Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 535

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 530

←

Archive 533

→

How to make article links live.

I wanted to know if a person's oped should be placed in the "external links or in bibliography" section? And. I am having trouble making those links live. could you answer both those questions?

Thank you! Ileana Iwachtel (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, every time I try to include an article in the external links section with the proper ref symbols it show the link in the preview but then when I go to save it and go back to the page the article has not been saved. Please let me know what I am doing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwachtel (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Ileana. If you wrap a URL in a <nowiki></nowiki> tag, that prevents it from being converted to a link. —teb728 t c 19:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try that.Iwachtel (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I tired you suggestion, still didn't work. My question is: I want to add the Title of the OpEd and have the title hyperlinked to the article. Do I use the Cite source, which I've tried and it didn't work. If you could please explain specifically how to do that I would be grateful. Iwachtel (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What you did at that time of the above question was again to enclose the links in nowiki tags, and you had been told that the nowiki tags prevent it from being turned into a link. Your later additions were all drastically malformatted, trying to use references after the reference section and enclosing the urls in {{...}} brackets, which are the format to invoke a template, and of course templates of those names don't exist. For detail of how to make links in Wikipedia, see WP:Links, and for references see Help:Referencing for beginners. Your additions were in any case inappropriate and I have reverted them; for details of what is permitted in an "External links" section, see WP:External links. I see that you had added a link to a page on the subject's website which appears to list most (if not all) of the pages which you were trying to link, so there is no point in trying to link them individually. I will leave it to other editors to decide whether the link to the list of pages is in itself valid, or whether this might be regarded as a soapbox, promoting the political views of the subject. Wikipedia isn't interested in what the subject himself has written; it is interested on what independent published reliable sources have written about him. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you David. As you can see I am new to this so your detailed explanation is very helpful. Much appreciation. Iwachtel (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Demonstrating a subject's notability

Draft:Andrew Wilson-Dickson

I've made a few attempts to start an article about a musician and have received the same rejection note: "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." I've checked similar subjects on Wikipedia, and my article is equally if not better supported. Has anyone any advice about how to get over this initial hurdle?Twmprys (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In my view, the draft's references are very close to establishing notability, if they do not already do so. Those currently numbered 8, 9 and 10 are to acceptable sources and have significant discussion of the subject. It is unfortunate that the first four in the list do not help to establish notability (1 is to a listing, 2 only has a brief mention of him, 3 and 4 are not independent). Maproom (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, many thanks to those who have already given me advice here about creating an article (SwisterTwister and Gbawden). Andrew, I am in exactly the same situation as you are, so am interested to hear how you progress and what the outcome is. Newamordia (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

cc2.0 copyright status

Hello there,

I was wondering whether you could advise me on this image i have uploaded. On the website it says the image can be used under cc2.0. Will that be okay with Wikipedia's standards? How do i proof this?--S Khemadhammo (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

S Khemadhammo: this page (unlike any other in Wikipedia) has new questions at the top. I have therefore taken the liberty of moving your question here. Maproom (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I see that the same image has already been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons in 2010 with the name "กรวดน้ำ นายกรัฐมนตรีและภริยา เป็นประธานในพิธีถวายภัต - Flickr – Abhisit Vejjajiva.jpg", and no-one has questioned its copyright status. So you could use that version instead. Maproom (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The license (CC-By-SA 2.0) itself is perfectly acceptable. The uploader has made the mistake of specifying the license in a custom text form ("Creative Commons Attribution (cc-by-2.0)") instead of using a copyright tag template (such as the one here). As Maproom notes above, you should not upload photos that have already been uploaded; use the original one instead: File:กรวดน้ำ นายกรัฐมนตรีและภริยา เป็นประธานในพิธีถวายภัต - Flickr - Abhisit Vejjajiva.jpg – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I see! Btw, I used the standard question form, so I don't know why the question appeared at the bottom of the page. Thank you for the information!--S Khemadhammo (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Finnusertop, you said i shouldn't upload a photo twice. Is it required to delete the duplicate file? If so, how do I do that? --S Khemadhammo (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

S Khemadhammo strictly speaking not "required", but it is advisable. You don't have to do anything because the file is already pending deletion (for the improper tag issue, but we'll kill two birds with one stone when it's deleted). This will happen automatically. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Finnusertop!

New Article declined because of references

Hello Team,

First of all I would like to thank in advance for the help that I would be receiving.

My article was rejected because of the below reason "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

Can you please elaborate what exactly is the requirement. From our understanding we think the requirement is to have more inline references for some of the key words (ex."Silk Road" should be referenced to similar wiki article or external links). Please let us know if the understanding is correct?

Also just below in the Reference sections we see numbers like [1],[2] etc for the references. We can to get rid of those. Can you guide us for the same?

