of how it's important which demonstrate notability - that helps avoid the essay feel. Unnecessary words don't really help. II  | (t - c) 23:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That is very helpful! I had been thinking the opposite, that it was important to try and do justice to the subject initially and then the nth degree of references could be added (by me or other editors of course) (along with content changes etc..) once that was in place.
 * Your comments really help me understand the challenges I've been up against, much appreciated!
 * I'll re-read it once more and tighten it up a bit again, and then will submit! Gratefully ClarityKTMpls (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going through the draft now doing basic-level copyediting: comma splices, dead urls, citation information, etc. Some global changes I'm notating with a link to the relevant MOS documentation, e.g., changing curly quotes to straight. I couldn't find documentation for not putting quotes around  and   values, but I linked to the examples in Template:Cite. --Thnidu (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

, I'm having trouble with this sentence:
 * Bridges over I-94 include Lexington at the western boundary of Rondo, Victoria Avenue and Dale Avene and then Western Avenue, close to the eastern boundary of Rondo.

"X includes Y and Z" means that Y and Z are in X, along with W and maybe others that aren't mentioned. If you're giving the whole set, you can use So if the sentence means what I think it means, it would also be clearer to separate the bridges with semicolons:
 * Lexington evidently is a bridge; is it a part of Lexington Avenue?
 * Victoria Avenue and Dale Avenue: Are these also bridges, or are they part of the location of Lexington, along with the western boundary of Rondo?
 * X comprises Y and Z.
 * X consists of Y and Z.
 * The parts [or whatever word fits the case] of X are Y and Z.
 * Y and Z make up X.
 * and so on.
 * Bridges over I-94 include: Lexington Avenue, at the western boundary of Rondo; Victoria Avenue; Dale Avenue; and Western Avenue, close to the eastern boundary.

I hope this helps. --Thnidu (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is a great suggestion! I spent a lot of time on all of this, at some points unfortunately it - my tiredness - shows. You are understanding exactly, I'll change the text per your suggestion. Also thanks for your other changes, all much appreciated!ClarityKTMpls (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)wording edit ClarityKTMpls (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * On rereading this after a break, I realized
 * that I had kept the word "include" in my recommendation after saying it was inappropriate
 * but that it probably is quite correct!
 * I was so closely focused on Rondo as you described it that it didn't occur to me that there are certainly other bridges over I-94. How about:?
 * Rondo has four bridges over I-94: Lexington Avenue, at the western boundary of Rondo; Victoria Avenue; Dale Avenue; and Western Avenue, close to the eastern boundary.
 * ("Western Avenue, close to the eastern boundary" — ooh, that's strange! but I assume its name relates to some part of St. Paul that was more central, or considered more important, or something like that. Anyway, that's just my punster reaction, and there's nothing wrong with the phrase.)
 * Would it make sense to have or link to a map of St. Paul showing where Rondo is/was?
 * Regards, Thnidu (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * And another round...
 * One more thing, and I hope it's the last I notice: There are a lot of red author links in the References section, and I think most of them are unnecessary. Please see WP:Red link. --Thnidu (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, but as you are working on the bridge topic, I realize it isn't clear to someone perhaps who isn't from the area that I'm talking about the bridges that cross what had been Rondo only! But that's why I mentioned the two borders of Rondo. There are other bridges outside of those 4, but those 4 are the ones within Rondo.

I'll work on the redlinks.. thank you!ClarityKTMpls (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, what do you think about this:
 * Four bridges over I-94 connect the two halves of what had been Rondo neighborhood: Lexington Avenue, at the western boundary of Rondo; Victoria Avenue; Dale Avenue; and Western Avenue, close to its eastern boundary.

That's what I ended up with. Open to your suggestions! And yes, I'm actually working on a map as well - great idea! Thank you!ClarityKTMpls (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing
Can you be paid to edit Wikipdia? Thegooduser  talk  02:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is possible, but if you are a paid editor you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to declare who is paying you. Please read WP:PAID, the paid editing policy, to learn more. Reading WP:COI about conflict of interest is good for you to do as well. You also should be aware that it will be difficult for you to guarantee anything to a client about the content of the page, as anyone can edit it. You should probably use Articles for Creation to create any article for a client. 331dot (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

