Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 635

Archive 630

←

Archive 633

Archive 634

Archive 635

Archive 636

Archive 637

→

Archive 640

How do I report a reoccurring error in an article?

I'm new to editing here and wanted to ask about an error I just found. I was reading this page on the composer Johann Johannsson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3hann_J%C3%B3hannsson

Throughout the article, he is referred to by his first name only and not by his last name. I don't have the time or inclination to go through and make all the changes by hand. Is there either a quicker way to edit or a way to report this to someone more edit-savvy?

Pinktoast (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pinktoast, and welcome to the Teahouse. The use of "Jóhann" to refer to Jóhann Jóhannsson is not an error, and should not be changed. If you look at the top of the page, it says "This is an Icelandic name. The last name is a patronymic, not a family name; this person is referred to by the given name Jóhann.". (Icelandic people who move to other countries tend to start using their patronymic as a surname, but that is a different thing.) --bonadea contributions talk 12:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I add true details that I cannot reference?

If there is something that can be added about a article, that I cannot find a reference to, but that I know is true and is quite important, what should I do? Edward1612 (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Edward1612. At Wikipedia: do nothing. Do not add this material. If, however, through some activity you can cause a reliable source to publish this material (a secondary source if at all possible) then that would fulfill the condition precedent for adding this material. Wikipedia, by its very nature as an encyclopedia, is never the place to first announce anything. Doing so would add unverifiable material and would be original research—core policies for inclusion, in keeping with the type of reference work Wikipedia is. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Become an ambassador

How do I become an ambassador in the Wikipedia:local embassy? Do I just add my name there? JethRoad the FactBoy 15:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, you may wish to ask this at the talk page for that page (click the 'talk' tab at the top). 331dot (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

pete davies

Hi everyone, I've been meaning for a long while to try and make the page about me a bit more balanced, accurate, detailed - I've not much clue how to go about it, & my first attempt yesterday's fallen foul of the guidelines - my fault, inadvertent, but I'm sorry about that. Originally if you put my name in the search box it said American historian & I notice today that someone's very kindly corrected that - many thanks.

But how do I go about amending the page itself? Am I not allowed to do so at all or in any way if it's me amending/editing/rewriting about me? I'd get that entirely if it's the case, fair enough. But just for a small example - I have a new novel out (called Playlist, published 2017) - can I add that fact to the bibliography or does someone else have to do it?

More generally, it would be nice to know how to make the page more informative without breaking the rules. Lookinf forward to taking advice, & many thanks for your help.

Pete Davies

Petedavies2006 (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Petedavies2006: Hello and welcome. It isn't totally forbidden for you to edit the article about yourself, but you are strongly discouraged from doing so(please see the autobiography guidelines), if there are errors or missing information in the article about you, you should bring them up on the article talk page(click the "talk" tab at the top of the article). I would note that your edit was removed because it was written in a highly promotional manner and not in an encyclopedic style. This is part of the reason for the autobiography guidelines- people naturally write favorably about themselves. If you allow others to make changes you want and they are appropriate for an encyclopedic article, they are more likely to be well received. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, many thanks - so I've just added the 1 title to the bibliography for now, is that OK? Otherwise I'll think about how the article might be better done without it straying into hype. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that it's there. Just could be a shade more balanced. Again, thanks - Pete

Petedavies2006 (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The addition you made might be OK, but anything more than that you should avoid doing yourself. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Upload Pictures?!

Hello,

I seem to be unable to upload lots of photos on my father's page (Joseph Beer) mostly the vintage b/w but also others!!...

Thanks for any tips/suggestions!!

Kind regards, Béatrice BeerBéatrice Beer, Soprano (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Beerbeatriceadidiva. In order to upload almost all photos, they must be freely licensed in an acceptable form, or the copyright must have expired. Who took these photos? Is the copyright holder willing to freely license them in writing, under an acceptable Creative Commons license for example? I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Image use policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Submitting First Article

Dear Sir/Mam,

I hope this message finds you well. I have created a page for one of my organization called Next Generation Magazine but it was later marked for deletion and deleted. The reason was ambiguous advertising or promotion. As I'm new to this community, I'm a quite unclear on what it was described as advertising or promoting, or perhaps is there any restriction that as I founder of the organization I couldn't start the article.