Thanks, usfstudent Usfstudentacct (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume this is about Draft:Dr. Adib Farhadi. You need to cite the references from within the article – see Referencing for beginners, as you were advised. Another problem with the "Silk Road" reference is that the reader cannot tell from "New Silk Road Initiative" what it is you're citing. Is it a book? If it is, who wrote it, when, who published it, what's its ISBN? Maproom (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Usfstudentacct. No, links to other Wikipedia articles are called wikilinks and are very important for helping readers make use of Wikipedia, but they are entirely different from references, and serve a different purpose. Because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone may edit, almost nothing in it is reliable in a sense: even if the page you are reading was correct an hour ago, it might have been changed by somebody who was mistaken, or somebody who thinks the way the subject was written about was wrong, or somebody who enjoys breaking things (a vandal). The only way you can be sure of the content is by following references to reliable published sources. It follows that an article (or a section, or even a sentence) without any references to reliable published sources is in a sense worthless, because the reader has no way of determining its validity. --ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Usfstudentacct, your user name suggests that the account might be being used by several people. If it is just one person, that is fine, but if in fact several people are using it, please be aware that Wikipedia policy forbids sharing accounts: each person should create their own account. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia policy

Hi guys, I have a question that ;Did English Wikipedia has different policy than Vietnam Wikipedia. I have translate the article of one of the artist from English Wikipedia into Vietnamese (Vietnam Wikipedia). The issue is, when I complete translate and even add more detail on the article in Vietnamese, I using the same "reliable source" in the article in Wikipedia English and these these reliable source already got accepted by English Wikipedia as well as the article on English Wikipedia already live without any concern/flag etc...), but one of the mod or admin from Vietnam Wikipedia telling me that he gonna delete the article because the source is "Weak", but like I said the source I giving him just the same the source that used in the article in Wikipedia English, I even add more source and then the "mod or admin" saying some "words" unrespect me as well as the artist. As I know, Wikipedia is the open community and Wikipedia policy is welcome any new member, I put my "free" hard work to translate the article and what I get is a bad behavior from a mod/admin from "Vietnam Wikipedia". Please give me some advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.226.94 (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Yes, each Wikipedia has its own rules and policies, set by its own community. This also means that there is nobody on English Wikipedia who can help you in your disagreement with an admin on Vietnamese Wikipedia. I suggest you take this to vi:Wikipedia:Giúp sử dụng Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I create a new sandbox

How do I create a new sandbox? Uhenddo (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Uhenddo. You can create a new sandbox by typing into the search bar "User:Uhenddo/Whatever you want to name that sandbox". When you get a redlink for that page, click it and begin. You can also start with these examples: User:Uhenddo/Sandbox, User:Uhenddo/Sandbox 2, User:Uhenddo/New article draft. I hope this gives you the idea! LadyofShalott 02:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Hello and thanks for any help in advance. I'm very new to wiki and learning as I go. Been quite bold and done some new sections to several articles and so far so good - learnt how to do citations ok. But seem to have come unstuck with fair use rationale. Not quite sure what I should be doing to make an image tick the right box. Do I need to do something every time I upload the image onto an article - and if so what? And where? Do I do a formula on the edit page when I upload the picture. Not quite sure what I'm supposed to do..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bishop_of_Oxford_enthronement_protest.JPG..jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Croft_(bishop) Thanks for giving time to a newbie Joelionheart (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC) See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sentamu where I've used the same image alongside the section added. Took me a week to figure out how to load the picture and get size right. I don't want to see the image lost because I've not got 'fair use rationale' thingy correct? Joelionheart (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Joelionheart: you write "every time I upload the image onto an article". But that's not what happens. No-one can upload an image into an article. You can upload an image to Wikimedia Commons (or sometimes to English Wikipedia if you need "fair use" to justify using it), and then use it in articles. When you upload it, you do need to tick the right boxes, which can be quite demanding. And uploading an image with the extension ".JPG..jpg" is really weird – I am impressed that it works at all. Maproom (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Maproom ... how do I do the "fair use" thing? Do I do that each time I use the image. I've used it on 2 seperate articles. I'm new so it's alot to learn all at once, and what I need to do may be obvious once I see it. Joelionheart (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no formal process of fair-use checking when you use a picture in an article, Joelionheart, only when you upload it. But at least one of the non-free content criteria does apply to each use (viz. "8.Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") so it is a good idea to check each time you use a non-free picture that all the criteria are satisfied for that use. --ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joelionheart. You need to provide a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use of the image in a Wikipedia article. There are various templates you can use for this as shown in Category:Non-free use rationale templates, but maybe Template:Non-free use rationale 2 would be the easiest for you to use. Now having said that and after looking at the way you are using File:Bishop of Oxford enthronement protest.JPG..jpg in John Sentamu and Steven Croft (bishop), I think it's going to be very hard for you to justify non-free use for such a photo per WP:NFCC#8 that ColinFine mentioned above. The photo simply shows a flier presumably being handed out by a protester, and there's nothing about the image itself in my opinion that cannot be explained more than adequately using text. Simply wanting to the photo to be seen is not enough; the connection between image and article content has to be clearly evident and so strong that omitting the image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of that part of the article. Providing a non-free use rationale is only one step in the process and does not in and of itself automatically mean compliance with WP:NFCC. There are nine other non-free content criteria which also need to be satisfied and failing even one of the ten means the file is likely going to be removed via discussion at WP:FFD.

Finally, I removed the file from your User:Joelionheart/sandbox per WP:UP#Non-free images because non-free content is only allowed to be used (i.e., displayed) in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. This means no userpages, templates, talk pages, userboxes, sandboxes, noticeboards, drafts, etc. You can, however, link to non-free files (like I did above) when discussing them by using the colon trick if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there specific Wikipedia grammar?

