Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 461

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 455

←

Archive 459

→

Trouble formatting references

Hi there I seem to be having trouble citing my references properly on the page I am trying to create (Newfoundland Chocolate Company) and was advised to come here for guidance, please help I'm very new at this! Stu SGreenoff (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If you come here for help with a draft article or an article, it helps us if you provide a wikilink to the page, in this draft, Draft: Newfoundland Chocolate Company. Thank you for taking the advice of the reviewer to come here. Your references are something of a mess, which is not really your fault because referencing is difficult. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello SGreenoff. In this edit I added metadata to your first reference. Things like the work (newspaper in this case) in which the source was published, the title of the article, the author of the source article, and the date of publication. Please add similar information for the other cited sources using this as an example, if you can, or ask here for further help. DES ^(talk) 23:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

image upload with copyright

Hi there,

I have been struggling lately with an image upload onto a Wikipedia page I had created. After a lot of back and forth with the original author of a photograph (Dave Silver in this case), he agreed to register the image onto Creative Commons, in order to allow its fair use onto public space. I also have his written agreement in an email to allow the public use of this specific image.

However, shortly after adding the image onto the wiki page, the image got removed, even after uploading it under the right copyright agreement.

Could you potentially help me?

Cheers,

Ponyrider22 (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

From your edit history, I take it this is about an image on Last Frontier Heliskiing. From the page history, the edits comments say the licence is non-commercial use only. That does not work for Wikipedia. It needs to be licenced for any use, including commercial use. RudolfRed (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ponyrider22. This is a project to create completely free knowledge for all people everywhere, to the extent possible. So, every word we write can be reused, or modified, or even resold for profit, as long as credit is given. The same thing applies to images. With the exception of very limited "free use" exceptions, all of our images which appear on Wikimedia Commons are available for any use, including commercial uses such as book covers, posters, t-shirts, coffee mugs, tattoos, mouse pads, and billboards. Without any additional permission required and without a penny of payment. Anyone who does not agree should not upload images to Wikimedia Commons. This fundamental principle is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

RudolfRed and Cullen328, Ponyrider22 said above that Dave Silver had agreed to register the image onto Creative Commons. This might be a misunderstanding (either a confusion of Creative Commons and Wikimedia commons, or between different kinds of Creative Commons licences), or it might indicate that Silver has understood the requirement, and agreed to it. Ponyrider, have you shown WP:Donating copyright materials to Silver, and has he (not you) sent the required message to OTRS? --ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on licenses. After this much struggle, I figured that it'd be easier using my own images on this page, although they are not as good as Dave Silver's one.

Thank you for your help.

Cheers.

Ponyrider22 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Help writing my article

Hi all,

I have been working on creating an article for a little while now. I have been turned down several times. Mostly because of my sources. I don't see what is wrong with the sources. I am wondering if anyone would be able to help me write my article. I am related to the subject and ask for help from another unbiased party to help me with my article and help me put exactly what is needed for a article to keep with the spirit of wikipedia.

Thank You,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_%22Greeny%22_Green

Aagreeny4 (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aagreeny4. I took a look at your draft article and your references. Very few include links to online sources, but I noticed a New York Times article (reference 14) and read it. That article does not mention Mike "Greeny" Green at all. That is a very big red flag for any reviewer. This person does not seem notable to me. By the way, your user name hints at a possible conflict of interest. As a relative, you have a conflict of interest regarding the topic of this article, so please declare it on your user page, which is currently blank.

Are there any reliable, independent sources available online that devote significant coverage to this person? If so, where are they? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The New York times article talked about the work that Senator Bradley was doing with drugs and alcohol programming, but didn't mention his name. I thought it may help a little. Thank you I will take that out. Sorry about that I though that I declared my Conflict of Interest, I'll take another look at that and see where I put it and put it on my user page as well. I know it is on the talk page of the draft.

Most of the sources are not online but their are a few the Philadelphia Inquire http://articles.philly.com/1986-07-06/news/26096601_1_athletes-drug-threat-charles-g-lefty-driesell (reference 14). Some others are online but found on Lexus Nexus so they do not have a link. Such as The Leader-Telegram (ref 12 and 13), Philadelphia Daily News (ref 5), and The Ledger (ref 6). Found by searching Mike Green "Greeny" and Alcohol. I have copies of the other ones cited and some are at a university library but I can't find them online. Do they all have to be online?