How do you get paid for editing? Thegooduser  talk  02:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not the expert on that. I only know that paid editors must comply with the policies that I mentioned. 331dot (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , Wikipedia itself does not pay any Editors – we're nearly all volunteers helping to build an Encyclopaedia in our own time merely because we want to. You yourself will have to find somebody in the Real World who is willing to pay you to write an article, usually about themself or their Company/Band/Charity/Whatever. This usually does not end well, because
 * (a) Someone like you who evidently knows little about Wikipedia's policies and workings (or you wouldn't need to ask in the first place) will find it very difficult to write any article in acceptable form – it's one of the hardest things to do here. (FWIW, I myself used to be a professional editor of secondary-level (printed) textbooks, and I don't consider myself to be up to the task yet.)
 * (b) Such people and/or their companies are usually not Notable in the Wikipedia sense, so any attempted article about them is bound to fail the criteria and be deleted.
 * (c) Such a client usually wants the article to contain only what they want to be said about them, but this is not possible: anyone else will also be able to edit it and can insert anything that can be found in Reliable Sources, bad as well as good (or indifferent) – read up on the Streisand Effect.
 * (d) The subject of an article has no control over the contents, and is strongly discouraged from editing it themself, although they are allowed to make suggestions on its Talk page, which unconnected editors may or may not choose to include.
 * (e) Except for completely uncontrovertial facts, only information found in Reliable Sources completely unconnected to them (which excludes their blogs, their websites, statements in interviews, press releases, etc.) can be included; anything that they or others know, or that they tell you, that has not been published in a Reliable Source cannot be included.
 * Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There's an interesting discussion (winding down now after a week or more) about paid editing blowing up (figuratively speaking) in an editor's face: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. – Athaenara ✉  06:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You ask can one be paid to edit Wikipedia, and the answers above tell you that under certain conditions at this time, yes you can. But think about this: Can one be paid to sing? The answer is of course yes. But the applicable question really is, "Can one market their singing?" That is much more difficult to accomplish, requiring native talent, much hard work, years of practice and a considerable amount of lucky breaks. However, unfortunately for one enquiring, a more on point analogy might be, "Can one be paid to have sex?" Again, the answer is yes. But then there are those pesky moral and legal issues to deal with, aren't there? These two analogies illustrate what one embarking on a path of editing Wikipedia for pay is really looking at. John from Idegon (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I can not comprehend
Hello and good morning: I don't understand why the page has been deleted there were only facts of the artist. Would you please be so kind to teach me what I am doing wrong.

Thank you very much, Tita for Jorge LeanzaJorgeleanza (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you had created a user page here: User:Jorgeleanza. User pages are not there for you to write facts about other people. They are there so that you could tell other Wikipedia editors what do you want to do on Wikipedia as a volunteer editor: what topics interest you, what editing skills you have, what languages you speak so that you can help with sources, etc.


 * You probably wanted to write a Wikipedia article about someone instead. That should be done in the article space. Even there, it's not enough that you "only [write] facts" about the topic. There are a whole lot considerations, beginning with the question: is this topic suitable for Wikipedia to begin with?. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I am most appreciated of your kindness Finnusertop, Best Regards, Jorgeleanza (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Table Information - Sorting
I have seen tables in Wikipedia with information in them containing dates and other forms of information, but do not know if they should go in descending or ascending order. I want to edit consistently, but cannot find if there is a best practice for this. Can you help? FULBERT (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi FULBERT. It varies. Alphabetical is always ascending. Dates are usually ascending. Something sorted by size is usually descending. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Does this mean if it includes information over a number of years, it would be oldest year on the first row, and then the next one, etc., like 2014, 2015, 2016, etc? FULBERT (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the most common. I'm guessing more than 90% do it like that. There may be topics with another practice. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Will make at least my own editing more consistent FULBERT (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be worth mentioning that you can allow tables to be user-sortable on one or more columns, just like a spreadsheet. You can even start offf by putting the data in a non-alphanumeric order (for example, in taxonomic order for a list of species) but then allow the user to sort by one or more columns in that table.  By starting off in a non-alphanumeric order, a user can return to that original arrangement simply by refreshing the page. See this exampe I built: List of species and habitats of principal importance in England, and for guidance, seee Help:Table. For detailed style and accessibility guidance, see MOS:TABLES and MOS:DTT, respectively. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit History Statistics
Hi! I just had a little question about statistics. Was wondering if there is a way to find page statistics from a past version of a page - for example, the statistics of a page, say, from a year ago, using Edit Counter or a similar resource. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec