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and before I start editing a bunch of pages I wanted to know if there is a specific grammar guide for Wikipedia. AKA I don't know if we should use the American English or European English: oxford comma, place commas in or outside of quotations ect... Furthermore, the one edit I did make was flagged red. I tried reading about it, but I am still confused. Is this normal for edits? I don't think a minor grammar error is "damaging." Pual98 (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pual98: yeah, we have a manual of style. There's also a simplified version. Basically: you can use either American or British spelling, but you should stick with it for the entire article; yes, we use the Oxford comma; and punctuation goes outside quotation marks. I'm not sure what you mean by "flagged red". Maybe you saw your user name or talk page highlighted in red? That means that it doesn't exist yet. They turned blue when they were created. Wikipedia has a lot of weird little interface quirks like that, but you get used to them eventually. After a few months, they even start to make sense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading the Manual of Style section on serial commas, use of the Oxford comma is optional — not required. After an explanation of the Oxford comma and an example, it says, "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent; however, there are times when the serial comma can create or remove confusion". Eddie Blick (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pual98: Welcome to the Teahouse. Adding to the previous answer, we use British English in articles about British topics, like London. We use American English in articles about American topics like New York. We use Indian English in articles about Indian topics like Mumbai. If the topic has no national connections, then we stick with the English variation going back to when the article was started. The shortcut WP:ENGVAR will take you to the guideline on variations of English. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Teblick, NinjaRobotPirate, and Cullen328: I have found my way to the manual of style and am familiarizing myself with the rules. I think the mere fact that there was a correction of comma usage in the replies serves to show how great Wikipedia is as a community. I'm thinking of joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, which I think is a great place to start on Wikipedia. As for the "flagged red" I was talking about, the link is [[1]]. Does anyone know how normal this is to occur on corrections? Thanks for the help all! Pual98 (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pual98: I wouldn't worry about the red flagging. It's a new automated tool that highlights potentially damaging edits. Unfortunately the ability to train the tool doesn't appear to have been switched on. And l'd also say thanks for embracing ENGVAR unlike the editor I dealt with earlier in the week who is going to have nothing further to do with Wikipedia until there is a specific American-English language version. Nthep (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

How to do citations.

I have edited a page I wrote on S.J. Goldsmith, which was rejected by a reviewer. I believe I have met his requirements, demonstrating notability etc., but am stumped by requirement for annotations. I can't figure out the immensely complicated citation format - brackets, carats and so on. In truth, as an experienced academic writer, I believe these superfluous for a short piece, which fully referenced at its conclusion. But OK, I will oblige - just show me how in straightforward terms. Or will someone format these things for me? And come to think of it, the four tilde requirement for submission of this question isn't too clear either. My MacBook Air doesn't even offer a tilde symbol among its regular keys! However, I herby copy and paste them, following the name under which the page was submitted. Ettessa Ettessa (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This page, Help:Referencing for beginners, should help. -- GB fan 23:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the response above, and I especially recommend that you focus on the Using refToolbar section. With the toolbar, creating most references is a matter of filling in certain blanks in the appropriate template (Web, News, Book, or Journal). The templates can save much time and frustration. (Don't worry if some spaces are left empty; just fill in the appropriate information from what is available to you.) Eddie Blick (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And to further promote the use of the toolbar, there is a trick that saves me a lot of time: enter the URL, then press the symbol of a magnifying glass next to it. This interrogates that linked page and pulls whatever information it can from the page so save you entering it. It's not always right because the pages are not always coded correctly, so you still need to check, but it's usually pretty good.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. @Ettessa: - I think you will find the tilde character if you use Shift and the very top left key (beside the 1, just under Esc). The images I can see online have that as the tilde on a Macbook Air. Hope this helps.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

P.P.S. Ettessa if you are using the toolbar, then clicking the third symbol (to the right of B and I) will add your signature and timestamp without having to find a tilde. --Arjayay (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing Pocahontas

The page for Pocahontas is to be considered racist. I have made edits to see it changed to be more truthful without going into dirty detail of the European aka American oppression of native americans. I am assuming this site is run by American sympathizers who would rather bury the truth. It is racist to call a native American woman a princess. There are no royal blood line's in native American culture. If there were the native American people would be savages. Natives are a generally peaceful lot who have been mistreated and misrepresented for well over 500 year's. Remove any mention of princess from the Pocahontas character page as well as any other references to princess regarding any native woman. Pocahontas never married a prince so she could never be a princess as Native americans have no kings and Queens she wasn't born a princess — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nativefla85 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nativefla85. Please take your discussion to the talk pages of the relevant articles. But before you do so, I recommend that you read a couple of pages about Wikipedia policy and behaviour: Assume good faith and WP:Neutral point of view. I get that you think that something on one or other of the articles about Pocahontas is racist, and you are angry about it. Other editors may or may not agree with you, but the way we work here is by reaching consensus, not by one editor shouting at others and calling them names. People who disagree with you are not necessarily racist. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles should be based on what the preponderance of reliable sources say, not on somebody's opinion. If several reliable published sources refer to Pocahontas as a princess, then that term should appear in the article. If there has been discussion in reliable published sources about whether the term is appropriate, then that discussion should also be reported in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nativefla85. In addition to what ColinFine posted above, I also suggest you take a look at "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" and "Righting Great Wrongs". If there has been some controversy over the use of the term "princess" with respect to Pocahontas and this has been discussed in independent reliable sources, then perhaps that is something which should be added to the article. Some examples of how this might be done in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are Washington Redskins name controversy or Washington Redskins#Controversy regarding the name and logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nativefla85: Welcome to the Teahouse. You are editing the article Pocahontas (character) about the fictional Disney character Pocahontas as opposed to the historical person. The cartoon character is only loosely based on the real person. If a fictional story calls a cartoon character a "princess", then so will the Wikipedia article about that character. So too, if reliable sources criticize that portrayal, then that criticism may deserve a place in the article. But your real complaint is with Disney, not Wikipedia. We simply describe the world with all its faults and good things as well. Reshaping reality is not our role. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Nativefla85 - The "real" article on Pocahontas discusses this point under the "Title and status" section, and also explains the situation "Although Pocahontas was not a princess in the context of Powhatan culture, the Virginia Company nevertheless presented her as a princess to the English public." - Arjayay (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Updating article ratings