Thank YouAagreeny4 (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aagreenly. Unfortunately, we cannot make something or someone notable through editing per WP:ARTN, so another editor helping you write the article is not going to make Green "notable" for a Wikipedia article. However, I think if you can show that sources which do actually exist, then you've gone a long way in establishing that Green satisfies WP:GNG. Sources do not have to be online, but they do have to be published. Online sources just make it easier for readers to verify the source and determine if it is relevant to what is written in the article. Online sources also make it easier for AfC reviewers to determine a subject's notability, but I think if you can provide enough information about the source per WP:CITEHOW as well as "quotes" of the relevant discussion of Green, then it might make it easier for reviewers to determine if a source is reliable, independent and provides the significant coverage needed for Green to be considered notable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Many of these points have already been covered in response to previous questions about this draft. See:

Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. So it would be better to put in some quotes from the sources, or a summary of what the article is saying about Green? Also, I have read the links on general notability guidelines and am not seeing why Green is not considered notable, would you or someone be able to point out to me exactly why he is not considered notable, so I get a better understanding of what to write or fix? Or would showing quotes from the offline articles help showing his notability?

Thanks so much Aagreeny4 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Aagreeny4. As I said above, offline sources can be used; they are just a harder to verify. So, you should be prepared to provide as much information about the source as possible (isbn numbers, publication dates, author names, publication names, titles, page numbers, etc.) to help the AfC reviews determine whether the source can be used to show that Greene meets WP:GNG. The AfC reviewer may know how to find the source online or may be able to find someone who can access it in some other way. Of course, it's easier for the reviewer to just click on a url and see for themselves what a source says, which is why online sources tend to be preferred, but being online is not a requirement. You can help the reviewers out by using the "quote" parameter if you use citation templates for your references or by posting on the draft's talk page explaining how the source shows Greene is notable for a Wikipedia article. They will see this and determine if the source provides the significant coverage needed to help establish notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! Aagreeny4 (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

How to reupload the same image with a new filename

I made a mistake in the spelling of the person's name inside the filename. Now I can't re-upload the same image in the Commons with the corrected filename. I guess the system checks the images against each other and find them identical. So how can I correct this please? This is my very first WP page. Thanks! UberNemo (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, UberNemo. Strictly speaking, the Teahouse is a place for asking questions about editing English Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons is a separate project with its own help desk. However, I will attempt an answer for you. You do not need to upload another file. Instead, you should move the file from the incorrect file name to a better file name. It is very similar to the Move function here on Wikipedia. Read that and you should be able to figure it out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen. I will try to find the answer at Wikimedia Commons. UberNemo (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Interactive Map Links in External Links Section

Hi,

What is the policy on using interactive maps in the external links section of pages that describe geographical features?

For example, links of this type: arcgis.com link

I did some looking and the most I could find was this page below, which doesn't mention any kind of interactive maps:

Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles

Thanks for any light you can shed on this subject!

Cpowiki (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cpowiki and welcome to the Teahouse. Usually links to maps are handled through a coordinates link (look for a globe icon at the top right corner of an article). Here is the link produced for the article United States: Coordinates: 40°N 100°W. It groups various mapping services, but as we can see, it does not include arcgis.com. If you think arcgis.com, or any other map, is useful for an article and not redundant to the services produced by a coordinates link, go ahead and add it in the external links section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?

I had added some content to the Maltipoo page a while back. It was cited to two or 3 reliable sources and was the basic description of that particular kind of dog, in dry encyclopedic language. However, somehow the refs got removed and a whole huge section about "Famous and Other Notable Maltipoos" got added. Now if the dogs listed there had been in something like Old Yeller or Where the Red Fern Grows I'd think they deserved to be included, because they'd be notable. But they're just dogs that had Facebook and YouTube pages made for them by their owners, and the info is sourced off those social media pages. I removed this stuff once already and an IP added it back with the comment, "this editor’s [me] work reflects their bias". Should I remove it again? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed that material, White Arabian Filly. The videos were primary sources. Secondary coverage would have been required to establish notability. Thanks for flagging this up. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That said, the material you added does need to be better sourced, using inline citations. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It was at one point, and then the sources and cites got removed in the various IPs' edits. I'll try to find and re-add them later. :P. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I found this, but the citations aren't inline and the sources quite unspecific (e.g. a website homepage). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I added the specific refs back in the appropriate place, and they are the right pages this time. They are not the greatest sources, but should meet RS for something like a crossbreed. I prefer google books, but their stuff on Malitpoos is all no preview. For the recognized purebreeds, it's easy to find good sources.[1][2] White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the coverage is significant, that these sources are reliable or that this crossbreed hybrid is notable, White Arabian Filly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

They are popular/notable enough within the dog world and there are apparently two or three books that have been written entirely about them, but if somebody nominated it for deletion I wouldn't care. I don't particularly like little dogs at all and think the whole hybrid thing is a marketing ploy. However, I didn't create the article. I improved it, because when I first saw it, it said something like, "Maltipoos are small cute dogs that are playful but calm hope this helps." I'm on the verge of stopping editing dog articles at all, because there is nobody interested in actually stewarding or reverting vandalism on them and most of the dog articles that reached GA have since been delisted. I reverted vandalism on several last week, where an IP was upping the average weights of breeds by 50 or 60 pounds for some reason that wasn't backed up by the sources. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm no dog fan, but I'm pretty sure this subject meets WP:GNG. See this, this, this, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The totality of the coverage in your first source is "Rita Ora has a Maltipoo (a cross between a Maltese and a poodle)", Cordless Larry. Do you consider that significant coverage? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Err, no! Sorry - as I suggested, I have very little interest in dogs. I was just picking some sources from a long list of search results and that had the word in the title. Looking at it in more depth now, it does not provide significant coverage. The sheer number of results suggests that the subject is likely to be notable to me though. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly and Cullen328, my removal of the primary sourced material was reverted and I started a discussion at Talk:Maltipoo#Notable dogs. Some secondary sources have been provided. I'll let you judge whether you think this is satisfactory, if you wish to. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Should two Wikipedia categories be allowed to both be subcategories of each other?

