Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 385

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 380

←

Archive 383

→

Disambiguation tags in article titles

Many article titles include (what I'm calling here) a disambiguation tag: a word or a brief phrase in parentheses to distinguish this article from others that would otherwise have the same title. Some examples in the general area of entertainment are film, book, play.

Is there any standard for these, and if so where is it? How should an editor know whether to use "film" or "movie", "series" or "miniseries" or "mini-series" ... or one of the latter preceded by "television" or "TV" or "tv"? (That makes 3*3=9 a priori possibilities.) I've looked but without success. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first rule is that such a disambiguator is only added when it is needed. If there is only one Joe Bloggs with an article on Wikipedia, it is at Joe Bloggs but if there are several, they may be at Joe Bloggs (editor) or Joe Bloggs (politician). The second rule is not to get over-specific. If Joe Bloggs (author) uniquely identifies the subject, don't name the article Joe Bloggs (author of cat mysteries) Beyond that, it is a judgement call, and the title can always be changed if consensus to do so forms. I believe that "film" is generally preferred to "movie". In most cases "series" would be specific enough so "(TV series)" would be unneeded. Clarity is most important, followed by brevity, I would think. DES ^(talk) 23:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Thnidu. In addition to DES' excellent advice above about precision, many specific areas have internal naming conventions pages that go into the details of what parenthetical disambiguators one should use. For example, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) (WP:NCFILM) covers film, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) (WP:NCTV), covers TV, and so on. See Category:Wikipedia naming conventions. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel and Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you, comrades. --Thnidu (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Help for getting article approved

Draft:Smilyo Educational Charitable Society Is the article I am working on. Firstly I want to change the name / link of page to Smilyo and secondly I want to get it approved. Can u please help. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

1) get rid of blogs as sources and use only high quality sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight and make sure that most of the content is sourced to highly reliable sites with minimal content of non promotional nature sourced to the subject of the article and its affiliates. 2) get rid of the "hurdles" section. if the event is one that has been covered by the reliable sources, then include it in the History. 3) very likely you will want to get rid of the section on the design of the website as per the "hurdles" section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: I've noticed a couple of other problems.

Smilyo's mission is given momentum by a solitary idea that youth can bring positive change to their community if they are empowered through education.-- This is unsourced and sounds like advertising, so will probably need removing. See WP:SOAP about advertising not being allowed on Wikipedia.
In the Internships section, many is very vague wording; as this is sourced this can hopefully be replaced with specific statistics.

--Rubbish computer 15:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I am trying to resolve as per the suggestions. Meanwhile, the title Smilyo would have been more apt, so I have copied the text to Draft:Smilyo. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the hurdles section. Also replaced 'many' from the internships. I read that blogs are sometimes reliable sources and it all depends on the context in which it has been used. Can you please help me identify, which in my article can be considered as a reliable source and which can never be a reliable source. Regarding mission of an organisation also, what can be a reliable source for that? I read uncited mission statements on few ngo pages on WP so added this organisation's mission. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: The fact that something is on some articles does not make it acceptable: unfortunately, many Wikipedia articles are badly written or sourced. Generally to say what an organisation intends to do, it would be okay to use the organisation's own website. However, it would be preferable to talk about this as a stated aim, e.g. "Smilyo Educational Charitable Society states that..." rather than saying something that could be seen as less neutral, like "Its mission is..."

As for a reliable source, that would be, per WP:RELIABLE, a source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, more commonly a newspaper or other formal publication. Blogs are sometimes acceptable sources on Wikipedia but are usually seen as poor sources of information because they are self-published, and therefore much more likely to be biased or inaccurate. If you publish something yourself, this could mean nobody else checks its accuracy at all.

"Many" is still in the internships section. Are you working on it in your userspace? If so, this is perfectly acceptable. Rubbish computer 21:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I am working on Draft:Smilyo now. Please see the latest version there -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 21:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Another vital point to do with sources is having secondary sources: see WP:SECONDARY. These are sources that are entirely independent of the subject, such as a newspaper reporter talking about this charity because it is newsworthy, not because of any other reason, such as them being connected to it. Regards, Rubbish computer 21:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo:: It's good to see you working on it. The "Internships" section is still a bit vague: it would be preferable if you could use a specific number, e.g. "243 internships in 2014", if this is supported by the sources.

If you include news websites, make sure they aren't all local, per WP:NOTABILITY: the subject's overall impact on the world. Rubbish computer 21:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Rewording done for mission section. Will try to find source for intern numbers. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 21:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom and Rubbish computer:
Dear Capankajsmilyo: Your user name suggests that you have a personal involvement with Smilyo, and your user page (giving your name as Pankaj Jain) together with your draft article (listing Pankaj Jain as president) confirm it. That being the case, you should not be writing this article. Please see WP: Conflict of interest (often called COI for short). --Thnidu (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I change an image on the wiki page?

How do I change an image on the wiki page?Ronaldwan (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Ronaldwan, which article would you like to edit? Checkingfax (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ngee Ann Polytechnic. Ronaldwan (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! If the image you want to change it to is already on Wikipedia, you simply change the image URL to the one you want. If not, you'll have to upload the image you want to use. Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy first, though!