Thanks! Sturgeontransformer (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello -  welcome.  Yes,  you  can get page visit stats as far back as July 2015 for any article, say Environmental racism in Europe  which I  see you've been editing recently. Open the View History tab at the  top of the page and then, about four lines down from the top below the title you'll see a line of links. One of  them  is Page View Statistics. This takes you to the wmf tool which displays hits for the last week or  so. (see here)
 * At the top right of that page you can change the start/end date for analysis, going right back  to  2015,which yields this result. Major peaks in traffic can be caused from anything like media news coverage of a topic,to a submission to "Did You Know...?". You can put your mouse on a single day and see the count - though you will need to select a shorter date period for this function to  work than 2015-2018. Unfortunately what this tool doesn't supply is the functionality of things like Google Analytics which shows traffic in and out, time on site, and depth of  travel. With 5.5 million pages here that'd probably  be too much to hope for.Nick Moyes (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! One thing I was also curious about: on the Edit Counter tool, they have really great info on content contributions, aka what percentage of text was contributed by each editor. I was curious if this can also be set back in time--for example, if it's possible to see what the text contributions by percentage and edit count for each user on a specific article were, say, a year ago. This might be asking too much of the system, but I'm curious!


 * Once again, I appreciate the assistance! Sturgeontransformer (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure of the answer to that. Maybe others do? There are quite a few tools at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ that I've not really explored, and for lovers of other stats there's also a host of useful links at Statistics. Regarding your specific question:
 * Using an example I mentioned in another post today, I did a lot of work some while back on this article: Mont Blanc massif.
 * This tool shows you a summary of that article, and all the editors who've worked on it, and various reports showing when it was worked on the most.
 * This tool shows you one editor's contribution early on in the history of that page.
 * This tool shows you just my own contrbutions to that same article over time. (See if you can determine when I was working flat out to try get it from List status up to Featured Article standard. (it hasn't quite made it there yet, though))
 * It is then easy to copy each person's table of contributions to that article and drop them into a spreadsheet, put an identiying name against each person's contributions and then sort them either chronologically, or by size of contribution (plus or minus). So you would then be able to sum up the contributions of just the people you'd selected, either in total or over a set time frame. I'm sure you could play around and plot that data more visually within the spreadsheet if you wished. Maybe there is a tool that does this all more elegantly, but it's the nearest I can get to answering your question. I certainly don't think I've a great need for it myself though! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, sounds good! I appreciate the recommendation for tallying up the statistics - that sounds like the best option! And nice work with the Mont Blanc massif article - looks great! :) Regards, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * But take note, and, that the character-change figure, plus or minus, is a  net figure. If someone replaces the text of a 5000-character section with 4980 characters of totally different text, the history page will only show "-20". You can't safely evaluate an edit without looking at the diff. --Thnidu (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note - in that case, for long-term archival purposes of documenting authorship, I then figure taking large numbers of screenshots of diffs after major edits would be good practice. Thanks, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * And further to this, I figure that better than screenshots would be to "Save Page As" from one's browser to download copies of the diffs, which (if archived using an independent backup like iDrive or similar software) would save the diff pages offline. I know...I've just been really interesting in the subject of archiving recently! Sturgeontransformer (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something here, why would you bother to do that? Yes, you could save any article's history page as a single .MHT file in Internet Explorer for later reference offline. But why, when you have the article history avialble to you here on Wikipedia. (it will never go away). If you want more than the maximum 500 edits shown in View History, just go to the url in the browser and change 500 to, say, 5000 like  this:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&offset=&limit=5000&action=history
 * But your way would certainly work. Personally, I despise anyone interested in archiving - these people really get my backup! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Publishing a first-time article - next step and communication and feedback
Hi. I'm trying to post my first Wiki article which is currently sitting in my sandbox. In fact, it's been sitting there for more than four days and I was just wondering about the simplest way to post it and what else I need to do. Is there someone to submit it to or get feedback from? Seems there are a lot of rules and hurdles standing in my wa.