This seems counter-intuitive to me that it should be allowed, but I have found examples of it. In my mind, a subcategory is fully contained by its more general category... so if two categories are subcategories of each other, then the only way this would make sense is if the two categories were essentially the same thing (And therefore, no need to have two categories... merge them into one)

My follow up question would then be, how do I collaborate on this level of Wikipedia? (I am brand new) For example, if I wanted to suggest that a certain topical category should only be the subcategory of another, and not vice-versa.

Bortseb (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bortseb and welcome to the Teahouse. No, two categories should not normally be sub-cats of each other. Indeed I can't think of any caase where this would be proper, but I hesitate to say it never would be. See Wikipedia:Categorization for lots more on how to use and edit categories. You cna change this by removing the appropriate category link from one of the category pages, but it might be a good idea to post on the talk pages of the categories involved to explain what you are doing. DES ^(talk) 22:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As DES says, Bortseb, categories should not be subcategories of each other. Can you point out the categories here? The talk pages of categories don't get a lot of attention as most editors do not add categories on to their Watchlists. It would help us to see exactly what you've run into. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The two categories are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_health

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Euthenics

Bortseb (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Bortseb. In this case, I believe that Category:Public health is the parent category so it shouldn't be a subcategory of Euthenics. But after looking at the contents of the categories I can see why these two categorizations might have happened (probably separately over time). This conflict doesn't happen often but it isn't unheard of. If you'd like to help out with a really obvious miscategorization, go see Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories and correct categories that have been categorized to themselves! Wikipedia:HotCat is a useful tool to use if you want to add, remove or correct categories assigned to pages and articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So there aren't database reports for the situation I found? Bortseb (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of database reports but not for the situation you found and not all of the reports are updated regularly. Some lists are updated daily, others haven't been updated in months or years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

How do I change my user name?

I am a new user and I want to change my user name, Please helpNoor Madar (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Noor Madar, welcome to the Teahouse. You can make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Maysip/sandbox

I reviewed User:Maysip/sandbox and declined it as lacking sufficient context to identify who the draft is about, let alone whether he is notable. User:Maysip then posted to my talk page:

The guy is not a "McMoron or a Clown", he stumped the reviewers around.

Can someone besides me explain to this new editor that, if his article is about a person, it should identify the person, as well as providing independent reliable sources stating that he is notable? (If he is notable for disrupting of networks, but no one actually knows who the person is being the disruption, how is he being described by reliable sources?) Can someone besides me explain that just resubmitting a declined draft without changing it is tendentious? Also, on looking at his userpage, it appears that he is writing about himself. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, the draft presents no evidence at all that the person is notable. In my opinion, that should be the primary focus of discussion with the editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Except that he doesn't want to discuss, and it may be necessary to nominate the draft for miscellany for deletion. In this case, I take it that the lack of comments from other editors at this Teahouse indicates that they agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Maysip. As others have been saying here, a Wikipedia article must explain clearly who or what it is about. If it is about a person whose actual name is not known, then it must explain what this person is known for, and by what name(s) or descriptive term(s) the person is widely known. Moreover, it must explain why the subject of the article is what Wikipedia refers to as notable. This is a specialized term on Wikipedia. It means that the subject has been covered in multiple, independent published reliable sources so that there are independent sources on which to base the article. At the moment, your draft, User:Maysip/sandbox, does none of these things. Unless and until it is edited to provide this information, and cite reliable sources that establish or at least help establish notability, the draft cannot and will not be approved. Resubmitting it without making such changes simply wastes the time of the volunteers who review drafts in an effort to help others here on Wikipedia. It also wastes your time. If you want help understanding these points, or learning how to follow Wikipedia's rules and processes, please ask here at the Teahouse. I also urge you to read Your First Article and Wikipedia's Golden Rule. DES ^(talk) 12:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft article question, bottle neck, Art + Feminism