It's best to practice a bit if you're not sure what all the stuff in an image template is for. I've put a picture in your sandbox, feel free to experiment with it! --Ashenai (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!Ronaldwan (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ronaldwan, upload image(s) to the Wiki Commons then change the image name and captian to match your new image, or wikilink to the image. The image upload link is to your left if you're in Desktop view. Do you have images in mind? Checkingfax (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Citation for June McCarroll page

While adding more detail for the June McCarroll page, I found several parts have been marked "unreliable source." One, in specific, is of her divorce from Timothy Hill. The newspaper article source I had only listed a one-sentence notice. The citation has been marked unreliable due to not being long enough, although I quoted the full notice. How do I get this to be marked as "reliable source"?? Also, her parents' listings at Findagrave are also listed as "unreliable" despite the fact the images of their stones are there. How do I get these to be approved as "reliable"? Thanks for helping for a newbie. Otrbug (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC) June McCarroll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Otrbug: Hi and welcome to the TeaHouse!

I don't see the divorce citation being marked for "questionable reliability" - it is marked with a request for a "full citation" as the footnote appears to be lacking an article title and page number.

The "find a grave" is marked for questionable reliability and content source to there should be removed- while once widely used the consensus now is that the site generally lacks the editorial oversight required for a reliable source . Also claims sourced to familysearch.org and to primary source documents like birth certificates etc will need to be removed. familysearch.org is user generated content . Note that Wikipedia is not like writing for anywhere else. All we do is compile what others have written. We do not "put pieces together".

I will ping @Imzadi1979 (public) and Imzadi1979: who added the notes to see if they have anything more specific to add. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please help me understand why my draft was rejected.

On August 22, I created a draft for an entry on professional wrestler Matt Riviera, an accomplished wrestler and promoter who has also been a cast member on two reality television shows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matt_Riviera

It was just declined on the grounds of the subject not being notable and I don't understand why. If I messed up on the references, okay, that can be fixed. But what more does the guy have to accomplish in order to be "notable?"

Can someone please help me understand.

COPrimeaux (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @COPrimeaux:

In order for there to be a stand alone article about a topic, the specific subject of the article must meet basic criteria outlined here. Reliable sources not related to the subject must have discussed the subject in a significant way. Professional Wrestlers would also fall under the special criteria at WP:ENT.

And note that it cannot just be you stating "He's famous!", the claims must be Verifiable as having been previously published in a reliable source -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't just me saying "Hey, he's famous." I'm asking what are the objective qualifications for notability in this case.COPrimeaux (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with wrestling and its sources, but looking at the list most do not seem appropriate, for example fansites/blogs and IMDB. There appear to be a couple of local papers which would generally satisfy for verification of non controversial facts, but to establish notability you would need coverage in major metro regionals or nationals. The ProWrestling Illustrated is probably a good source, but the link doesnt go to the article so it is impossible to verify whether there is significant coverage of the subject.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, COPrimeaux!

You have a good start of an article. Look for more sources that have substantial written information about Matt Riviera (rather than just listing his name in a directory format).

Good luck!

Prosekc (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair use

Can I upload pictures from National Geographic website, by reducing their size and mentioning the source under Fair Use criteria? Action Hero 11:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Without examples it's difficult to say for certain, but I would be surprised if such images passed the first of the Fair Use criteria; that is to say, no free equivalent could exist. It seems unlikely that NG have images of things that no-one else could possibly take a photograph of. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean; it can be used only for those articles-without any images? Action Hero 11:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No; I mean that if a free photo of the thing shown in the picture could be taken, we can't use it under Fair Use. For example, the NG homepage has a picture of a chameleon on it - since Wikimedia Commons already contains many free pictures of chameleons (and even if it didn't, there's no reason you couldn't go down to your local zoo and take a snapshot of one), free alternatives are readily available. Non-free images can only be used on Wikipedia if and only if no free alternative picture of the subject could exist. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

To be acceptable, under Fair Use, the image woul need significant third party commentary about that specific image from Nation Geographic. Afghan Girl is acceptable use because there has been lots of discussion in reliable sources about that image. However that image cannot be used under "Fair use" in an article about green eyes or Afghanistan because the specific discussion about that particular image would be out of scope for those articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Also note that "fair use" is a copyright law doctrine. Wikipedia's non-free content criteria are actually more strict than "fair use".--ukexpat (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

ContentsVirginia 11:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear all, How do you get a nice little contents section up? Many thanks! Virginia Virginia 11:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginialharvey (talk • contribs)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not sure what you mean by "contents section". Are you asking about how to make a table of contents? Or do you just mean you'd like to know how to write an article? --Ashenai (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

For each page which has at least four headings, a table of contents (TOC) is automatically generated from the section headings. For details, see WP:TOC. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Help About Editing My Page Looks Good Like Other Celebs

How can i edit my article and showing live on google as an other celebs, becouse im also a new rapper wanna edit and upload my picture infront of my information? thank u wikipedia letter from Papist emce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papist emce (HQ) (talk • contribs) 15:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Unfortunately, unless you are already notable, I'm afraid you are not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. The subjects of all of our articles must have significant coverage in multiple major, independent, reliable sources. --Ashenai (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Papist emce (HQ), please be aware that any attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion is likely to be strongly resisted by many of the volunteers who are her to create an encyclopaedia - a summary of information which other people have already thought it worth writing about.