Is there any way I could start it as a draft and give it to the community to check first before submitting. Overall I would like to request some guidelines and if anyone is willing to be my guide on creating the first article. Thank you.

Regards,

Sares Saresselva (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Saresselva. Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. I suggest that you read and study Your first article. Use the Articles for Creation process for any future draft article about your magazine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Featured articles

Why featured articles are always shorter than good articles? And what is the diffeence between featured articles and good articles?Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Super ninja2. There is no reason why featured articles should be shorter than good articles. In fact, I would expect the opposite to be the norm. Compare Above All State Park with Banff National Park. The difference is that the standard that has to be met for an article to become featured is higher than the standard that has to be met for a good article. See Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria for those criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The American Recovery and Reimbursement Act

I have received several phone calls from someone claiming to be from the U. S. Treasury Department stating that I have a $9000.00 grant waiting to be released to me, for my use, that does not have to be paid back. I was given a grant approval code, and told to call a number. When I called this number, I was told that I had to go to a store and purchase a $200.00 registration card, and that these funds would be reimbursed to me as well in my grant transfer which was to go directly by my bank by wire transfer. Is this a joke, a scam or an actual transaction to people from the government Sharonbobson (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello; the Teahouse is not for asking general questions, but to ask about using Wikipedia. The best advice for you though is that if you think it is a scam, it probably is. The government does not call people to hand out money. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

are pormotions and ads allowed

are promotions and ads allowed ياسمين94 (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No. TimothyJosephWood 14:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't know why my page isn't publishing

I am a new user and I have finished my page (it's been finished for a month now) but it's still not published. I'm not sure what to do to get it to that point. The page is for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Memphis District Usace85 (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Usace85. Looks like it was never published because it was never submitted for review. I have added the Articles for Creation banner to the top of the draft, and you can click the submit button whenever you're ready. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Page for NGO

Hello,

I would like to add some valuable information about an NGO in South Africa. I've received a notification from classicwiki that the page does not comply to guidelines and cannot be created. I see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Care_Foundation is an example of how an NGO can be added to Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions on how to go about getting a page approved?

Thank you!

Aliciamcarter (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You would need to provide references to significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject to demostrate the subject's notability. Also, please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In that respect, China Care Foundation is not a good example to follow. It needs significant work to bring it up to standard and if sufficient independent sources cannot be found, it might have to be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Aliciamcarter: If you are affiliated with the organization, you will have to abide by Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Furthermore, if you are paid by the organization, you will be required to disclose your employment per Wikipedia's terms of use and paid editing disclosure rules. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@drm310 Thank you for the information. That is very helpful!

Aliciamcarter (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

are corporate promotions allowed?

are corporate promotions allowed ياسمين94 (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No promotion is allowed on Wikipedia. If you find any, please report it, so that it can be removed. Maproom (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Do newspapers count as independent sources?

I just wanted to confirm that newspaper entries were counted as independent sources because I have cited a few in my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Professor_Valentine_Joseph. I am trying to cite reliable sources so the article is notable enough, but I am wondering what is a more reliable source. Thank you, Anish Mariathasan (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Anish Mariathasan. The reliability of a source is usually something that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Although many or most newspapers will probably be considered reliable, some probably wouldn't be, and it really depends on whether they have a long standing reputation for editorial oversight and journalistic integrity. It's a bit like asking "are books reliable sources," because the real answer there is "depends on the book". TimothyJosephWood 16:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The question of independence also depends on the individual newspaper article and topic, Anish Mariathasan. So, to give some examples, an article in a newspaper written by a journalist about a government policy is independent, whereas a newspaper op-ed written by a politician about a law that they have drafted is not. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Anish Mariathasan if you have any specific questions about the reliability of certain publications, the place to ask is the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard - and it is often worth using the search-box to their archive to see if the publication has been discussed before. In addition, you need to cite the newspapers properly, and insert them in the relevant place(s) in the article, not just have a long list at the end. Currently the article has 7 references, but as four of these reference the same piece of information, only 4 pieces of information in the entire article are referenced. I suggest uou break the 2 huge paragraphs up into smaller paragraphs, on specific topics, not necessarily with a sub section header. The ensure that each of those paragraphs has one or more references. - Arjayay (talk)

You say "I have cited a few in my article". But only one newspaper (The Sunday Times Sri Lanka) is actually cited. The others are listed as references, but are not cited within the article in support of the statements there. It should be fairly easy for you to correct this. Maproom (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

How to tag text that needs "as of"?