Two articles for Lenka Clayton were started simultaneously today during the Art + Feminism campaign. My draft cannot now be moved to article status, yet the other article has been flagged for deletion. I think my draft is passable. Or is there a way to combine information gathered to make one improved page? Lu.heintz (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Just be patient. Maybe the Art and Feminism project hasn't explained that in Wikipedia, there is no deadline. If the article in article space is speedy-deleted for copyright violation, your draft can be moved into article space. If the reviewing admin decides that there isn't copyright violation, or that the current article can be cured of copyright violation without deleting it, then the draft in article space will instead be proposed for deletion as an unsourced BLP. If there is any non-copyright-infringing information in the current article that isn't in your draft, you can add it to your draft. Just be patient. An admin will decide whether to delete the existing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lu.heintz. I agree with Robert McClenon. I think your draft is much better than the current unreferenced article, which is likely to be deleted. In the mean time, I suggest that you improve your references, emphasizing independent, reliable sources. Add URLs for sources available online to make it easy for reviewers to check your sources. Be sure that you have not included any content that is copied from elsewhere, except identified and referenced quotations. Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women artists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you Lu.heintz (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Lenka Clayton has now been deleted, Lu.heintz. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for letting me know. I just moved the my draft to article, still unreviewed. Lu.heintz (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Lu.heintz, the review process is for drafts. Now that you've moved the draft to article space, it won't be reviewed in the same way that a draft would be. You can, however, request a peer review should you wish. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice; it is much appreciated!

Landsend35 (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

How to pass the gates of the English Wikipedia with faulty references

Hi, please help me get the references entered correctly so that the article on Estonian composer Ardo Varres whom I have promised years ago to get his information on the English Wikipedia alongisde the Estonian site up, could pass the editors, it has been sent back" at least 5 times already, I give up, something is always wrong with references. My username is Inga1976, draft is called "Ardo Ran Varres" Thank you. Helen

Below is an excerpt from the final draft

References

"Ardo Varres on EMIC page". Estonian Music Information Center. EMIC. Text "website" ignored (help) "Estonian Film Database". Estonian Composers Union http://helilooja.ee/eng/liikmed/ardo-ran-varres/. Missing or empty |title= (help) "Estonian Newspaper "Postimees"". Tartu Postimees online. Retrieved 22 September 2012.

Inga1976 (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Inga1976, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is in reference to Draft:Ardo Ran Varres, it is helpful to provide a wikilink to the draft or article under discussion here. The problem with that draft is not the formatting of your references, which I or another editor could help you with, but with the content of the sources being cited in your references. Currently, you cite http://www.emic.ee/ardo-ran-varres which is a mere directory entry, http://www.efis.ee/et/inimesed/id/9044 which is another directory entry with a list of credits, and which may not be a reliable source in any case (just as the IMDB is usually not a reliable source), http://helilooja.ee/eng/liikmed/ardo-ran-varres/ which is yet another directory entry, and http://tartu.postimees.ee/981444/ardo-ran-varrese-maailm-peatus-tartus which appears to be a newspaper article, but is at least partly an interview, judging by Google Translate. Still it might count as a reliable source. if you had say two or three other sources of equal quality from other newspapers or magazines, that would probably be sufficient. What is needed is cites to independent published reliable sources that discuss the subject in some depth. Reviews of the subject's work or profiles of him in major or otherwise reliable publications, that spend at least 2-3 paragraphs each talking about him -- more is better. Has that made things clearer for you? DES ^(talk) 13:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

My Username

Hi, I created this account but in the future I may see it suitable to change my Username. I want to know if I can change my username or I can create another account. Thank you.Lazarati (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Lazarati: and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes you are able to change your username, if/when you wish to do so, you would need to post a request at WP:CHU. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle problems

When trying to use Twinkle to revert vandalism I am getting the error message “Grabbing data of earlier revisions: Aborted by user.” I can’t seem to fathom what I have done to cause this, any ideas anyone?Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Has this occured before? Try making sure that popups are enabled, and try using another browser/system. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 17:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Stupid me! I had somehow blocked pop ups in Chrome.Thank you very much for your help, problem solved. Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Change title?

Hi all,

I just created a page for Jesse Cannon, a recording engineer and entrepreneur. I have been editing his page and realized that his last name, at the very top of the page, is not capitalized. It seems silly but I can't figure out how to change it - help?

Thanks! -Ashley Ashleyoverdrive (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ashleyoverdrive. Existing articles can only be moved from one title to another by editors who are autoconfirmed. This means an account at least four days old with at least ten edits. Since you are not yet autoconfirmed, I have moved the page to Jesse Cannon for you. Please continue editing the article to ensure that it complies with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen :)

-Ashley Ashleyoverdrive (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Not long after the draft was renamed, it was tagged for speedy deletion and then deleted as making no claim of notability. I suggest that you make a Request for Undeletion to have the page moved into your user space, and that then you add references to it and submit it via Articles for Creation to be reviewed so as to avoid future speedy deletion. Having a draft declined is less painful than having an article deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Could I see examples of what must be footnoted and what does not have to be?