You appear to be trying to create an article in your user page: don't do that. Your user page is for sharing some information about you as a Wikipedia editor, and is not the place for creating articles. You are very strongly advised not to create an autobiography on Wikipedia, but if you insist on going ahead, you should use the Article wizard to create your draft somewhere where it can be reviewed. But first, as Ashenai and I have already indicated, you need to find the substantial, independent, reliable published sources about you which the entire article must be based on; and if you cannot find these, then it is a waste of your time and our time for you to try and write it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

language

I made a page in english nes Al-Atlal and there is a many pages about the same object(a famous arab song for Umm Kulthum) in many languages arabicالأطلال french, spanish........ how can link them with the english page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omianos1492 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Omianos1492. You can link to articles in other languages by picking "Add links" in the "Languages" section in the side tab. However, I must tell you that the article Al-Atlal is likely to be deleted unless you add some references to reliable published sources which talk about the song. All Wikipedia articles should be based almost 100% on reliable published sources, and an article with no references at all is very likely to be deleted. The sources do not have to be in English, but they must have been published somewhere reliable. Please see Referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Article references in foreign languages

Hello. I am writing articles about lesser known monuments in the area where I live (South Spain). Unfortunately the references that I would like to cite are in Spanish. Can I include them nevertheless? 83.58.17.242 (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @83.58.17.242:: Absolutely! If an equivalent English language source did exist, you should use that, but sources in ANY language are perfectly fine, and if a source only exists in Spanish, there's no problem using your Spanish sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources for more details on how to cite non-English sources. One thing you can do is provide a translation of the relevent passage in the footnote of the citation, which may help English speakers verify it. --Jayron 32 17:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Can someone help in making my page live asap

Hello, I have a page of Wiki, and I want to make it live asap. The page is of a very famous Indian Television Producer who have made his mark in the industry. Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sumeet_Mittal Please help me in making it liveShashank29 (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly there is no point in asking again the question that you asked 4 minutes earlier, so your duplicate request has been deleted.

Secondly, did you or Ankyth read the answers to your questions at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_382#Hello I have recently updated my page and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 382#Help my article publish?

Thirdly, is there any good reason why Draft:Sumeet Mittal should have priority over the 600 or so other articles in the queue awaiting review? As was said when the questions were asked a week ago, there is no deadline. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ankyth have created this page and I am collecting the information to update the page. The page is not for promotion, it is just to provide information about the ProducerShashank29 (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to help get it approved, you will be looking for reliably published, third-party sources that discuss the subject in a significant manner. Blog posts, entertainment gossip pages and PR firm promotions do not count. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Do established links restrict one's ability to revise an article?

I would like to make major revisions to "instrumental value," but the talk page warns [in 2008] against changing headers coming from linked articles. Should I take this warning seriously? Thanks.63.228.84.26 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 63.228.84.26. That editor hasn't been active since 2008, so do not worry too much. Before you change a header, simply check for incoming links to that section, and edit those links as well. There is a tool on the left side of the article called "What links here" to help you with that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

How to get help with user who deletes Speedy deletion tag on own page?

Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 02:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert them. Then, explain the speedy tag on their talk page, tell them why you nominated it, and ask them to not remove it! If they will not stop after multiple warnings, you can report them ~~to WP:AN3~~ to WP:AIV, see below (thanks for the correction!) The editor in question has apparently stopped reverting, though, so this shouldn't be necessary. --Ashenai (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Happy Attack Dog See the warning template series starting with {{Uw-speedy1}} and escalating: {{Uw-speedy2}}, {{Uw-speedy3}}, {{Uw-speedy4}}. If the user does not stop after a final warning, then report them for a block at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV). This is an everyday occurrence almost always done through this track. (This is not a matter for reporting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Ashenai; it's not that type of "content dispute".) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Happy Attack Dog:. I was just looking through your recent contribs to try to figure out which user you were having trouble with. What I found, among your contributions, is this warning you left for a long-experience Wikipedia user, who near as I can tell, created a redirect from an alternate spelling and nothing else. I'm not sure what was "inappropriate" about that, as your warning noted. You seem to be interested in new page patrolling and vandalism patrolling. Just a few tips: 1) Slow down and get it right: As that warning shows, it's easy to warn the wrong person, or for the wrong reasons, etc. There's nothing at Wikipedia that is so important it needs to be done so quickly that you get a false positive like that. This is doubly damaging as with new editors, you risk scaring them off from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has a documented problem with a declining editor base; it's things like this that drive people away more than anything else. 2) Similar to #1, warning templates are not your friend. Templates are easy, facile, and completely useless for helping other editors get better, which should be your first, last, and only goal. Essays like WP:DTTR are important because established editors, like the user you warned above, already know the rules. Engage them in conversation, and ask them what they are doing. New editors to find warnings confusing, obtuse, cold, and easily ignorable. Instead, explain the problem in natural language, be available to ask questions or elaborate. Even if you're warning someone for obvious, blatant, eggregious vandalism, it's not hard to type "Hey, this thing you did here, don't do it again or we will block you." Much more direct and obvious than the templates. Just some tips to avoid problems you are having. --Jayron 32 19:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Objection on secondery sources of the page Masuduzzaman