Dr.Seuss § Adaptations has a paragraph including this text:

Four television series have been adapted from Geisel's work. ... The fourth, The Cat in the Hat Knows a Lot About That!, produced by Portfolio Entertainment Inc., began on August 7, 2010, in Canada and September 6, 2010, in the United States and is currently still showing.

The obvious question is "'Currently' as of when'" I haven't got the time or spoons to research the answer, but that's the kind of reason we have {{cn}} and {{who?}} and many other templates that specify what sort of information needs to be added here. Is there one for "as of", or should I just use {{when?}}? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thnidu, it seems {{when?}} is the appropriate template for this case; {{as of?}} actually redirects to it. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

how do i prevent speedy deletion?

I had just started working on a page, and the next time I logged on it was speedily deleted. I want to put it back up but I want to prevent it from being banned/happening again. Any advice on how to do this? I really would like to follow the rules and there are third-party articles about the topic. Thanks!Adeleaustin (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Adeleaustin, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article VectoIQ was deleted because it failed to indicae why the firm was important or significant. Moreover, it did not cite any sources. Articles on Wikipedia must be verifible, which usually means that they should actually cite independent sources. Also, such articles must not be promotional, as many new articles about companies prove to be. Here are some steps that can be followed for a good result:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our specific guideline on the notability of companies. Consider whether the company clearly meets the standards listed there.
• Second, read Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you are connected with the company in any way Disclose your connection with the group in accordance with our conflict of Interest guideline. If you have been or expect to be paid for your edit, including making it as part of your job, disclose by the stricter standards in WP:PAID. This is absolutely required, omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, Gather sources. You want independent professionally published reliable sources that each discuss the firm in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop, an article will not be created. Sources do NOT need to be online, although it is helpful if at least some are. The independent part is vital in this case. Not press releases, nor news stories based on press releases, or anythign published by the organization itself or its affiliates. Not strictly local coverage. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the org in detail. But those significant sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in any case involving a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is rejected, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External Links in my Draft

For my webpage it was denied because of external links i believe that i removed the problem but i want to make sure and that it is not something to do with the citations. Thanks Nmmoore (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that many of the citations are to "Web", with no URL supplied. That could be a problem. Maproom (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The removal of the link to the organization's web site in the opening sentence dealt with that issue. Maproom is correct that references to online sources should include a valid URL, not just the word "web". There is a matter of tone. Somehow this reads a bit like an advocacy piece, be careful to keep the tone neutral and factual. Using direct rather than indirect paraphrased quotes might help with this. Still I think you are getting close. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does my article keep getting declined when it push it through for review?

I honestly see no issue when it comes to my article, with its sources or with what I've written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ski_Mask_the_Slump_God Just wondering if anyone can give me a serious critique before the review comes back. WolvesS (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The draft has already been rejected twice because its references do not adequately show the subject's notability. What is needed is several independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. Which of the references do you believe qualify? Maproom (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering what "independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject" is. I've provided 19 sources, several of these are what would count as "independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject" including the interview provided by XXL, the summary of how this artist is one of the prominent members of a new upcoming and popular style coming out of South Florida provided by both the New York Times and Rollingstone (which actually provides the notability of the page when following the notability guidelines, especially for musicians, mainly number 7 of the criteria which states "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city". These sources are all by credible publications which are very versed in music and are used on wiki pages for other artists of the hip hop genre such as Kanye West, Drake and The Weeknd. There are even articles with much less sources than mine such as Keith Ape and Ugly God which seem to have been approved/not slated for deletion ever. I'm wondering why double standards are existing right now for my article and not for these? WolvesS (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, reference 7 looks acceptable. But some of the others are based on interviews with the subject, and therefore do not help to establish his notability. Removing most of the interview-based references might help give a better impression to a reviewer. (And please note that most Wikipedia editors are aiming to raise the general standard of articles, and won't accept the argument that the existence of some poor articles justifies the creation of more. If you come across an article that you believe doesn't meet our standards, it's better to propose it for deletion, than to emulate it.) Maproom (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Can somebody help me on improving an article?