Greetings, TeaHousers. This is probably a dumb question, but please humour me. I was looking for astronomical articles with low quality, using Category:Start-Class Astronomy articles. However, some of the articles there have been substantially written and are way beyond what I would consider Start Class, such as Bart Bok and Brian Schmidt. So I suspect their classifications simply need to be updated - what is the process to have articles' ratings reviewed?Gronk Oz (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Welcome back to the Teahouse. Only Good articles and Featured articles go through a formal peer review process. All other article ratings are assigned by individual editors. So, if you run across an article that you believe deserves a higher (or lower) rating, then go right ahead and change the rating. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I took a quick look at Bart Bok and agree that it is better than start class. It is a developed, informative article about a fascinating person and his accomplished wife. On the other hand, it has some problems. Some content in the lead is duplicated word for word in the body. The lead is supposed to summarize the body, not incorporate sentences word for word. Also, there is an excessively long quotation by Bok. My guideline is that a two sentence quote is fine, a three sentence quote is OK but deserves a second look, and a four sentence quote is pushing the limits. So, I suggest that you copy edit that article and then upgrade its rating. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks Cullen. I will have a go at that, and then be bold and re-rate it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

At the same time, bear in mind that the ratings of articles, except for Good Article and Featured Article, are not formally assigned, and many editors don't care about them. I would say that it is more important to improve articles than to rerate them to indicate improvement, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Give us opinions on discussions on ANI and rising discussions on BLPN

Good day, co-Wikipedians! I have a favor to ask you if it's alright. So, here it goes. I am a strict newbie here, demanding that rules on WP:NPOV must be upheld. And now I saw a user, named Signedzzz, adding contributions that is 'anti-Rodrigo Duterte' like and reverting the other's contributions that he said is 'pro-Duterte' like, so I started looking his talk page and Talk:Rodrigo Duterte and I learned about the 'September 14 mass deletions' of the user, according to another user RioHondo and several disputes, leading me to put POV tag on the article 01. Signedzzz then reverted it 02 as it was unexplained. I restored the tags with a summary: discussions on talk page enough for declaring the article with 'NON-NPOV' and has a 'systematic bias03. He again rejected it and asked me to tag specific sections and state what the "systemic bias" issue is on article talk04. So for the sake of fairness, I provided a link to the talk page discussion as requested by him 05, but he later reverted me again with an accusation of 'death threat' (on my statement: "Just remember that all of our actions here in Wiki is recorded in page history and may be seen by anyone, members of the Wiki or not.") that he has said that 'is no explanation'06, leading me to start a discussion on ANI, explaining that the statement of mine was just a reminder that a user may be blocked because of the possibe non-neutral point-of-view contributions, that is seen on page history by both Wiki members or not, and WP:CoI. Please refer to the link for more information. Then, RioHondo, who was tagged in the ANI, explained his side on Signedzzz's 'disruptive behavior' on editing and stated that "the article, Rodrigo Duterte, must be reviewed to address BLP violations", leading another user, Hijiri88, to open a BLPN discussion stated that 'ANI is not the right place'. Now, back to death threat accusation, I said, if that 'was his problem, Signedzzz should have rather deleted it than deleting the whole section, including on why the article should be tagged, especially of POV tags.' Hijiri88 then replied that Signedzzz has said he will no longer attempt to remove my whole post now, although I haven't seen any comments of Signedzzz regretting the removal of the post and the tags. Now, should we really close the ANI discussion? Is ANI may not be a place on article disputes and a user's disruptive behavior? Is really a 'said' regret of Signedzzz (although there was no supported comment of regret from him) make him absolved on his WP:BULLYING, and possible ind. or temp. block? Should we really discuss this on BLPN? Mentioning administrators, I really need your help regarding the ANI. Co-wikipedians, you can comment your views on both ANI and BLPN discussion. Thank you, guys, and regards! ~Manila's Poging Juan 10:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

First, your post is long and hard to follow. See too long, didn’t read. I will try to respond briefly, although I haven’t yet read the discussion in detail. First, Rodrigo Duterte is a controversial figure, and does need to be addressed from a neutral point of view,and the biography of living persons policy does apply. Second, ANI is a forum for reporting user conduct issues. I don’t know at this time whether there has been bullying, but ANI is an appropriate place to report bullying. Third, it is always better to discuss article content issues on the article talk page or at other talk pages than at ANI, and the biographies of living persons noticeboard is a reasonable place for such discussions. (However, Duterte is a very public figure, and, unlike private figures, controversy about him does deserve coverage.) Fourth, please do not put whole sentences in bold face; that is shouting. I will look at the issue in more detail. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