I made this page: Masuduzzaman. But your objection is: "no secondary sources, nothing to support the claim that he was "one of the leading poets of 1970's of Bangladesh" But this objection is not valid. Because Masuduzzaman published many poems in the newspapers, online news portals and he also published 3 volume of poetry books, so, please remove your objection. If you need, I can give ISBN numbers of his books. Abid11111 (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add citations to the article as described at referencing for beginners.--ukexpat (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Abid11111. I'm afraid poems or books by Masuduzzaman do not contribute in any way to his notability, in Wikipedia's sense of the word. What is required is substantial writing about him and his work, by people unconnected with him, and published in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers. Only if such sources exist will it be possible to write an acceptable article about him, because a Wikipedia article should be based nearly 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have written about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the problems of writing about eastern subjects for the western world is that the way by which people or works are judged of the same quality are not as "available" to the west because the opportunity afforded western subjects are greater, and eastern subjects thought by the western world to be relevant more prevalent say for the ancients rather than the more recent say last 200 years. Ate those subject/person/works included in anthologies for a particular group. Has someone in the foreword commented on how significant is that. Has any one commented on how significant is a particular "native" publisher.

An example. In the US books by a particular person are significant because they are thought to be of such value they are included in university/college reading programs. Comments are made in book reviews and professional journals or in surveys on a particular type of subject/person/work. Find the same in any other nationality/language and you are on your way to a start. It might take some convincing because those in authority may need to be assured what is included in WP is of an unbiased quality and they are unaware of the quality of your source. If you have to rely on western publishers and newspapers then the full context of what article you want to write is probably impossible based on the western avenues of understanding of what needs to be done. There have to be reasons why there is WP in many languages so these reputable sources have to exist, just maybe not in American, or British or Spanish or French.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

New wiki page

Is there a simple way to create a new wiki page by, for instance, adapting a template. the only info I could find seemed hugely complicated Ian B Evans (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tykewalker. I suggest that you read Your first article. Yes, it is complicated. We are writing well-referenced encyclopedia articles for a worldwide audience here, not Facebook posts. Feel free to ask specific questions here at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :You can use the WP:WIZARD to help. Often though, early articles just have some basics and the form and structure evolve to match what the reliable sources have available for the particular subject (ie dont try to fit a square peg in a round hole if that is not what the sources support)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it possble to empty a category after the main cat has been deleted?

Hi. The category [[1]] has about 1500-odd entries and the main category listed there of General Service Areas has been canned. I've been removing a few of these entries at a time and was wondering if emptying the entire cat is possible without leaving the sea of red links that would result on each of the towns and villages listed there.

Regards, Aloha27 talk 23:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aloha27. Actually, it's not the category that has been deleted but the article General Service Area; and outside of WIkipedia namespace, about the only link to it is in Category:General_Service_Areas_in_Nova_Scotia. Removing a template takes care of that, and I have done it. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

new article question

Hi - I have one article already on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_G._Gerteiny Now I have a new one that I need a bit of help submitting. It's about Keith Schooley - who, as a former stockbroker with Merrill Lynch in Oklahoma, sued the firm all the way to the Supreme Court and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, after he blew the whistle on corruption there and was fired as a result. He wrote and published a book about his account there and the book was later translated and republished in China. SO my question is: under which category would this be submitted and what are the steps to do this as a second-time submitter? Thanks so much, Hillary Chase - (email redacted) Hillary Chase (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Same as last time - use the Article Wizard to create a draft and then submit it for review. --ukexpat (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference: Draft:Keith A. Schooley

Don't worry about categories yet, Hillary Chase, get the draft into good shape and notability clearly established.

For one thing, citations such as "Tell-tale risks." Chicago Tribune. 18 August. 2002. are incomplete. Add the page and column in the print edition, or a link to an online edition, or both. Add n author if a byline was published.

A citation such as "Building Effective Whistleblowing Programs." Control Solutions International. June 2003. is significantly incomplete. Where can a reader find this to verify it? Was it published? A link would help, or some data which indicates how it might be found in print, or both. Other citations have similar issues.

Turn these into proper inline citations, either using ref tags or one of the other acceptable methods discussed in WP:CITE.

Wikipedia does not normally cite public records such as marriage and birth certificates, but rather mentions of such events in reliable sources, which may be primary (such as the subject's own web site or autobiography) or secondary (such as a published news or magazine account).