Thanks,

Octopus69Octopus69 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is promotional since it is essentially a CV. If moved to mainspace, it would be deleted. Articles should cite reliable sources and stick to only facts verified by the sources. If substantial amounts of good source material don't exist on this individual, it would not be appropriate for an article to be written about them. If it does, you'll need to cite those and make the article neutral in tone and content. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, I'd note that starting a new article is one of the more challenging things we do. I always recommend new editors start with editing existing articles, and get some experience under their belt so they understand how things are done here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Inline Citation Help
Good morning! I have a question further regarding the rejection of a reviewed article due to inline citations. My article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ramon_Ruiz_Cestero, was said to "[include] material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations". Does this mean that some of my key sentences are not cited, even though they require it? I do not believe that my article includes any quotations or contentious material, and it is a biography about a deceased person. My only supposition is that I did cite a book written by the subject; it was used mainly for reference as to the publishing date and content description. If this is the case, would the fact that the book was published by the Puerto Rican government not make a difference as to source reliability? Thank you! Mackenzie I Page (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, welcome to our Teahouse. Because you've used references that aren't online, I can't really comment on how well they support your article. But to my eye the only problem is that you have included some fairly minor detais which aren't supported at all by inline sources, which could be challenged.e.g. the paragraph on his burial. One trick I've used is to print out the page and, with a highlighter pen, mark every separate factual statement. Then look carefully to see if each one does indeed have a supporting reference. Fix these small issues and you should be good to resubmit. Hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I add a comma to a title page?
Having created a page for St Wilfrid's School in Exeter I realise is should have put St Wilfrid's School, Exeter but didn't include the comma. Is there a way I can correct the title at this stage? Thank you.Mynicol (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You will need to Move the page to a new title. ~ GB fan 19:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I assume I need to ask for this to be done. Is it something you can do for me?Mynicol (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I have moved the page correctly. Am I right that it will show up twice, under the old title and the corrected one and is if so is there a way to delete the wrong one?Mynicol (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The page for the old title exists merely as a redirect to the new title, and it ought to remain (as a redirect from a credible alternative). --David Biddulph (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Getting around " character in | = at position n"
One of the references in my draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Positive_displacement_pipette) contains an error. Under reference #4, it says, "line feed character in |title= at position 44." The help section says that I can fix the error by changing the problem character. But if I change the character, this will break the link in the reference. Is there a way to remove this error and keep the link as is?

Thank you. Cglife.bmarcus (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Removing the line feed from the title parameter does not break the reference. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Having removed the line feed from the title, I also replaced a number of non-breaking space characters from your draft, to comply with MOS:NBSP. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability - Draft:Killer_Networking
Hello all,

New Wikipedia creator here. I currently work for an agency and have been asked to create a Wikipedia page for one of our clients. Now, that being said, I perfectly understand the risks of biases in this situation but have been asked to try nonetheless. I have developed and submitted a Wikipedia page for review but (to no surprise on my end) was rejected for approval.

What I believe to be the biggest reason for my rejection (correct me if I'm wrong), would be due to the lack of what Wikipedia refers to as "High Quality Content" in relation to the subject (Killer Networking).

Barring the standard "Why did my article get rejected?" question, is Killer Networking "notable" enough to even write a Wikipedia article about? The majority of content is either product reviews or very high level company history.

Any advice or suggestions that you all can provide would be greatly helpful as this is quite the daunting task. If you think, given my relationship to the client, that there is little to no chance of approval, I will seek a different route.

Mullenoverit (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's dicey at the level best. The key element to notability is WP:GNG, which holds that a subject needs to have "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources: this being extensive coverage of the subject (not merely quotes from employees, product reviews, press releases, mentions on blogs or namedrops) in high quality media sources, further affected by WP:ORG, the company-specific guideline.  I'm not seeing any news sources that qualify, and doubt that an article about the company would survive a deletion discussion. Indeed, you being instructed to create an article for the company is a serious drawback per WP:COI (that being said, thank you for your integrity in disclosing this), and such articles receive especial scrutiny, but I don't believe an entirely neutral editor would have any more luck.  If you feel you can, please do relay to your supervisors our guidelines, and that establishing the notability of a company under them is a prerequisite to creating an article about it.    Ravenswing   22:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I become a paid editor?Skylie74 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I would like to become a paid contributor for Wikipedia. How do I go about doing this?Skylie74 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please give up this idea,.
 * If you mean, how can I get paid by Wikipedia to edit, the answer is You can't. Period. Wikimedia has a very few paid staff, and some of them may be editors of Wikipedia in their spare time, but nobody is paid by Wikimedia or Wikipedia to edit.
 * If you mean, how can I find somebody else who will to pay me to edit Wikipedia, there are people who do so, but I neither know nor care how they find their stooges. People who pay other people to edit Wikipedia almost always want it edited to benefit themselves, not to benefit Wikipedia, and so are intending to break the policy on WP:promotion. Paid editing is not forbidden, but it is discouraged and subject to restrictions: please see Paid editing. Personally, I would prefer that it was forbidden, except that I recognise that that would just drive the trade underground, which would be worse. --ColinFine (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Read the answers to the nearly identical query ten above this one, entitled Editing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse, Skylie74! As to your question, the truth is that Wikipedia is a non-profit effort maintained by volunteer editors; we do this because we enjoy helping build the world's largest encyclopedia, not for gain.  It's true that some people get others to pay them for creating articles, but since Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes, those articles draw a high degree of scrutiny and likewise are more often deleted than otherwise for failing to meet our notability standards, especially since many editors seeking pay for working on Wikipedia are inexperienced.  WP:COI is the guideline governing such conflict of interests editing, and I strongly urge you to look it over, as well as the links already posted to your talk page.   Ravenswing   00:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Table Width Editing
Hello,

I'm working on redoing a list using template:alum in my sandbox here, but some entries don't have the table fill the width of the page, such as in the Business and Education sections at the top. What am I doing wrong?