In looking it over further, I can see that the discussions have been contentious. I will comment that Duterte is evidently very popular in the Philippines (where he was elected, of course) and very unpopular in the United States, and I don’t know about elsewhere. I will comment about tagging that the purpose of tagging is to identify an article that needs improvement, and that edit-warring over the addition and removal of tags is still edit-warring, and that tags are supposed to result in discussion of the article content, not just of the tag. The burden should be on an editor removing a tag, so that removal of the tag should follow discussion. (Yes, this means that tagging can be done sort of arbitrarily, and cannot be removed arbitrarily. That is just the way it is.) I made two efforts to look for death threats, that is, for death threats within Wikipedia, and I didn’t see them, which doesn’t mean that they are there or that they aren’t there. (I see that Mr. Duterte has made death threats against people, but that is in the article, and is article content.) As to discussions at ANI, discussions at ANI often become repetitive, and not every discussion at ANI results in administrative action, and often discussions at ANI are closed without administrative action, and I see that there were comments that the discussion had played out. I will note that the arguments of conflict of interest seem to be completely unwarranted. A conflict of interest would exist if an editor was in the pay of Mr. Duterte. The argument probably should be more one that an editor is not taking a neutral point of view, but editors do not always take a neutral point of view, and the editing process is meant to achieve that for the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

My own suggestion at this point is that, if the parties are actually interested in improving the article, rather than in imposing a viewpoint on the article or in complaining about other editors, they should request formal mediation. That is my suggestion, and you may disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone write Tamil to User:MGRAVIMG?

Does someone know Tamil? Can someone first verify what language User:MGRAVIMG/sandbox is in, and, then, if it is in Tamil (my guess, since the other edits by this editor have to do with Tamil actors), remind the author not to submit a draft in Tamil (or whatever language) to Articles for Creation? Normally one decline is sufficient, but, since they resubmitted after a decline for not being in English, the good-faith explanation is that they don't understand the explanation because the explanation is in English. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone should also direct them to Tamil Wikipedia as well... --Jayron 32 14:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The decline message for non-English AFC submissions does that, but it does that in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

At WP:PNT/T there is a useful set of bilingual messages to point foreign-language users to their home WP. The Tamil one is {{subst:contrib-ta1}}, and I have put that on the user's talk page.

The content of the sandbox is a Tamil version of Three Laws of Robotics. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

How to move Article from Draftspace to Mainspace - Draft:Smit Singh

I have edited the page on Smit Singh in drafts and believe the article meets the wikipedia standards, how can it be moved to Main space or Public space from draft space?Vijaysingh1 (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vijaysingh1 and welcome to the Teahouse. The best thing to do would be to have your article reviewed by pressing the big blue button saying "Submit your draft for review". On a quick look, am I right in thinking he hasn't competed at the Olympics? If he has, then he meets the criteria of Wikpedia's guidelines for notability of sportspeople. If not, then he might meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Joseph2302 21:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: I just added the AFC template and was typing my answer here when we edit-conflicted. — Gestrid (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 : Thank you for helping. I just submitted the article for review. No, he has not participated in the Olympics but has participated in three World Championships 2010, 2013 and 2015. As you suggested the article may be applicable to meet wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Thanks Vijaysingh1 (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: Hey, Thanks for adding the AFC template. Vijaysingh1 (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: I understand, Thanks. While hiding IT is not very crucial but if it is possible for you to help than it would be great. Thank you. Vijaysingh1 (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you meant to reply on your talk page. I'll go ahead and ask for you. — Gestrid (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I add links to my page without looking spamy?

Hi there! I was told my page needs to be linked to from other pages. I'm curious on if I should just go to other similar pages and add links to my page on Wikipedia? I feel like that looks spamy though. How should I best do this organically? I want my page to be authentic. Ashley.stein.27 (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that you are worrying too much about the 'orphan' tag on Record Nations and Shred Nations and whether they look spammy and that the real concern is that they are spam, and that one of them has been tagged for speedy deletion. The first red flag in your post was referring to "my page". No one owns a page in Wikipedia. The first thing that you should do is to declare your conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ashley.stein.27. I'll try to offer a better explanation. Sites like Facebook let people create "their own" pages, for themselves, for their business, or anything else. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. No one "owns" an article. Other editors can and do edit any article, including adding negative information that the article subject may not like. The relevant point here is that we have standards for what constitutes a legitimate encyclopedia article. The detailed policy is Notability, but the short explanation is that we summarize what other people have already written about a topic. That means we only have articles on topics where multiple Reliable Sources have already written significant independent coverage of the topic. We often have companies trying to add articles for themselves, but Wikipedia is not a business directory. In order to have articles on Record Nations, Shred Nations, or anything else, you need to show that there are newspapers, books, magazines, or other similar sources that already publish significant discussion of them.