I have broken the draft into sections for you. Of course you may rearrange or rename these if you choose.

Information and citations over a period of time would help to establish notability. Otherwise it might be argued that our one event rule disqualifies this subject.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 23:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel. The reference section was incomplete and I had yet to get the authors, page numbers, etc. In some cases I don't have the page numbers but I do have the authors. All of these references were published except for his marriage-- and he doesn't seem to have anything other than a marriage license to prove it. Can I just say that he was married but give no wife name and offer no proof? I don't seem to be able to find the draft you said you broke down-- how would I access it? As for information and citations (are you referring to what was written about him in the press?) there are dozens of published articles about his case over 10 or more years. Thanks so much for your help. Hillary Hillary Chase (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Chase, please add whatever information you can to the references, when you can. There is no deadline or due date. That a bio subject was married is usually considered uncontroversial and can be left uncited, the same with the fact that he has children. Details about the children such as names should usually be omitted unless they are themselves independently notable or very significant to the article.

by "citations" i mean the notes in the article that cite specific sources to support the facts of the article. These also serve to establish notability.

When you "started over" you overwrote the changes I had made including dividing the draft into sections, and a number of formatting changes. I have now restored these.

Online citations can do with just the link, although full or fuller data is better. Offline print publications need enough information to allow a reader to verify the citation -- it is not fair to expect a reader to read an entire book, say, to verify one reference.

I hope this is helpful. If I have been confusing, or if you want further information on any point, feel free to ask again here, or to ask me specifically on my talk page. I look forward to seeing the fully developed article. DES ^(talk) 02:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didn't see your changes. I had just gone back and deleted everything I'd cut & pasted because I had been told that cutting and pasting from my word doc would result in the entry vanishing... that's what happened with my first submission but I didn't know why. Also there I had to prove the subject had been married (so I guess it depends on the fussiness of the editor). I haven't yet looked at your changes but will I have to rewrite everything again from scratch if I modify or change it? And if everything has to be written on Wiki (without using the conversion program) will I be able to at least cut & paste the long, confusing web links? 67.86.10.100 (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Chase, there should be no need to delete everything and start over in future. It is a poor idea to 'move pages by using cut&paste, use the move feature instead. But if you have links or plain text in a word document, or links in a web page, it should be fine to copy and paste them into a Wikipedia edit box. Check for special quote marks -- Wikipedia uses straight quotes. Check for %s and other escape codes in URLs. but otherwise that sort of pasting should cause no problems. A Wikipedia entry never just vanishes. It must be deleted or changed by someone, or some mis-formed code may hide its content. You should go forward by working from the current version, now at Draft:Keith A. Schooley. If you click "view history" you can see the edits made so far. If you write using Word extensively, save your work as plain text and then copy from the plain text file, this should avoid most conversion issues. Feel free to ask anyu further questions. DES ^(talk) 16:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That was very helpful. Thanks. I didn't even know about the Move feature. And you are also saying that you don't have to download a conversion program -- just convert into plain text? Wow. No, the last Wiki entry got all kinds of misinformation in Talk. That was why I copied the same style (from the finally-accepted Wiki) for this new entry. Haven't looked at your draft yet, will in a while. Thanks again. 67.86.10.100 (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay-- I have tweaked the draft using your helpful suggestions. I also entered the references in Reference section at bottom but did not use the system to automatically insert the references with numbers. Therefore, I have written numbers in the draft edit that correspond to the numbers in the reference section, which may be wrong. Is it? 67.86.10.100 (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Help!! I can't seem to get the ref marks to Wiki's liking. Can't figure out what I did wrong. (I did reference section by hand without using the program) Hillary Chase (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Hillary. It's best not to do the numbering manually, because the numbering will break if people add or remove references, or text with references. The way it works is that each reference is defined at the point in the text where the number should appear, between <ref> and </ref> (note the slash in the end tag). The Wiki software will automatically generate the number, and put the reference in the references section. If you have multiple references to the same source, you can used a "named reference" - this is all described in referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you play the games and how do you start up the game anyway because it won't work!!!' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodinee (talk • contribs) 15:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello i find it difficult to add a picture on a biography I need help please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpride (talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm now trying to save draft but it seems to vanish in edit box as it asks me to hit save button... is this normal? Hillary Chase (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly how to get the look I desire on the page I am trying to create

Compared to other pages I have seen, I am not sure how to get the desired look I am wanting for the page I am trying to create Prettyboy floydstarprettyboy_floydstar (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Prettyboy floydstar and welcome to the Teahouse. It isn't fully clear, which page do you refer to? If it is Draft:Prettyboy floydstar, there are several serious content issues to deal with before any "look" becomes relevant.

First of all, that draft needs more and better citations to independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in some detail. This means not blogs, not fan pages, not the subject's on site, not interviews, not publications with no editorial control, not press releases, not directory entries, not social media or fora, not brief one-or two-line mentions, not mere event results with no discussion. Newspapers or news sites or magazines or similar sources that devote several paragraphs at least to the subject would be good.