I hope you are doing well. I would greatly appreciate if somebody could join me on improving an article I am working on. It is about a Dominican political Analyst who has been writing for several international mainstream outlets and been on TV giving his insights. He has been featured as public policy expert. Also, he used to be a government official back in his country, Dominican Republic. I feel like I need some support and guidance on getting this job done as I increase my knowledge of this wonderful platform and community.

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Geovanny_Vicente_Romero

Thanks in advance!ComPol (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we can mark this

Resolved

as the article has been accepted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Trying to upload an image to my wikipedia page Shi (comics)Crusade Fine Arts (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello all, For the life of me, I cannot seem to load up an image to where it can be seen on the wikipedia page of my comic book, Shi_(comics)). I've tried multiple times but have yet to be successful. Thank you, Billy TucciCrusade Fine Arts (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Crusade Fine Arts. Your account has been blocked as usernames cannot represent organisations or companies, but to fix that you just need to request a change of username by following the instructions left on your user talk page. You can read about uploading images at Help:Uploading images, and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial will help you with adding images to an article. However, since you are editing an article about your own work, you should read and follow the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I suggest that you follow the advice there on requesting edits to articles on topics you have a relationship with, rather than making the edits yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

How to edit top portion of page?

Hello,

New here and haven't a clue on editing so I apologize in advance for all if my dumb questions.

Here is my first, I would like to edit the top part of the page which I created because it is poorly written and I would also like to change a couple links to something more appropriate... for example would like the link the UCLA Bruin Wikipedia page instead of the UCLA Wikipedia page that I linked... the problem is I can't figure out where to go to modify that section.

Thank you, j Jaduh (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it's not a section, so you need to edit the whole page (the 'Edit source' button of the page menu). Dolberty (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jaduh: Welcome to the teahouse. You can also go to your preferences (see the menu in the top right corner of the page) click on the seventh tab "gadgets", and in the "appearance" section check the first box which adds an edit link for the lead section of the page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jaduh. One more way: If you open a side edit link, and then change the end of the URL to 0 (zero), it will allow editing of the first section, e.g., &action=edit&section=1 → &action=edit&section=0 Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Help Me

I don't know but I tried my best to put up an authentic content for ENZY Studios but still, my page has been considered in deletion process. Can I get solution & the exact reason behind it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbzdpvt.ltd (talk • contribs) 12:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Tbzdpvt.ltd. Please see the explanation for the deletion at User talk:Tbzdpvt.ltd#Speedy deletion nomination of ENZY Studios. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

How do I re-establish an article that got deleted.

Hi I am the owner of an architecture firm, and I just submitted an article to wikipedia, which got deleted a few minutes later due to copyright violations or unverified information. Can you please tell me how I can find out which items in the article were in question? Thanks, Ravi RaviGunewardena (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@RaviGunewardena: Hello and welcome. First things first, if you are the owner of the firm you are writing about, you have what is called a conflict of interest. As such, you should really not edit about your firm directly. Regarding the page, it has not yet been deleted, but I suspect it will be as it is promotional in nature, which is not permitted. It needs to be written in an encylopedic style with a neutral point of view, and indicate with independent reliable sources how it is notable per guidelines. Please understand that Wikipedia is not social media where every business gets a page. If you think you have appropriate sources, you should visit Articles for Creation to create your page. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, RaviGunewardena. Based on your description of what happened, I see three major issues: there was a copyright violation in the article (which is entirely unacceptable, see WP:COPYVIO), there doesn't seem to be any Wikipedia-worthy notability (see WP:N), and you seem to have what is called a conflict of interest, where you have a close personal connection to an article you edited. I say this based on the fact that you prefaced your comment with "I am the owner of an architecture firm". Conflict of interest editing almost always ends badly, with articles edited in ways that are inappropriate to the goals of Wikipedia, such as adding long lists of irrelevant awards, or editing from a non-neutral point of view perspective. I just looked at the article as you recreated it, and there is still major problems. One of which is that the page reads like an advertisement, which is an explicit violation of WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV. As a general guideline, a Wikipedia article should look like it belongs in the Encyclopedia Britannica, not as a popup ad on the Daily Mail website. Yours looks more like the popup ad format. The final problem, though, is that your company just doesn't seem to be notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. After a quick Google search, there doesn't really seem to be enough independent, third-party coverage to prove notability. If you believe your company is notable, please link to several articles on "Escher GuneWardena Architecture" from independent, third-party sources. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. I am afraid that Escher GuneWardena Architecture is quite promotional, RaviGunewardena, and I am about to delete it. Phrases such as The extraordinary range of projects of Escher GuneWardena Architecture, reflects the broad cultural interests of the firm’s principals, the bold faced name dropping, and the geernal marketing-speak tone all weigh agaisnt it. The article, it it were to exist, would need to be supported by independent published reliable sources that discuss the firm min detail, and much of the content should come from what those sources say. Use the article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for creation project -- after you have those independent sources identified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User Name