I see that Shred Nations currently has a Proposed Deletion notice on it. You basically have three options:

You can add additional sources to the article, demonstrating notability by showing that books or newspapers or other reliable sources have already written about Shred Nations. Then you can remove the {{Proposed Deletion}} and {{notability}} templates. That will prevent the article from being deleted.
You can do nothing, and the article will almost certainly be deleted on or after October 26th.
If you think the article should not be deleted then anyone is permitted to remove the {{Proposed Deletion}} template for any reason, with or without explanation. That will temporarily halt the deletion process, but it is generally a waste of time. If the article still doesn't have independent sources showing notability then the article will almost certainly go to AFD (Articles for Deletion) discussion. That means various other editors weigh in, evaluating whether the article should be kept or deleted. That process generally runs for a week. You can present sources or other evidence of why the article should be kept. If no one presents such evidence, then the article will almost certainly be deleted. Alsee (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

References and List Articles

I hope that this isn't a stupid question. I have tried to look up the answer to it. In a stand-alone list article, do those items in the list that are blue-linked article names have to have references in the list article? I can see the logic to a requirement that they have references, but they also have references in the parent articles. I didn't find a statement about references in any of the Help or Wikipedia or MOS articles on lists. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Of course, your question is not stupid. According to the guideline WP:STANDALONE, a list article should comply with this: "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines."

As I interpret that, a high quality list article should include a reference for every entry on that list, verifying that each item actually belongs on that list. Under that theory, I set out a few months ago to upgrade List of members of the Black Panther Party to be sure that every entry was properly referenced. That exercise was a useful but time consuming one for me. A decent list article should contain such references ideally. Any editor should feel free to improve such lists. However, it would be a mistake, in my opinion, to strip possibly encyclepedic content from such articles without engaging in a good faith search for sources. We are here, after all, to build an encyclopedia, not to tear it down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I declined the draft in question. The question was motivated by a draft at AFC. The author can add a reference from each of the listed articles to the list. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Would a deed-restricted community be worthy of its own article?

Hello, I'm fairly new to editing for Wikipedia and I'm trying to find articles that I can relate to or live nearby. I'm having a bit of trouble finding things to write about, but would the community I live in be noteworthy enough for its own article? It doesn't have one yet. It's in Florida, so there are many like this one, but it is quite large and is one of the few around that isn't an apartment complex. If this isn't anything to write home about I understand, but if anyone could also give me tips for finding ways to contribute that would be wonderful.

Mrsm00th1 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mrsm00th1, I'm not sure if the community you live in meets notability. Instead, I'll comment on how you can find articles to edit. Since you said you live in Florida, you may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida. It most likely (I haven't looked, but almost all WikiProjects do) has a list of articles that need expansion, copy-editing, or other work, and in most cases that list will include several hundred to over 1,000 articles. Out of that, you'll probably find something you're interested in editing. The project might also have a list of articles they want written. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Mrsm00th1 I don't know what a "deed-restricted community" is, but I can tell you that the smallest settlements we routinely cover in Wikipedia are villages that have some kind of official recognition as a separate entity. In the case of cities, officially demarcated suburbs are about as detailed as it gets. If it has a recognized name and officially demarcated boundary under some type of municipal authority, it qualifies for an article as a "populated place". However if you can find sufficient independent and reliable sources about your community, it will qualify for an article under the general notability guideline. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I edit an article?

Regarding Everybody Needs Somebody to Love,

Under the subhead Live performances[edit],

how do I add:

The band Knights of Day recorded it in mid-1966 on Tower Records.

Here's my source:

KNIGHTS OF DAY - EVERYBODY NEEDS SOMEBODY TO LOVE

Thanks for your assistance.

Sincerely, Steve DakotaStevenJDakota (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi StevenJDakota. I saw your edit at that page. The reason it didn't work was because you had <ref><ref>source</ref></ref> instead of <ref>source</ref>. The ref was doubled, which doesn't work. However I removed it completely because youtube is almost never considered a Reliable Source. Anyone can upload anything to youtube, and they can write anything they want. I could upload a video and claim the song was recorded by Madonna in the year 1600. Try to cite a book, newspaper, magazine, store, or some other source that is reasonably reliable for that sort of information.

You can put a bare <ref>https://web-address</ref>, or a plaintext description like <ref>Magazine, Date, Page</ref>, but we prefer better refs. After you click EDIT, there is a CITE option at the top which opens a TEMPLATES option. Clicking one of the templates will give you a pop-up where you can fill in information for the ref. (You don't need to fill all of the boxes.) That will insert a nice fancy ref into the page, at the current cursor position. We also have a help page: Help:Referencing for beginners. That page has lots of information in adding refs, including videos showing how it works. Alsee (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Hi StevenJDakota. I found a couple of other references so I put the information back with those. Reinforcing the need for good references, it turns out not to be Tower Records, but rather Sundazed.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi StevenJDakota. Another problem with linking to YouTube is that sometimes the content has been uploaded by people other than the original copyright holder. Wikipedia has a policy against linking to anything which might be considered to be a copyright violation because doing so is also considered a copyright violation. It's OK to link to copyrighted content that has been uploaded onto official websites or official YouTube channels when its clear that the uploader holds the copyright on the content they are uploading, but it's not OK to link to pages where such content have been uploaded without proper authorization or is unclear. The YouTube channel you've linked to above just appears to be someone uploading songs from their personal collection. I'm sure that you just added that link in good faith, but I'm also pretty sure that particular YouTube uploader does not hold the copyright on any of the songs found on that channel. So, as a precaution, I have removed the link from your post per the aforementioned policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing at Ethics

I added following content regarding question at Ethics

Latest researches (Sarwar, 2013) are using frequency to help determine applied ethics. For example "Do you ethically represent subordinates in front of higher authorities? Select one choice from 0 = Not at All , 1 = Once in a while , 2 = Sometimes , 3 = Fairly Often , 4 = Frequently If Not Always ". [46]

Is it OK?