Secondly, use a more formal tone The subject should be referred to by last name, not first name, as should other people on second mention (full names on first mention). No opinions or evaluations should be included unless these are attributed and cited to named individuals or entities. Phrases such as "setting an unparalled mark in his career", "formed a band of wrestling's notorious outlaws, and "working with wrestling superstar talent" should go. Spelling and grammar must be checked and corrected.

Thirdly, the reference formatting needs to be corrected. See WP:REFB.

Fourthly, neither Wikipedia nor any wikia site is a reliable source,

I hope these comments help. DES ^(talk) 02:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Grammar style of dates

Is there any grammatical reason why "on" should precede "Month" and "Year" instead of "in" when a specific day or set of days is not included?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Srednuas Lenoroc. It is customary to say that something happened on a particular day, but in a particular month. For example, I got married on a Friday in the month of May. Note that this is customary American English usage; other Englishes (British English, Indian English, New Zealand English, etc.) may have different conventions. As for why it's that way? Like a lot of English grammar rules, it just is. —GrammarFascist (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Missed the mark: "on" should precede "Month" and "Year".Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Dates have "on" regardless of whether they're written with month or day first. Periods of time of a month or longer (seasons, years, decades) have "in." Valenciano (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

So are you saying that it is grammatically correct that a date appear with on such as "on January 2015" rather than "in January 2015"?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that is what the editor said, Srednuas Lenoroc. They referred to "periods of time of a month or longer". My opinion is given as a native speaker of American English. We use "on" regarding one specific day, no matter the date format: "on September 8, 2015" or "on 8 September, 2015". When speaking of a longer time period, such as a month or a year, the accepted word is "in".

I am unaware of other variations of the English language that do things differently, but perhaps there are. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I was speaking of no other example of grammatically correct date style except "on Month Year" as it seems to be a well used style in WP articles especially with the 2000 dates. And another editor seemed to scold me for having change a "on Month Year" correction to "in Month Year". Just wanted to make certain before I corrected any others.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I uploaded pictures that were seen yesterday and earlier today but now a permision error appear. Will the pictures will eventually will be seen again??

Additional Info: the following message appears when I click the pictures added to articles Permission error You do not have permission to upload this file, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users.Efeliciano ms (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Efeliciano ms. You uploaded a number of pictures to the Wikimedia Commons, a media repository and sister site that only hosts images that are free – "free" meaning either in the public domain or which bear any of a number of highly un-restrictive free copyright licenses. All of them were either deleted as copyright violations, or as non-free copyrighted images and therefore not acceptable at the Commons.

Based on what you've said, it appears that you tried more recently to upload some images locally, that is, at this site, rather than at the Commons. I am guessing that is what occurred because the message you're reporting, that you were blocked from uploading them based on lack of autoconfirmed status would not happen at the Commons but would happen here. Autoconfirmation is a restriction from taken certain actions until an account has made at least ten edits and is four days old. You have a sufficient number of edits but you have not aged out (and will not until after 19:34 (UTC) on September 10, 2015).

Unlike the Commons, we do accept some non-free images here, but the requirements they must meet are very strict. Non-free images can only be used under a valid claim of fair use. The rules are a bit complicated but to meet that copyright exception standard, a (low resolution) image's use in a specific location and for a specific purpose must meet all ten of the criteria set forth at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. If you tell us about the images you want to upload, where they're from, who owns them, where you intended to use them and so forth, we can provide more tailored information on use. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Need help with sources for Wikipedia on living individual

Hello, I have created the following page and need helping with understanding how to properly provide sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Vatanka

I understand that it's difficult to create articles on living individuals, so any help would be great and wonderful. Thank you in advance.

(EL-738 (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! The first question that has to be asked is not how to provide sources; it's whether sufficient reliable, independent, major sources exist to make this person an acceptable subject for an article. In other words, whether the person is notable or not.

Your article has a speedy deletion notice on it right now because there seems to be no evidence of significant independent coverage of this person. For example, regarding his book, you would need to show that it has received significant reviews in independent, notable publications (the publisher's page simply does not establish notability.) Similarly, the person has to have significant coverage in multiple independent, major media outlets. Currently, the article does not assert that such coverage exists, and the assumption is that it does not assert this because such coverage does not exist; in other words, the person is not notable.