Is it better to use my real name as my user name, so that it can be verified? RaviGunewardena (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think you need to change it. See WP:REALNAME. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There is normally no need to verify your real name, RaviGunewardena and on those occasions when there might be, simply having nit as your user name doesn't actually prove anything. I choose to edit under my real name, but many editors do not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Pictures and copyrights

I have in my possession a rich material of pictures and intend to use a few in an article. The pictures are mostly private and taken between 1890 - 1926. The photographer is mostly unknown, mostly within my ancestors but impossible to verify. Others a studio portraits but mostly the studio has long since vanished or are untraceable. Most of the pictures are of course more than 100 years old and at least 75.

Now, can I upload and use these?

JohanHammar (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JohanHammar. Your draft article has some serious problems that must be corrected. Many of your references are to private letters, an unfinished account in a family archive, and preserved lecture notes. I am sorry, but none of these are reliable sources for use on Wikipedia. A reliable source must have been published under professional editorial control. These unpublished documents to not qualify as reliable sources. I suggest that you read our core content policy No original research and an excellent essay, Your first article.

As for the photos, your description presents problems. We can only accept properly licensed photos, or those whose copyright is verified to have expired. But copyright hasn't even started on unpublished photos, and it seems that discovering the owner of the rights to these photos is probably impractical. We cannot accept photos without knowing who owns the rights and can never assume that no legitimate right holder exists.

I encourage you to continue working on your draft, but please concentrate on bringing it into full compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Feel free to ask additional questions here at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

There are some other problems with your draft, but I focused on what I see as the most significant issue. Anyone interested can comment on Draft:Josef Hammar. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see. Then a question. Not being able to use the references not published, would it still be possible to publish the article as it is? There is some references that has been published even if it can be hard to get copies. Or is there a way to publish the available material (I have all the source material at home, i.e. I have the Hammar's family archive containing the original letter, documents etc.). When it comes to the pictures they are between 91 to 118 years old. Where the photographer is known they've been dead for more than 75 year. In some cases I have the negatives. According to Swedish law this would be OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohanHammar (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JohanHammar, and welcome back to the Teahouse. It is primarily US law that applies to Wikipedia, since its servers are located in the US. As to publishing the sources, Wikipedia won't do that. If you can get a magazine publisher, or book publisher, to reproduce them, they can be used, but I suspect tht might be hard. Putting them on your own web site or your own self-published ebook would not count as publication by/as a reliable source. You might get a publisher to issue the unfinished account plus the diaries, I suppose. Without those sources, you have only the first three cites and the last cite, and that is pretty skimpy for an article -- unless you cna find additional sources. Old newspaper articles might work (if they existed and you can find them), even if not online. As for the photos, see <http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm> where you will find that for unpublished works, the copyright term is life of the author plus 70 years, or 120 years from creation if the author is unknown. So Works from authors who died before 1947, or Works created before 1897 when the author is unknown, will be in the public domain this year. If you have some evidence of the dates of the photos, and the name and death date of the photographer (who is normally the author for copyright purposes) those might be usable. In such a case they would be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, I think the proper license tag would be pd-old. But if there is no article there is nothing to use the images in. (By the way, the comment above that But copyright hasn't even started on unpublished photos by Cullen328 is not correct.) I am sorry not to have offered more hope. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to news articles I have plenty of those but they are cut out of the paper they were published in so I suppose they are unusable too as I can't verify which paper they were published in (well not without spending an incredulously long time in archives anyway). It sounds like I should ditch this article and spend my time on better things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohanHammar (talk • contribs) 06:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A page of company has been deleted