Imran Sarwar (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

In the article on ethics, you have quoted a question from a questionnaire that happens to include the word "ethically". I don't think this contributes anything useful to the article. (It doesn't help that the question itself is poorly worded – I really can't guess it was intended to mean.) Maproom (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Submission Declined

I have been working on a wiki page for Hollywood Immersive and it's been declined. If possible could someone please take a look at the page and give me some tips on how I can improve the page and get it approved.

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hollywood_Immersive

Thank you very much.

Adam Rotenberg (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Adam Rotenberg, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest two things: first you need to demonstrate that the topic is notable by adding more references to coverage of it in reliable, independent sources; second, try to write the article in a more neutral tone, as at present it reads like a promotion of the company. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adam Rotenberg. The key idea here is that Wikipedia isn't a business directory, and it's not like Facebook where anyone can post anything. Wikipedia an encyclopedia, with encyclopedia articles. How do we decide what topics warrant an article? We have articles on topics that Reliable Sources already write about. We call this Notability, in particular you want to see the section on General Notability Guideline. Basically it means you have to show that there are:

Multiple reliable sources already writing about Hollywood Immersive.
Those sources cannot be connected to Hollywood Immersive.
Those sources have to have significant discussion of Hollywood Immersive. Hollywood Immersive does not need to be the main subject of the piece, but there has to be more than a brief passing mention of Hollywood Immersive.

You currently have 4 sources cited in the draft:

I improved the Starnow ref (the link you had didn't mention Hollywood Immersive or the competition). However it doesn't help with notability because Starnow is not independent.
FTI looks to be some sort of membership organization and very questionable as a Reliable Source, and it's merely republishing a press release. A self-published press release has exactly zero notability value, and a republished press release isn't much better. You're better off replacing this ref.
Stagewhispers looks to be a credible magazine, however it's merely a republished press release. We give little weight to republished press releases.
News.com.au looks good. It's a professional news source. It's based on a press release, but they actually wrote an piece on it. This does help establish notability.

I did a Google News search on "Hollywood Immersive".[2] There are a bunch of reports on winners going to Hollywood Immersive, but they don't say much about Hollywood Immersive. You can list them on the draft's talk page, as a group they contribute some notability value. But you probably need to come up with another strong source or two to establish notability. Alsee (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Writing biographies of living people

Hello. I have written a biography about Abdulla Grimci, an Albanian composer, who exercised his musical activity during the communist regime in Albania. Due to the regime there are no written articles, websites (because there were no computers or internet in Albania at that time) or published books that I could use as a reference for his life and achievements. Please help in solving this issue. EnianaB (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a difficult situation, @EnianaB:. One of Wikipedia's core values is verifiability - a reader should be able to see where each statement came from and evaluate how reliable it is. If you have nothing to refer to, where did any of this information come from? How can somebody know whether it is right or wrong? This is the reason why Wikipedia insists on references - without them it could be somebody's imagination or it could be right, but we don't know...

One reference that might be useful is Ndokaj, Roberta (4 February 2016). "The First Works of Albanian Ballet". Anglisticum Journal. 5 (1): 53–61. doi:10.0001/(aj).v5i1.750. ISSN 1857-8187. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help) --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

EnianaB How did you get to know about Abdulla Grimci's life and achievements? You might already have sources that might be usable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I got to know about Abdulla Grimci's life through his daughter, who supplied to me the information. Still, I will try to go to the national library of Albania and see if there are published books that reference his work, but of course if there are such books they will be written in the Albanian language because during the communist regime, Albania was isolated and people could not travel abroad freely or cooperate with foreign artists, writers or journalists.

EnianaB (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, EnianaB. You added this comment to the wrong section, so I've moved it. Foreign-language references are perfectly acceptable, as long as they are from WP:reliable sources. It can be helpful to provide a translation of the specific text in the source which validates the reference, but that is not essential. --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi EnianaB, I've just looked at this again and have an idea, perhaps you and Grimci's daughter could write an article for a music magazine, rather than struggle to source a Wikipedia article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

COI Banner - editing WIKI page about me

Hello - my name is Marshall, and I started editing an existing page dedicated to my own biography. I am a music artist, and noticed that the page wasn't structured or tended to as other pages, and wanted to improve the presentation as well as the information. In doing so, I found that I may have been out of bounds in editing - there is now a COI banner on the page. My wish is to improve the page; make it more accurate and in keeping with the structure of like pages. How may I do this, while not infringing on Wikipedia's integrity?

Thank you. Marshallkiphall (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Marshallkiphall: you may want to read through our guideline for how to manage a conflict of interest and, more specifically, autobiographies. Making edit requests on the talk page is considered the best practice, as that allows you to contribute meaningfully without accidentally turning the page promotional. It's very difficult to write about yourself neutrally. Minor edits, such as correcting grammar or spelling, don't need to be vetted, though. The idea is to prevent the page from turning into a shrine to your awesomeness. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate thank you for your response and help. I am supposing that I can make requests of any amount on the talk page? Also, how do I remove the COI banner at Marshall Hall (singer) page? I checked the how to that said there would be a delete option, but that doesn't show for me.