Thanks, Jmnbqb (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to mess around with my sandbox again, so here is the version in case it gets changed to something else in my editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jmnbqb/sandbox&oldid=820844979 Jmnbqb (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not a template with which I'm familiar, but it looks as if you can get a consistent width by using the AlumniStart option, but apparently not if you use alum/start to include images. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there another way of manually adjusting the table width to fit a full screen? I would like to keep the pictures on the page. Jmnbqb (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Is an Independent Research Group worthy of mention?
Good morning Mr. Cullen,

My name is Diego Antolini and I am writing about an article I would like to create and submit for review by the Wiki administrators. The article relates to an Independent Research Group based in Italy but active at an international level since 2003. Their researches pertain to Unexplained Phenomena as well as Hidden History and Esoteric lore. The group has been mentioned in Italian newspapers and in some articles online. Would it be appropriate to write about this group without promoting people or business, but just as a way to let Wiki readers know about their research and their purpose to help humanity know what official sources usually don't disclose? Thank you for your attention Best Regards Diego AntoliniDiego Antolini (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to the TeaHouse.  Cullen is one of many volunteers here; I will try to answer your question and other people might chip in as well.  The question of which organisations are suitable for a Wikipedia article is called "Notability" here, and it is determined by the extent of independent coverage (media, etc.) about the subject.  The essentials are covered in this article - the subject must have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic."  There are also more specific criteria for organizations at Notability.  So start by collecting your source material, then confirm whether they rise to this standard: that will be your answer. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * please note that "to let Wiki readers know about" something is specifically not part of the purpose of Wikipedia, and indeed will usually be construed as promotion. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which somebody unconnected with the subject has already chosen to tell the world about. --ColinFine (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . One man's research group on fringe theories is another man's bunch of nutcases. Either way, that group would only be notable in Wikipedia terms if it has been written about, in depth, by independent sources, be it in favourable or unfavourable terms. Be aware: your use of the phrase ...let Wiki readers know about their research and their purpose to help humanity know what official sources usually don't disclose is of concern to me. This sounds like you are dangerously close to assuming you can use Wikipedia to push a personal agenda and promote conspiracy theories. You can't. That must be left to the books you already write and the websites you contribute to. Please see this policy on the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all your useful comments. I will do my homeworks in preparing the article before submitting it for review. Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego Antolini (talk • contribs) 09:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Antonio Serravalle professional racing driver
Antonio Serravalle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio serrravalle (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What was your question about editing Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Reason of rejected article review
CrimsonTR (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Hi, I just created a draft page and submitted to review.

A user called David.moreno72 rejected my submission.

I would like to know the real reason about this rejection.

I gave a notable reference for this content but he said it's not notable. Can you explain the situation to me?

Murat CrimsonTR (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Good morning, CrimsonTR, and welcome to the Teahouse. I just looked over your draft, and you *were* given the real reason.  The reference you gave (and you need to give multiple references) did not meet our standards, because it's not independent of the subject; the website of his own company can't be used to support his notability.  Several links to various pertinent policies and guidelines were posted both to your talk page and the draft page, and I strongly urge you review them before proceeding.  Good fortune!   Ravenswing   13:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

creating new article when old sandbox exists
Sorry everyone but I can't find the answer to my question anywhere. Simply put, I'm looking for a fresh sandbox page. I created and published an article successfully. Would like to begin work on another, in my sandbox so that I can edit as needed. However when I go to my sandbox my first article appears. I am afraid to delete the content in fear of affecting the published page, and even if I did I can't figure out how to re-title it. Further, I no longer have a "save" button, instead all I get is a "publish" button. I need time to edit before I even think of publishing. Any advice will be much appreciated. Thanks! Butch

UnlikelySailor (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have the answers to both of your concerns.