Hi team,

I joined an insurance underwriting company(Elseco Limited) recently which helps satellite, Space, Aerospace and other high end insurances. When I got the interview letter mail from the company, I first came to Wiki and searched for the same for some factual information. However, they don't have any Wiki pages yet. Hence, I decided to create a page after joining the company. Yesterday I placed little information about the company and thought of continuing to edit today. However, today it's deleted. Can we keep the page as it is high turn over company though the number of employees are lesser(Around 50 now)?.Faisal.pcm (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Faisal.pcm: Wikipedia is not a webhost. In order to be included in the encyclopedia, your company has to be notable in itself or have done something notable. I didn't get to see the original pages, but I'm willing to bet the information for one that you posted was pretty much an advertisement for the company. That won't work. Here's what you should do: search Wikipedia for a company similar to yours. If you should find one, use it as a model for the page you want to create. It's best if you use your draftspace to do this; the rules for new pages are more relaxed in there, but you will get warned if your page doesn't meet standards. There was a welcome message placed on your talk page. Follow the links provided for the information you will need.

There is going to be two issues however with your attempt at creating an article:

1. You will have a Conflict of Interest issue. Editors who have a close or direct connection with the subject of the article are discouraged from creating or editing an article due to the fact you may not be able to maintain a professional detachment from the subject, thus skewing the article from a neutral point of view.
2. It appears that you may have created more than one article, both of which have been removed for cause: one for a copyright violation, the other because it's about a company that has not proved it is significant in some fashion. The copyright violation is was a big no-no.

Review the information contained in the links provided on your talk page, ask questions here at the Teahouse, and try to maintain a calm, mannerly demeanor when things don't work out the way you hoped or expected. Since your company already has a pretty snazzy website. is there some compelling reason for you to place them on Wikipedia?  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 07:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Myk,

Thanks for the clarifications. I will go through some of the other companies' pages and will try to place the same way.

Faisal.pcm (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Rather than picking any old article about a company to model a new article on, Faisal.pcm, I would suggest picking one that is listed at Wikipedia:Good articles or Wikipedia:Featured articles. There are many poor-quality articles about companies on Wikipedia, which should not be taken as models. Furthermore, rather than creating a live article, which might be subject to deletion, you should create a draft for review via the article wizard link at Wikipedia:Your first article. Finally, if you are writing about your employer, the you are considered a paid editor and are required by Wikipedia's terms of use to declare this as explained at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Larry,

Thanks for your suggestions. I will check those good articles listed by Wikipedia and form mine in the draft version for review.

About being paid for writing this, No. I am an SAP Software consultant by profession and not being paid for my wiki contributions. However I am paid by my employer about whom I writing. Do I have to mention the same?.Faisal.pcm (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Faisal.pcm - If you are writing about your employer, it doesn't matter whether contributing to Wikipedia is listed in your job description: You are a connected contributor with a conflict of interest that you must declare. You are being paid by the company, even if you are not being paid specifically for Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

copyvio detectors

How do users know when there's a article that qualifies for WP:G11? I mean, how do they find out it's copyrighted material? The garmine ^(talk) 02:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, The garmine. G11 is advertising/promotion; G12 is copyright infringement. Take a look at Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101 and see if it answers your question. (There are links to tools at the at the bottom of the page.) If not, please post again here. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks,Rivertorch. That gives me all the info I need. The garmine ^(talk) 14:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

References

How can I add a reference to a Content? Agonga ukel (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Agonga ukel. You probably should check out our tutorial at Help:Referencing for beginners. TimothyJosephWood 14:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

New page question

When does a new page that has been created become active? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Updater500 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Updater500, welcome to the Teahouse. It depends where it was created, what it contains and what you mean by active. I guess you refer to User:Updater500 and want it to be an article in the encyclopedia. It is actually the user page for your account. I have added {{Userspace draft}} which links to Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft and has a submit button. Or did you only want it to be a user page but show up in searches? PrimeHunter (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A draft should never be on a main userpage, that page is meant to be about the uset. It's talk page is used to communicate with the user, moving it with a draft would be highly disruptive to the user. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't an album based on a historical figure be on the page for the figure lol