Thank you. Marshallkiphall (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If you tell us which of the IPs which have recently edited the article were you, we can decide whether the CoI tag can be removed. Some of the IPs' additions appear to be unsourced, and the {{no footnotes}} tag (among others) has been applied to the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I added the Infobox table template. I also added the Awards section templates and their information. I added reference links for the Grammy Awards for sources, and was going to do the same for the GMA Dove awards, but received the COI Banner. Also, I was beginning to rewrite the background information, as it is slightly inaccurate, out of date, and also sourced by dead links.

Thank youMarshallkiphall (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Tennessee Williams Talk Page

Friday - October 20, 2016

Can anyone direct me to the Tennessee Williams Talk Page? I'm trying to make some edits but seem to be pushing all the wrong buttons in searching for an editor to help me with this.

Thanks,

Robert Carroll

Robert Carroll 16:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Carroll (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you look at the Tennessee Williams article, you will see a "Talk" tab next to the "Article" tab at the top left. Otherwise you can go directly to Talk:Tennessee Williams. If you want to start a new discussion there, use the "New section" tab on the talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:D-Metal Stars

I reviewed Draft:D-Metal Stars and declined it as not meeting musical notability criteria. I also said that the references were not in the form of footnotes, and that they were duplicated, and advised to read referencing for beginners. User:Jbrunroii then posted to my talk page:

The relevance of the article seems to be questioned. D-Metal Stars This band has released METAL DISNEY on Walt Disney Records This project is a Top seller on Amazon Japan Children's chart shown here - https://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/bestsellers/music/578074/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_m_1_3_last

as well as a Top seller in the Amazon Japan Hard Rock & Metal chart shown here - https://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/bestsellers/music/569298/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_m_2_2_lastIt also includes Rudy Sarzo (legendary bassist who's credits include Ozzy Osbourne, Whitesnake, Quiet Riot, just to name a few)

Please review, and look at references.

I see that the author has since improved the references, although they are still not footnotes (which are not required except for a BLP). I note however that the author is asking me to look at references that are not in the draft. I will comment that occasionally as a reviewer I am pointed to evidence of notability that isn’t in the draft. A draft has to present its own evidence of notability. That can’t be done with things that aren’t referenced in the draft. Do any other experienced editors care to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Acceptable References

Hi, what are the components of notable references and how many are required for an article to be accepted?Reneeesq (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Reneeesq. There are two separate issues here: First, policy on notability determines whether a subject is appropriate for its own Wikipedia article. Second, policy on reliable sources determines what sources are appropriate to use in an article and how. There is no magic number of "how many sources are needed". Whether the sources provided establish notability is a somewhat subjective assessment best and most often made by experienced editors.

Also, judging by your username, I would suggest you review policy on autobiographies and conflict of interest an be careful to follow guidance there. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nat429 (aka Reneeesq), beside the issue of notability, all assertions in an article must be verifiable by references to published reliable sources. This requirement is particularly important in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. —teb728 t c 00:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Short Deletion

Hello - I created a first draft and it got deleted without prior notice. I am a journalist and the reason for the deletion wasn't clear enough. How could I get information as to why it was deleted? I followed the steps on the wizard and wasn't finished with the page just yet, only to find out a couple of days later that it was deleted. Is there any chance I can get the page to work on it again and complete the process I started67.8.57.49 (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello person editing from 67.8.57.49. If you told us what page was deleted we could offer targeted advice. The IP you're editing from has no deleted edits, so we can't know what page this is about. So in general:

There are four chief processes under which pages (at least when in the mainspace) are deleted:

Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion (prod)
Proposed deletion of articles on living persons (sticky prod); and
Articles for deletion (AfD).

To learn about typical reasons pages are deleted, see Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? To find out why any particular page was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "Title" the exact name of the page, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. In this case, the page title might have started with Draft:, though it's not clear. The deletion log entry will show when the page was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP 67.8.57.49. Just to add to what Fuhghettaboutit posted above, once you have identified the administrator who deleted the article, you can post a message on their user talk page and ask for clarification as to why the article was deleted. As long as you remain civil and remember that administrators are also volunteers who sometimes get busy, the administrator in question will most likely having no problem further clarifying things for you. If at that point you still wish to write the article, you can ask for the deleted version to be restored to your userspace as a draft so that you can continue working on it. I would suggest that you try and use Wikipedia:Articles for creation so that reviewers can provide you with suggestions on how to bring your draft up to Wikipedia's standards. Please try and understand that there are really no "finished pages" or "first drafts" when a new article is created directly in the article namespace. Once content has been added to the article namespace, it's fair game for anyone to edit at anytime. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Issue with co-ordinates in the river infobox

Resolved

As my first 'big' Wikipedia project, I've been working on Niemica (river), but after having put the co-ordinates of both the source and the mouth in the infobox (which I did later change to a geobox, but that had no effect on the issue), but Wikipedia is now giving me a message, in read, that: {{coordinates:}}: cannot have more than one primary tag per page.

I'm finding this impossible to solve, as a new user, even though other pages with this infobox seem to be working fine. I'd like the co-ordinates of the mouth to appear in the top corner, but with no error message. Any help would be greatly appreciated [Note: this is copy-and-pasted from my enquiry on the template's talk page].N Oneemuss (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed; please ignore (sorry for the inconvenience)N Oneemuss (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)