I recently had two submissions of new wiki pages UNDERSTANDABLY rejected for being too promotional and not having enough objective 3rd-party citations. I'm cool with that. But to help me learn, could someone please explain why these pages have very few citations in the first several paragraphs but still made it through? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dylan + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lil_Mama + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Indianapolis_Star

Examples of a sentence stating a fact that does NOT need a reference compared to a similar sentence stating a fact that DOES need a reference might be helpful.Erin Hollinden (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Erin Hollinden. The lead section of an article is properly a summary of content already present in more detail – and already sourced in more granular treatment – in the body of the article. Although there are certain kinds of material that are required to be cited whenever they appear – such as quotations, contentious material about living persons, and challenged facts – barring those types of material in the lead, we typically do not repeat citations when the lead actually serves the function of containing nothing that is not already treated in the body. Many new articles, I would even say most, do not have a summarizing lead section but just launch in with the main content from the start, and so sourcing requirements apply to it directly. Of course, you will also find gobs of articles here that are poorly sourced and "made it through". But you can't generalize from that. Because of the decentralized way material is reviewed, the fact we have bad content that shouldn't have made it through, or should be deleted, or was poorly reviewed, or was written when standards were looser, is no reason to allow new content that does not meet our policies. See WP:WAX by analogy. By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Notable/Resources chicken and egg

I created this site last night (my first). Draft:B. LaRae Orullian

I think my rejection note says that the subject is not notable because references don't prove that she is notable. I quote a book, and 3 non-wiki websites and 1 Wiki Invest (which may not be acceptable, I'm learning).

She was the president of Girl Scouts and is/was on many boards of high profile companies and spent most of her life defying conventions for women in the banking industry.

Besides books, I am unclear on what online resources are acceptable. For example, how could I reference her winning the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame besides a website? Also, are some books not acceptable references? Do I just need more books on the topic of her and/or other successful woman bankers or Girl Scout presidents? I feel like I see Wiki pages all the time with similar references... Rahnae22 (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rahnae22: Websites are frequently used for citations on Wikipedia. The tricky bit is identifying which ones are usable. We call these reliable, as they have an professional editorial staff, a history of fact-checking, and publicize corrections when they make an error. The most problematic ones are self-published blogs and books, as anyone can say anything on them. The easiest way to determine reliability is to check the "about us" page on a website to see if it lists an editor-in-chief in a masthead. Then, check to see if they take submissions from the public or if they have a professional staff. It also helps to look at relevant Wikipedia articles. For example, if you check Colorado Women's Hall of Fame, there's already a third-party reliable source for Orullian's inclusion in that article. The reason why you would prefer a third-party source is because it demonstrates that someone independent of both Orullian and the organization has taken note of her inclusion. This helps to establish notability. If all you have is the website for an award or honor, it establishes that this happened but not that it's important. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still learning too - but you may wish to consider news or newspaper websites. an article that was published in a regional newspaper is in itself a reference to the regional importance of the topic. Werafa (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability Question

Hi,

I wish to document a historical article local to the area I live. The substance of the proposed article is as follows:

The source of the proposed article was released under the Creative Commons Waiver for the purpose of historical documentation and ties into the historical perspective of Fountaingrove Lake and the Fountain Grove colony. The lake, colony, and course history all tie together and are of significant interest to people living in the area. I only wish to document history. If the Fountaingrove club should dissolve, the history would be lost without a Wikipedia page.

Is the notability valid?

Jhmpub (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jhmpub. When I do a Google Books search for "fountain grove colony", I see significant coverage of that Santa Rosa, California colony in quite a few books about historic utopian settlements. Accordingly, it seems clear to me that the colony is notable and is deserving of a Wikipedia article. As for the lake, significant geographic features are usually considered notable. So, do not worry about notability per se. Instead, remove the weaker sources from the article about the colony, add higher quality reliable sources, and try to do a more thorough job of summarizing what the best sources say. My assessment is that the article about the lake is of somewhat lower priority, and can easily be improved by routine editing as time goes by. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

translation of an article rejected. why?

I translated and updated an article from Spanish Wikipedia and submitted it to English language Wikipedia. It was rejected within the hour. It's my first attempt, bur I am mystified. What did I do wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:A449:300:2CE3:4E37:C525:E107 (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous user. We can't tell specifically, because you have given no indication that lets us find out what article you were talking about: if we knew the title, we could look at the deletion record, and see who deleted it and what grounds they gave. But my guess would be that it did not contain enough references to reliable third-party sources to establish that the subject was notable. The Spanish Wikipedia may have different criteria, or it may be that the Spanish article is not really adequate but hasn't been notices. --ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

How to approve Article in Wiki?