Content dispute should be at article talk page. This is not going to help anything

so in the 80s Whitehouse released an album called Dedicated to Peter Kürten based on the murders. User:Kieronoldham seems to believed that the album is some sort of off-hand, pop culture reference and not actually based on the murders for whatever reason (he actually thinks mentioning music in any way will open the page to more edits or something idk what the hell he means by that lmao) seriously though it's not an offhand or incidental reference the actual album is based on the Düsseldorf killings Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Welcome to the Teahouse, Mychemicalromanceisrealemo. It appears that the dispute you're referring to is at the article Peter Kürten. You were bold and changed the article—so far, so good. Someone disagreed with you and reverted—still so far, so good. You reinserted your change—not so good. The onus is on you to make the case for why your proposed change should stick, and the place to make that case is on the article's talk page: Talk:Peter Kürten. (See WP:BRD for best practice in these situations.) If you make your case well, you may gain consensus for the change. Until then, it's best to be patient, avoid edit warring, and stay civil. There's absolutely no rush. Good luck. RivertorchFIREWATER 02:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC) : Editors should not attack or be dismissive to other editors in disputes, Mychemicalromanceisrealemo. This aside, and getting to the actual point of the dispute (and I shall be brief as this is for others to analyse and judge), what I see generally consensus-wise across articles of this genre on Wiki. (and certainly ones with a sufficient number of watchers and thus attention devoted to them) is that this fails notability, as besides from the fact this is a music album which, to Mychemicalromanceisrealemo's credit (although I haven't actually listened to it word-by-word), from the title at least, seems to be dedicated to the subject. Nonetheless, the vocal referencing upon a 1980s album if true fails notability for the subject himself. I've left my brief case for exclusion upon the user's talk page. Also the inclusion of the image fails Wiki's 'fair use' content criteria quite blatantly, despite Kürten being the sole subject of the album cover, if you look at the image rationale upon here. I'll obv. leave this for others to decide, but as I say, the broad consensus upon true crime articles for media states this fails significance criteria. I have referenced this on Mychemicalromanceisrealemo's page here, and the below text is across the header and footer of numerous true crime/murder/serial killer Wikipedia pages. The GA and FA articles (that I have looked at at least) do not include any form of music hearkening. This is the text at the header and footer of many Wiki. true crime articles: PLEASE DO NOT ADD SONG REFERENCES, INCIDENTAL THEATER PORTRAYALS, REFERENCES TO INCIDENTAL DEPICTIONS UPON ALBUM COVERS OR OTHER DEPICTIONS UPON TV SHOWS LIKE COMICS, ALBUM COVERS OR OTHER IRRELEVANT TRIVIA HERE. IT DOES NOT BELONG HERE AND WILL REMOVED WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. TRIVIA IS INAPPROPRIATE PER THE PROJECT GOVERNING THIS ARTICLE. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC) lemme show you something Kieronoldham PLEASE DO NOT ADD SONG REFERENCES, INCIDENTAL THEATER PORTRAYALS, REFERENCES TO INCIDENTAL DEPICTIONS UPON ALBUM COVERS OR OTHER DEPICTIONS UPON TV SHOWS LIKE COMICS, ALBUM COVERS OR OTHER IRRELEVANT TRIVIA HERE. IT DOES NOT BELONG HERE AND WILL REMOVED WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. TRIVIA IS INAPPROPRIATE PER THE PROJECT GOVERNING THIS ARTICLE. this isn't "peter kurten in the background of a beatles' album cover," it's wholly different --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Kieronoldham and Mychemicalromanceisrealemo please do not argue the issue here, the proper venue is the article talk page. Please also stop SHOUTING. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Please see the guideline on excessive emphasis. The use of BLOCK CAPITALS on the Internet (not just in Wikipedia, but everywhere on the Internet) is generally considered to be SHOUTING and is generally disapproved of. Certain other forms of emphasis, such as excessive use of bold face, are also usually considered shouting, but the use of ALL CAPITALS in particular is almost considered rude. In the case in point, to be sure, it was quoting from a previous banner, but shouting to repeat what someone else has shouted is still shouting and still considered rude. Please avoid the use of all capitals. (In one talk page exchange, one poster put the text of what he was shouting in a very large font, which is even more obnoxious than upper case because it interferes with the orderly display on a talk page. That was not only rude but disruptive. I will not demonstrate it.) Just because someone else is shouting does not mean that shouting is a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC) HAVE YOU CONSIDERED TURNING YOUR SCREEN DOWN? IT MIGHT BE TOO LOUD --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Umm... wow. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 17:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at my draft?