1. Your sandbox is here. It only redirects to the article because it was moved there. Simply delete the redirect (remove all text in your sandbox page) and start fresh. 2. WMF recently changed the "Save" button to the "Publish" button. Do not worry; this has caused confusion among many editors, but they are the same thing. I hope I helped. if you have any further questions, please feel free to ask me or the Teahouse.  JTP (talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * To clarify the answer above. You need to make sure that you are actually on your sandbox page where the redirect is, rather than on the page to which you are redirected. If you go to User:UnlikelySailor/sandbox you will get redirected to Reese Palley, but at the top it says "(Redirected from User:UnlikelySailor/sandbox)", and clicking on the blue link there will take you to the link that NotTheFakeJTP gave you.  That is the page where you can delete the redirect & (if you like) start with a new draft.  You can, of course,have as many userspace drafts as you like, rather than just one named "/sandbox".  You can create User:UnlikelySailor/WhateverArticleTitleYouLike. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * UnlikelySailor, I fixed that for you: User:UnlikelySailor/sandbox is ready to go as before. 50.0.136.78 (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Newbie editor looking for resources to improve editing skills
Hi, I am very new to editing on wikipedia. Just curious if there is any online resource that could help me better my skills at editing on wikipedia. ThanksMouneshwar (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Welcome, if you haven't already seen them, then WP:PRIMER and Introduction would be a good place to start for some basic information. You could also take The Wikipedia Adventure for a more practical learning experience. Kosack (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Multivariate quadratic random number generator
I reviewed Draft:Multivariate quadratic random number generator at AFC and advised the author to request a review at WP:WikiProject Computing or WP:WikiProject Mathematics. User:Carvalhol1998 has asked me what the details of the procedure are for requesting a review at either of these projects. I don’t see any specific way to request an AFC review other than by posting a note to the talk page (which is the usual way to request anything in Wikipedia). Can other experienced editors please look at the draft and offer advice? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi it's probably the simplest if you, as the last AFC reviewer would post such requests for WikiProject assistance/evaluation. Expecting the newbie draft author to do so is imho a bit unreasonable. As a semi-regular AFC reviewer myself I've quite often posted such requests to WikiProjects. BTW I usually find Mathematics replies quite quickly, while Computing is not as responsive. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

heading
How to change the heading of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname479 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm assuming you mean the title of the article. If so, this can't be edited in the same way that the rest of the page can but must be done by performing a page move. See WP:Moving a page for a guide to this. Kosack (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They may also be referring to the lede section. If that is the case,, click the main "edit" tab on top and this will allow you to edit the lede (along with everything else in the article). -A la d insane  (Channel 2)  15:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As the user is not Autoconfirmed they cannot move pages, so if that is what they want, they need to apply at Requested moves - Arjayay (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Pictures
How to add or change pictures in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname479 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|20px]] To use an image on Wikipedia, follow these steps:


 * 1) Ascertain carefully the copyright status of the image. If in doubt, ask. As a rule of thumb, images that you did not take yourself are almost always under copyright, and images that you took can be released under a free license.
 * 2) If the image is in the public domain, or under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons' license requirements, or if you hold the copyrights and are willing to release the image under such a license, upload it on Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard.
 * 3) If the image is neither public domain nor available under a free license, check whether it satisfies all non-free content criteria. In particular, photographs of living people almost never qualify. If it does not, it cannot be used on Wikipedia; do not upload it. If it does, upload it on Wikipedia (not on Wikimedia Commons).
 * 4) Once the image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers (either to Commons or Wikipedia), follow the steps in the picture tutorial to place the image in an article.


 * An additional note – Please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: [[Image:Signature_icon.png]], but do not sign in articles.
 * Hope this helps, feel free to stop by if you have any other questions. Happy editing! –FlyingAce✈hello 16:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What do the green and red numbers mean?
What do the green and red numbers mean that are next to your contributions? EmberPro (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Welcome; those numbers are somewhat helpful when we scan the many changes to our many articles. Red, with a - minus sign, means you made the article smaller by removing something. Green, with a + plus sign, means you made it bigger. Obviously these are not the same as making it better or worse, since the numbers are applied by a robot who doesn't know what good writing is. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi EmberPro, welcome to the Teahouse. The numbers specifically show how much the page size changed in bytes. See Added or removed characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Foreign language sources
If I am questioning the notability of an article and an editor adds a source in another language, is that acceptable? Or should I suggest the article be merged to the foreign-language wiki? Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. You'll find the relevant advice at WP:NOENG. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just wasn't sure exactly where to look. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 17:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft similar to existing article (different content) rejected - why?
Hi there,

I've recently submitted a draft article that was rejected, and the feedback from the kind reviewer Robert McClenon was: "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Ryerson University. This draft doesn't make the case for a separate article on the faculty or department. The references are not independent, but, even if they were, there is already an article on the university."