Hello Sir,

I have submitted "Influencer digital Marketing" article in Wiki. After sometime, they give me a errors for already exits topic in here and also show duplicated contents in article. so how to find relevant topic in wiki and check my contents is origial and post in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swetadjani (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Swetadjani. If I type "influencer digital marketing" into the search box, it gives me a list of articles, including Influencer marketing and Digital marketing. --ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor

Hello Sir, I wanna to be a Wikipedia editer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hira Thind (talk • contribs) 13:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia! You already are a Wikipedia editor – you've already made some edits. For advice on getting started as a new editor, you might want to take a look at Help:Getting started. Let us know if we can help you out or if there's anything you're not sure about! —me_and 20:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hira Thind. If you are asking about becoming a paid Wikipedia editor, there is no such thing. All us editors are volunteers. —teb728 t c 11:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

How to restore deleted article

One of your Wikipedia's editors wrote a page on this subject WIlliam J. Kelly in conformity with Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. The page has since been completed deleted. The person who deleted it should be banned. I believe it is an act of vandalism. [3] Lauraglaw (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lauraglaw, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question to ask, or were you just looking for a place to complain? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Do not refer to an administrative decision with which you disagree as "vandalism". That is a personal attack. Articles with that title have been deleted three times for different reasons. Discuss with the deleting administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand the basis for this deletion. A wikipedia editor wrote this entry so it would be compliant with wikipedia neutral point of view standards. Since the subject of this entry has had vandals before and that entry was deleted a few years ago due to the amount of vandalism, I assumed that this was another act of vandalism. If it was not an act of vandalism, again, I do not understand the basis for the deletion. If you can explain why it was deleted, that would be helpful because I have made a sincere effort to make sure that the entry was wikipedia compliant. Lauraglaw (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Lauraglaw, the most recent deletion (the article's third) had the rationale "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I see the note about the banned user but I don't understand it. The person who submitted the entry is a Wikipedia editor. Is the person who submitted the entry a banned user? If so, why penalize the entry? Is the subject of the entry banned? Why would that be? The original entry on this subject was submitted as a personal attack to begin with. It was a completely defamatory entry that went unchecked on wikipedia for at least a year. That is the reason the first two previous entries on this subject were deleted.This latest entry should have resolved the issue. I haven't heard back from the administrator. Is there a way for me to appeal to a supervising administrator? 208.59.143.168 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You write: "The person who submitted the entry is a Wikipedia editor." Of course they are. Only autoconfirmed editors can create articles. Since I am not an administrator, I don't have the details, but I assume that the editor who created the article was found to be a sockpuppet for a banned or blocked editor. You can ask User:Bilby, and they will probably explain that that is exactly what happened. They may have been blocked or banned due to conduct issues involved with the previously deleted versions of the article; I don't know. Ask the deleting administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You write: "If so, why penalize the entry?" Read the blocking policy and the banning policy. There is an expression "Banned means banned". Posts by sockpuppets for blocked and banned users may be deleted without regard to their content. This is done in order to discourage sockpuppetry. Also, the third deleted version of the article probably was an attempt to restore either the first deleted version of the article, deleted for being promotional, or the second deleted version of the article, deleted for being a "hatchet job". Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned above, you may ask one of the deleting administrators. However, be civil in discussing with them. You are not likely to get a friendly response by claiming that the deletion was an act of vandalism. Also, if the last deletion was of a post by a banned or blocked user, that isn't likely to be restored. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Bilby, could you help clarify here? I'm not an administrator, so I can't see who created the third version of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I'm happy to clarify this. The article was created by User:Coreyeymmote, who in turn was a sock of User:LogAntiLog. LogoAntiLog has been running a sock farm for paid editing for some time, and has a lot of accounts that have been through the checkuser investigation. I deleted it as part of a general cleanup of paid (and other) articles created by the editor concerned. - Bilby (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

As I explained here above, this subject has been vandalized many, many times before. In fact the original entry was posted by a vandal. I wasn't accusing the administrator of anything. I am just attempted to understand why there are so many problems with the subject of this entry.

Lauraglaw (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The subject person may be controversial. The first article was deleted for being promotional, and the second article was deleted for being a "hatchet job". If you want to make a neutral version of the article, submit a Request for Undeletion to have the article moved to your user space, and then try to make it neutral, and then submit it for review via Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am beginning to understand. It was my belief that the Wikipedia editor who wrote the piece was legitimate and not a sock puppet. Is there a way to contact someone in the wikipedia community (who is not a sock puppet) to help make the entry compliant with Wikipedia standards? I don't know Wikipedia rules well enough to do this on my own.Lauraglaw (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lauraglaw. There isn't specifically a place to call for that - this is as good a place as any (but starting by blasting in talking about vandalism isn't a good way to get people to want to help :-) ) You could post a request at Requested articles, but there is a long backlog there. Alternatively, if there is an active WikiProject that the person would fit into, you could try and find somebody there who would work with you. --ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is to write a draft article via Wikipedia:Articles for creation, as Robert suggests above, Lauraglaw. When you're happy with it you can then submit it for review, to get feedback on whether the proposed article meets the appropriate requirements. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Russian image not functioning on English wiki

I'm trying to add the following image 1

to the article and specific section of Khojaly massacre memorials#Germany

as [ [File:Памятник_жертвам_Ходжалинской_резни_в_Берлине.jpg|left|thumbnail|blah blah description here] ]

(placed below the infobox in the source).