If the necessary third-party coverage on the subject does not exist, then there is no way to "fix" this. It is then an issue of insufficient notability, and that would mean the person in question is not an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article.--Ashenai (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft

Can I edit drafts created by other users ? Action Hero 11:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can, Action Hero. If it is a draft that somebody is actively working on, then it would be polite to start up a conversation with them, either on the draft's talk page or their user talk page, particularly if you're making significant changes. But there is no requirement to do so, and if you're making minor edits (eg correcting spelling mistakes) I would just make them. The relevant guidelines are that nobody owns an article (or draft) and that editors should behave civilly towards each other. --ColinFine (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

restriction on revising linked headers

I want to make major revisions of "instrumental value." In talk pages, there is a warning about changing headers linked to other articles--posted in 2008. Is there a good reason for me to respect that warning? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @TBR-qed:. Welcome to the tea house! Yes, you should take the notice into account. But "taking into account" doesn't mean that the article must remain as it is. The talk page doesn't seem very active, but you can check directly with some of the active editors, or start a discussion on the article talk page. If possible you should follow WP:ANCHOR so that incoming links will still be viable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

How to change title of wikipedia page

Hello everyone,

Anyone can help me with how to change the title of the established wikipage. I want to change from "Offshore and onshore reliability data" to "Offshore and Onshore Reliability Data(OREDA)". Thank you very much in advance. Thank you. TAONINT DK (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @NT DK: I have two answers for you. The first is, you probably shouldn't rename it to your proposed title, because your proposal would go against established Wikipedia convention for article titles. Wikipedia:Article titles explains all the guidelines, but basically, we don't include both the full name and the abbreviation in the title. The current title appears to be the correct title. Now, in the future, if you DO want to rename a page, you move it to a new title. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Moving a page. --Jayron 32 12:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jayron32: Thanks for your quick answer. If I like to change the title to "OREDA", is that okay? The reason why I want to change is that when I use google to search OREDA, it seems the wikipage cannot be easily found and OREDA is the name known to many people instead of "Offshore and onshore reliability data". Cheers,--NT DK (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi NT DK. I have created a redirect from OREDA to the article so that anyone searching for it here should find it easily.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks very much :)--NT DK (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Any reason why the article should not be moved to "Offshore and Onshore Reliability Data"? As far as I can tell articles about similar projects whose names are tantamount to proper nouns are capitalised as such.--ukexpat (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, appears to be a proper noun, but it also looks like the acronym is far more common, meets WP:ACRONYMTITLE, and the article should be moved over the redirect I created. There should probably also be a redirect created from the fuller name with "Project" at the end.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for solutions and discussions. However I still couldn't use google to find the page by searching OREDA easily. Any suggestion? Cheers,--NT DK (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Wikipedia has no control over how Google does what it does. If you have questions about a problem with Google, you'll have to contact Google. --Jayron 32 16:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Googles methods of searching and caching and displaying are Google's methods of methods of searching and caching and displaying. We are not a Search Engine Optimization service to get Wikipedia articles into Goggle. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just discovered the article has copyvios. I have to run. If anyone is willing to take over, removing them (if there are more) that would be great.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The article has been speedy deleted as a copyvio. (Not by me, I'm just giving a heads-up.) --Ashenai (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it after another editor tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio -- I checked and the copying was very extensive. This needs to start over. DES ^(talk) 17:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjects

I'm a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, but would like to join a WikiProject. I've noticed numerous experienced users participating in them but don't know how to join one. If anyone could tell me how it would be very helpful. Fritzmann2002 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: Hello and Welcome to the Tea House!

Joining projects is like almost everything else here at Wikipedia: you just take part in the discussions and editing ! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. However, I see that on several editors' pages they have "This editor is a part of (insert WikiProject)." Is this a self-given title or appointed by someone else? Fritzmann2002 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: generally self given. there may be occasional times when an editor has worked with/seen another editor consistently contribute to a project and related articles and "awarded" them with an "honorary" WP:USERBOX, but generally WP:USERPAGES are the work of the user in question describing their interests etc.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Fritzmann2002, some projects have a page with a "list of members" and one "joins", merely by adding one's username to the list. It is the work, not the "membership" which counts. DES ^(talk) 18:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I add a Youtube link to an article?

Hello! I have edited the article Ganesh Chaturthi and added some sources but unable to add a Youtube video source of a news channel. How do I do that? Thanks in advance! Arka.Islam (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You cannot! YouTube is self-published media, and so is not a reliable source. If the video is by a reliable source, you should reference the source video, not the YouTube one. Read about the details HERE. --Ashenai (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Arka.Islam, the above is not correct. The correct answer is that it depends. Many organizations, including many smaller TV stations, have official Youtube channels. Content uploaded by such an organization to its own channel may be linked to. In other cases, the creator of a video may have uploaded it to Youtube -- indeed in many cases, Youtube may be the only place a video is published. In such a case Youtube may be linked to. The key issue is that when people copy a video and upload it without permission from the creator or copyright holder, Wikipedia must not link to it. It is not a matter of the reliability of Youtube (or any other site) but of the copyright status of the content. However, when citing youtube as a source, similar rules apply. An official copy of a broadcast is as reliable as if it were on the originator's own site. A video by the subject of an article is self-published, and can be used to support statements that the subject said this or that, but not that this or that is true. User comments posted to a YT video should never be relied on as sources. @Ashenai: DES ^(talk) 17:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Some examples of proper links to Youtube can be seen at Anna Kay Akana. DES ^(talk) 17:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

...Huh. I learned something today! (dear god where is the tilde on this thing ahh editing wikipedia on mobile is horrible... ah found it) Ashenai (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Why my article Infoweb14 was deleted?