This is my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Faculty_of_Communication_and_Design_(FCAD)

I am wondering if someone could help me understand how to make the draft worthy of being its own article. I took a look at an article for another Ryerson faculty and it doesn't appear horribly dissimilar to mine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Rogers_School_of_Management), and also uses non-independent sources, so I suppose I'm struggling to understand why that page's content is article-worthy while my draft is not. I could add a list of notable alumni of the faculty, would that help?

Any assistance is hugely appreciated - thanks in advance! And apologies if I'm missing something obvious, I'm new to Wiki. ThomasEng (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention.
 * "What about article x?" is rarely useful in arguing against the deletion or rejection of an article. Each article must stand on its own merits. The article you are comparing your draft to might be equally unsuitable for Wikipedia and eligible for deletion.
 * The sources you give do not adequately demonstrate that this body is notable enough. The links to Ryerson websites are primary sources and won't count to establishing notability. The other links contain only brief, passing mentions and do not have the required depth of coverage to be satisfactory.
 * WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, a subsection of Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, says "Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field. Separate articles on law schools and medical schools are being kept."
 * Unless you can provide multiple independent sources that discuss FCAD in depth, then unfortunately it's not worthy of a standalone article. Sorry. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Procedure for asking neutral evaluation of an RfC result?
I'm not sure if there's a more appropriate forum for this question, so I thought I'd ask here. I've recently been involved in a (somewhat impassioned) RfC which was recently closed as stale. (I can be more specific if anyone wants, but I'm trying to keep the description general for the sake of my question). When I tried to reopen the RfC, another editor reverted it and suggested that there was no need to reopen it. However, given that there have been multiple RfCs and arguments about the matter before, I feel like it would be best if a neutral third party of some kind (an admin, maybe?) were to take a look and evaluate the consensus so that the matter can be laid to rest.

Is there some kind of procedure for going about asking this? Some kind of forum? Gimubrc (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not looked through your contributions to understand the exact situation, but in your hypothetical scenario, you should have started by asking whoever closed it as "stale" to explain the closure and/or revert it. If you still think afterwards that the closure was done out of process (which is not the same as wrong on the content), you can escalate it to user conduct forums such as WP:ANI, but there is no way that I know to "appeal" an RfC result based purely on content.
 * Most likely though, the RfC was actually stale (i.e. no participation and no clear consensus). In this case, you can open a new one (not reopen a closed one); but of course you should make the options more clear, the statement less polemic, or whatever else, to ensure it does not fail the same way. (Just to be perfectly clear: this applies to stale RfCs; you don't get to open a new RfC immediately after one that did not end the way you wished; if the closer marked it as "stale" but the closing statement points to a partial consensus, that partial consensus is established.) Tigraan Click here to contact me 19:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The RfC was closed by a bot, and when I undid it, another user reverted my revert as I mentioned in the original post. Regarding evaluation: while it's true that I voted on the RfC in question, I simply wanted some kind of third party to give an official word on the matter so it could be definitively laid to rest (whether or not I agreed with the finding). At any rate, another involved user has apparently opened a request at WP:ANRFC, so I'll just wait for it to be resolve there. Thank you for taking the time to provide an explanation to me. Gimubrc (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"You've got mail"
I've received this message, and seen the mail, but I don't know how to answer it. How do you send mail to a Wikipedian? I tried WP:Mail and Help:Mail, but neither page exists.

The user gafiated 3½ years ago, leaving a large angry announcement on their user page and a fierce insistence that the username not be allowed for anyone else to use. Their talk page has more recent exchanges, though, and apparently they are back after a block, then an unblock about a year ago.

I left a message pinging them on my own talk page. But what's with the mail business? Please me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , on the user's talk page, mid-way in the left-hand column under "Tools" there is the facility to "Email this user". There is no guarantee that the e-mail link will still be valid, or a message read, but you can try it.  I assume that they used this facility to contact you.   Dbfirs  22:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If the user has e-mailed you,, then that message will be in the inbox of the e-mail associated with your account. You can answer by replying if you want, but note that that will reveal your e-mail address to the other user. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, comrades. I think I'll continue correspondence with User:Acagastya, if at all, via my own Talk page. --Thnidu (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the standard practice. Apologies for misunderstanding.  When Wikipedia says "You've got mail" they actually mean "someone has left a message on your talk page".  ( Confusing, like when "publish" just means "save". )   D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  22:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