I had success just before with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khojaly_Massacre_Memorial_(Berlin)_Reading_garden.jpg

which I also found there, but apparently it was uploaded to English Wikipedia first, so it's not exactly the same.

How do I solve this? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Magoo - As you have discovered, you cannot use an image from Russian Wikipedia on the English Wikipedia - The file you succeeded with is on the English Wikipedia.
I do not know why the photo was uploaded to Russian Wikipedia, rather than Wikimedia Commons, where it could be used by all of our projects. I do not know under what copyright the Russian picture has been uploaded, but as it has EXIF information, it appears to be an original not a copyvio.
I note that User:Interfase has an account and userpage on English Wikipedia and states "This user can contribute with an advanced level of English." May I suggest you contact him/her at User talk:Interfase and ask if there is a reason it is not on Commons? - Arjayay (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

He seems to be pretty active. I think we'll be able to solve this in no time. Thanks for the help. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are my articles being subjected to deletion?

Hello there i am a new user here. i have created two biographical articles with maintaining all the guidelines and providing all the reliable sources but i still cant figure out why it is being deleted. Please help me out here. Celebjazbuz18 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your contribution history shows one biographical article, which is Shruti rawat, which lists three references, two of which are Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not permitted as a reference. The other reference is to her own web site, which is not an independent reliable source. The nominator thinks that you have not provided evidence of notability, and I agree. My advice would be to create the article in draft space, gradually, and submit it to review via Articles for Creation. If you have created a second draft, it may have already been deleted. Do newspapers or other independent reliable sources discuss the actress? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The other reference is a dead link, and if it existed the url implies that it would have been the website of the subject, so not an independent reliable source. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As Robert and David have pointed out, Celebjazbuz18, your referencing on Shruti rawat and Surjit saha was inadequate, Wikipedia and Facebook are not considered reliable sources. But if you like, we could restore the articles to your user space where you could continue to work on them. Let me know. I think it's a mistake in advice given to new editors to add articles directly into Wikipedia when they should be working on them as a Draft or in their sandbox. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice About Creating New Article Directly

Where is that advice given? New autoconfirmed editors may add articles directly to article space, but I don't see the advice to go ahead and do that. If that advice is present in a policy, guideline, or help file, I agree that it should be changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all of the tutorials but I think Wikipedia:Your first article tells new editors to be bold and create new articles. Buried in a lot of text, it says that it can be useful to experiment in the Sandbox but it's not highlighted as the first step a brand new editor should take. It does recommend getting sources together but I think most new editors think that they can create an article and improve it gradually over time. But I've done my share of checking New Page Patrolling and if a new article doesn't claim or demonstrate significance of the subject (or make it clear that reliable sources DO exist, they just haven't been added yet), it is likely that the article will get a CSD tag. But NPP behavior varies a lot among editors and admins (more than it should) and the boundary of what is considered significant is not set in stone. At least, that has been my experience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that it doesn't advise against directly creating articles. I haven't read the history of Your First Article, but it likely predates AFC and Draft Space. I think that there are two aspects of article creation that should be avoided. The first is the creation of new articles directly in article space, even by experienced editors. I think that experienced editors would do well to create articles in user space and move them into article space when they have all of the content and references. Very few editors can create a whole article in a single edit in article space without periodically saving it, and if a new article that isn't finished is saved in article space, as you said, it is likely to be tagged for speedy deletion (or for proposed deletion, or for a deletion discussion). (I disagree with those who think that New Page Patrollers need to allow time before tagging an article for speedy deletion. If the article isn’t finished, don’t put it in article space.) If one doesn’t want to go through AFC, it is better to create the article in user space and then move it to article space. The second thing that should be avoided is the creation of articles in article space, whether directly or by moving them, by inexperienced editors, who do better to use AFC. I agree that WP:Your first article may need some tweaking. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and answers folks i will try to follow those guidelines and would try to create a new article in the sandbox. But i just noticed few biographical pages which have some broken links and also the words written in blue redirect you to a wikipedia page itself. I would just like to know what's the term used for the words written in blue and if that redirects you to a wiki page itself is it also subjected to deletion? Celebjazbuz18 (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