I submit an article about my site Infoweb14. It is a programming languages information website, with tutorials and references relating to programming languages topics such as C, C++, Java and C# . But it was deleted immediately .

Why this happened, when there are registered and accepted by Wikipedia a few sites like Infoweb14 such as W3School.

My article named Infoweb14 was deleted and now i can't submit another article with the same name.

Please help me to solve this embarrassing problem.Infoweb14 (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Infoweb14: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse!

Like it says on your user talk page User_talk:Infoweb14#Speedy deletion nomination of Infoweb14 it was deleted for failing to meet the requirements for a stand alone Wikipedia encyclopedia article. Please see the article creation Wizard to help you develop an article that is appropriate and less likely to be deleted. Please also see our conflict of interest policy and our user name policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

What to do about a grievance

Hi Tea house, it's Cityside189. Another user is bothering me on my Talk page, sharing her suspicions about me being an unwelcome user. She thinks I am a previous user inappropriately here by another name. It bothers me, but I do have thin skin and I consider each day to be a learning experience. If the one comment was all, it would be one thing. But today she is again posting her ongoing suspicions of me which is unwelcome and uncomfortable, and I have asked her to stop. In good faith I wrote about how certain behaviors were vexing to me, and asked her to stop so we could move along, and said that if it kept up I would consider my attempts at resolving this as failed and would take the matter up where administrators could intervene on my behalf. My talk page lays this all out and concludes with her comment that I'd better just leave this alone, it would be wise of me to do so. I consider this as a veiled threat that she will make things even more uncomfortable for me if I complain about her. I'm aware that there is a forum of administrators who look at these things but I have been warned of the boomerang effect. In my case I don't think there is anything to boomerang because I did nothing to deserve her negativism. Is there something I can do? I don't see this as being a helpful dialog with her and would like to leave it alone but at the same time, I did say I would complain about her behavior if she kept bothering me, which she did in her last post. I realize Flyer22 is an established editor and may have some idiosyncrasy credits to fight the good fight, even if it means there are some unfortunate false positives along the way. I wouldn't think it would be justifiable but then again I'm too new to know for sure what the culture of the place is all about. And if that's what Wikipedia is all about, I will consider Flyer22 in that light. If you have other advice for me I would be grateful to receive your opinions. --Cityside189 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to see what I stated can click on this link (that's a WP:Permalink). I was explicitly clear that I wouldn't be bothering Cityside189 regarding WP:Sockpuppet suspicions without evidence. He chose to escalate the matter when I was also explicitly clear that I would be standing by my beliefs as far as his editing experience goes. This is similar to a case from earlier this year: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 355#What have I done wrong?. Since that case involving Sovereign Sentinel, Sovereign Sentinel realizes why I approached him the way I did, and has come to me for WP:Sockpuppet advice. I suspect the reason that Cityside189 escalated this matter is because he doesn't want me to bother him at the Sex offender article and similar articles; he is well aware that I edit sexual topics and keep junk out of such articles. I will eventually get around to clearing out junk at the Sex offender article. I also suspect that the reason that Cityside189 did not take his issue concerning me to WP:AN or WP:ANI is because he is all too aware that a number of WP:Administrators trust my instincts on WP:Sockpuppet matters and he didn't want his editing history to be under such intense scrutiny. He was at WP:ANI defending his account earlier this year, after all, especially to Beyond My Ken (BMK). Flyer22 (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189 I note that with your seventh edit you successfully opened a case at DRN so you should be right to do that again if you feel you cant resolve the issue. You can also request direct action at WP:ANI. Flat Out (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

From what I have read in talk pages for articles it seems that there are some that continually will jump to the worst conclusions in order to what I can only assume is bad faith editing. If it becomes very apparent I believe that there are avenues by which to call attention and reach a consensus within all of WP with others commenting. My only concern is that there might be other editors that are willing to side with those that have more editing experience as the offender being more correct and taking personal ownership of an article. Someone more in the know can direct you to consensus building mechanisms within WP. One of the problems I find with editing credits is that some editors only comment on the work of others and seem to be less prone to contributing their own work to an article. There really should be a distinction between mere reverting rather than original contributions. Mind you I did not say original research but original work that others can potentially revert if found outside the WP standards.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cityside189. Sadly, I do not think that the Teahouse is a very good place to resolve these kinds of disputes among two editors. The best that I can do is to state the obvious:.Because of the concerns raised by Flyer22, and because you have freely chosen to edit a highly controversial article, your editing will be scrutinized closely. Every editor's edits can be scrutinized by any other editor at any time. That is a basic principle here on Wikipedia. So, be careful to edit in full compliance with our policies and guidelines, and all will be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It was appropriate for Flyer22 to ask once about previous accounts and to be putting 2+2 together in their analysis. I am also pretty sure that Flyer22 also realises that continued discussion of their analysis has an appropriate home at WP:SPI and discussion outside of that forum is not appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Tea House, once again I found my visit informative, helpful, and friendly. And I do think that all of us who contributed to this section have valid strengths and positive attributes. Onward ho.... --Cityside189 (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)