denial for "notability and coverage"
My question is this. I have just submitted a Biography Article. It is very short with a few sentences and was rejected for lack of "notability and coverage". The fact is that Bill Eager has authored 10 books and most notably the very first book ever written about the Internet called Using the Internet in 1993. That would feel to be notable. Second is "coverage" and with articles and quotes in Forbes, USA Today and the Denver Business Journal that also feels like "coverage". Can you tell me a next step? Williameager (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . The articles and things you are talking about sound reliable. You will just have to reference them in your draft to prove Eager is notable. If you do that it's likely the draft will be much longer than a few sentences anyway. By the way, if you are Eager like your username suggests, you should either disclose that and/or work with another editor to make sure you write neutrally, because Wikipedia articles can't promote somebody. People often have a hard time writing neutrally about themselves. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 22:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just adding to what has said,  I fear you have answered your own question. You say you've written a few short sentences. Your task is to find really good sources (not  brief  mentions) that are independent of the subject that talk about that person in depth in a way that meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability of people. None of what you've written gets anywhere near that, I'm afraid. Perhaps reading this would help you a bit Your first article. And if you're trying to create an article about yourself, please follow our requirements for declaring a conflict of interest, which you can read here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Having just taken a look, I'm pessimistic that Bill Eager is notable by Wikipedia standards as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A Google search turns up a flood of self-referential sites: his website, his LinkedIn page, his YouTube videos, Amazon links to his books, various self-promotional lecturer links, and name search sites like Spokeo and Intelius ... generally a hallmark of non-notability.  I only found a couple of news links, and none that weren't press releases, name drops or quotes from Eager in articles about something else.  To pass our notability standards, he must receive "substantial coverage" in multiple high quality independent sources.   Ravenswing   23:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, autobiographies are a bad idea. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I format an image to the left side of an article?
How do I format an image to the left side of an article? I've been improving an article, Neuburg Air Base, and I pulled an image of a ME-262 being built and it looks too far down on the page. How do I put it on the left side? Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Lord David, Duke of Glencoe, after |thumb add |left to move it across. For more on working with images, see MOS:IMAGES. NZFC  (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whilst could use this to reposition the image:  , this Manual of Styleguideline urges images to  be kept to the right undermost circumstances. Personally,I don't think the article in question is long enough to warrant the image being moved away from its default right placement.  Only when an article gets much longer need this be considered. (here's where I've used that tactic myself). We really should avoid trying to make layout changes that just make the page look nice in our own browsers unless it really helps enhance the article. In this instance I'd advise against it. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks all! Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Centering of text in a column
Hi, may I ask ye if there is any way of centering the text in one column the whole way down on Wikipedia, without the need of having to insert the "text-align:center" text on each row? --SportsAficionado (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Put  at the start of the text to be centered, and   at the end of it. Be aware that outside of some specialist cases like table cells, centered text is rarely going to be appropriate on Wikipedia; also be aware that it will mess up the formatting of any other elements within the piece to be formatted that rely on alignment (such as templates or images) so make sure you preview before you save. &#8209; Iridescent 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The simpler  center this  works.  173.228.123.83 (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add a Definition and examples of Transitional Art.
Transitional Art is the result of an invasion and the invading images are taken up within the local handicrafts. With examples from 1066 and all that ! Can you help me as last time I put it up...it was taken down..with no reasons given? Graham Francis Bacon (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi,, welcome to the Teahouse. Judging by your talkpage, Transitional art was proposed for deletion back in 2009 for the following reasons: Unremarkable unreferenced essay, no encyclopaedic content. If you can find reliable independent sources that talk about this topic in detail, you might well have some success in creating it again. But. judging by your rather esoteric remark about it above, I'm not sure you have the right approach to writing a neutral, encyclopaedic article about this subject (whatever it actually is). Probably this article might be  of  most help to you: WP:NOTABILITY and Creating your first article.  Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Since I am an administrator, I was able to read the article you wrote, which was deleted in December, 2009. I found it somewhat interesting but completely unsuitable for this encyclopedia for several reasons. An acceptable article must summarize what reliable sources say about "Transitional art". Your article began with "When cultures clash and images exchange, communicated and expressed within indigenous arts and handicrafts." That is not a complete sentence and does not define the topic. You mentioned a variety of art forms such as Native American art showing railroads and Afghan art showing AK47s. You included a lengthy quote from yourself. Although you included some URLs, you did not include any references that discussed transitional art as a topic or notable art genre. Much of your attempt at an article appeared to be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. My quick Google Books search did not find any coverage of the concept you were describing, but rather found that the word "transitional" and the word "art" appear together in a wide variety of contexts with no unifying theme emerging. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)