And i would also like to know if i could use news links of that particular person which are featured on youtube by news agencies or not? Celebjazbuz18 (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Celebjazbuz18, and welcome to the Teahouse. Many, indeed almost all, Wikipedia articles, include "wikilinks", that is links to other Wikipedia articles through the Wikimedia software. This show up in blue by default, although you can change how you see them. These are used to link to related articles, or to articles whose subject has been mentioned, to allow and encourage readers to learn more about topics that may be of interest. The difference is that these are not used as references. References are citations to sources that verify statements made in Wikipedia articles. They should normally be to reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should NOT be used as references. There are several reasons, but one important one is that this can lead to circular referencing where article A is used as a source for article B, which is used as a source for article C, which is cited as a source for article A, leading the reader around in a circle. Most references should be to independent sources although what a person or institution says about itself can be used for some limited purposes. Use of Wikilinks is a good thing, and does not make an article subject to deletion. Use of Wikipedia articles as sources is not a good thing, but the usual cure is to edit to remove those sources, and replace them with better sources. If no better sources are provided, then deletion may be the best choice. DES ^(talk) 12:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Celebjazbuz18, articles about a subject in major or other reliable news sources are indeed good sources and can be used. If these are posted to Youtube by the original news source, they can be used, but not if some other person has captured them and reposted them in violation of copyright. Instead directly cite the original broadcast or publication. A link to an online version is helpful, but not at all required, provided enough information is given for others to find the original source. Also, be careful of press releases masquerading as news stories. These are usually not good sources to cite as references, and many of them are on Youtube. Feel free to ask any additional questions here. DES ^(talk) 12:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer but i would just like to know how to cite a newspaper article of a person which is not available on the digital media or how to cite and use a television news or if that is on youtube? how do i cite it as a reference link. Please explain the citation method. Thank you. Celebjazbuz18 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Celebjazbuz18. You can use {{Cite news}} to cite any news item, including one only available offline. You can use that or {{Cite AV media}}, or {{cite web}} to cite a TV newscast, or a copy of one on youtube. Follow the directions in the template's documentation, and the more general directions at Referencing for Beginners. (or you don't have to use a template.) In any case, include the title of the story or broadcast, the date of original broadcast or publication or posting (if known), the name of the news organization that created the item, the page number for a printed document, the author or reporter if known, and a link if available. Additional information that allows a reader to find and evaluate the source is very useful. Does that help? DES ^(talk) 14:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you DES it did help but just a request if you could just send me the link of the page where i could find the citation programming like how to use the brackets or pipes and texts to be used. Please do the needful. Thank you. Celebjazbuz18 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you not read the links which DES gave you to {{Cite news}}, {{Cite AV media}}, and {{cite web}}? I have removed the irrelevant link you had to the article DES. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What to do on "AFCH-error" popup message?

On top righthand corner of screen I'm frequently getting a pop-up, telling " AFCH error : user not listed " . The message also contain hyperlinks (such as, to wikiproject articles for creation); but I couldn't understand from them, what it is telling to do ? what I have to do ? .

Please also inform me , what problems would occur , if I continue work, neglecting the message ? .

Rajarshi Rit 17:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Rajarshi Rit 17:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Rajarshi Rit 17:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs) 17:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC) p.s the messages are coming till few (1 or 2 or 3) months . 17:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)~ 17:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Rajarshi Rit — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I wonder whether you have selected the "Yet Another AFC Helper Script:" option at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets without having satisfied the requirements at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants? If so, just deselect that option. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Rajarshi Rit 18:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Thank so so so much Rajarshi Rit 18:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs)

Draft:California Association of Community Managers

I reviewed Draft:California Association of Community Managers and declined it as not providing references to establish corporate notability.. User:Brady Blair then added external links, but not references, and resubmitted it. I declined it again. I admit that I didn’t notice the addition of the external links, and as a result, may have been harsh with a new user who may not know the difference. User:Brady Blair then posted to my talk page:

I added references and want to come back and create this article over the course of a day or so. I am surprised at how fast these are being reviewed and denied despite my efforts to provide information requested. How an association that directly impacts over 8.9 million people is irrelevant is beyond me - and since I included the links I cannot understand how I didn't meet the one requirement that was asked of me. I understand I am an inexperienced user but I would appreciate some guidance aside from a canned message of denial.

My guidance at this point is to add independent reliable sources, such as newspapers or magazines, not associated with the organization. As to how an association that affects 8.9 million people is “irrelevant”, I didn’t say that. The decline template only says that the author hasn’t established notability in the specialized Wikipedia sense, because it is up to the submitter to establish notability. Maybe other experienced editors can give some additional requested guidance, such as to explain the difference between external links and references. As to waiting a day or two to improve the article, that is fine. As to how fast the draft was re-reviewed, the review process often adds the draft to a reviewer’s watchlist. Tendentious resubmission of drafts is common. In this case, it was not a tendentious resubmission, because the author in good faith probably did not understand the difference between references and external links.

The best place for an inexperienced user to ask for guidance is here at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. I took a look at the external links that might possibly be used as references, and did not find anything solid. The Folsom newspaper article mentions the group in passing. The real estate trade publication article is an interview of a leader of the group, which is not an independent source. And so on. So, I see no solid evidence that CACM is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But perhaps better sources exist.

More broadly, I think it is best to be slow and cautious in accusing editors of being tendentious, and discussing deletion of their draft. To me, a charge of tendentious editing requires a long and consistent pattern of disruption, and drafts with any reasonable hope of being accepted should be left alone for a while. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I was too quick to state that the resubmission was tendentious. The editor was trying to address the reviewer comments, but didn't know the difference between references and external links. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)