Hi Teahouse! I posted earlier in the week as my draft had been rejected for not being notable and sounding too promotional. I've been back through it and added more reference and also removed a lot of text / reworded things to make it sound more neutral. Please could someone check over it (draft:DriveWorks) and let me know if it still needs more work? Thank you :) :) Danielle DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

(It's not the draft that has been rejected as not notable, it's the subject.) "Needs more work" is an odd way to put it. This is an article about a niche software package. Personally, I doubt that any amount of work would suffice to establish it as notable. Maproom (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

DanielleDriveWorks, your draft looks for all intent and purposes like a catalog listing. I'm going to mark it for speedy deletion as strictly promotional. An encyclopedia is made up of separate articles that summarize what reliable sources, totally independent of the subject, have discussed in detail about the subject. I cannot believe that exists. Wikipedia is not a place to publicize your company. When the above mentioned significant coverage of the subject exists, someone not connected with the company will write about it. John from Idegon (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

NFL talk

I have been trying to ask wiki template NFL and they still haven't responded, but no response.Vinnylospo (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vinnylospo. I take it this is about what I suggested at #2016 nfl quarterback records above? That you ask the WikiProject? All I can say is, please be patient. Wikipedia is created by volunteers, who work on what they choose to work on. You asked for help here, nobody offered, and I suggested somewhere else to ask. You asked there just under two days ago. I don't think there's anything to be gained by asking again here (and if had not remembered your name and gone looking, I wouldn't have had a clue what you were asking about this time: I now realise you meant "WikiProject NFL"). --ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How can I make this draft into an actual article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ascentra_Credit_Union I had it as a regular article initially but it got switched at some point. How do I fix this? (It would move to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascentra_Credit_Union) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahRaso (talk • contribs)

Hello, NoahRaso. Velella moved your draft into draft space, because if they had not it would almost certainly have been deleted. If you were to move it back to article space now, it would almost certainly be deleted. Please read WP:42. In short: Wikipedia has essentiall no interest in anything which a subject says or wants to say about itself: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it, in reliable places. Most of your references have either been published by Ascentra or (in the case of the last one) are clearly based on press releases from Ascentra. I repeat: you need to find reliable sources wholly unconnected with Ascentra which discuss it in depth, and base the article on those. If you can't find any, that would be a good indication that the company is not currently notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word), and no article about it will be accepted.

I have added a template with information about its draft status. If you get it to the point that you think it would be accepted, please submit it for review by pressing the "Submit" button (which is not shown at present, but will be once you have edited the page further". --ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Help checking for nobility

Can someone please take a look at my sandbox page and provide me with some feedback. What else do I need to add to move forward and publish my article. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dmjacobsen/sandbox 4.7.15.118 (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dmjacobsen. Please remember to log in before editing. The content has been removed from your draft article because it was copied from the organization's copyrighted website and pasted into your draft. That simply isn't allowed. You must write in your own words, mostly summarizing what reliable sources unaffiliated with this organization say about it. Please read and study Your first article, and follow its recommendations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Advice needed on proposed article

Hi, I have drafted an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robertjgray/sandbox about my father having noted that a number of the recipients of the French Legion d'Honneur have short articles about them.

First question then is does he meet the notability criteria?

Secondly is if so the content of the article appropriate?

This is my first article and it's harder than I expected :)

Thanks in advance

Robertjgray (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Robertjgray. The French Legion d'Honneur has five levels and your father received the lowest level, the Chevalier, which has been awarded to about 75,000 people. Only receiving a country's highest award for bravery in combat, such as the Medal of Honor in the United States, creates a strong presumption of notability. So, it is how significant the coverage your father has received in reliable sources that is the determining factor, not the medal. Please read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a friendly place

Hello. I started here last month after I saw that articles on the actuarial and insurance profession were not well represented. I created an article on the Morris Review which had a significant impact on professional standards and training. I based some of it verbatim on the findings of the review, e.g. ‘a lack of scrutiny and audit of actuarial calculations’. I then got a warning that the article would be deleted because of copyright violation. I don’t really see the problem: it’s an official report, why can’t we include the main findings verbatim? In any case, I changed the verbatim bits so they were quotes, to make it clear they came directly from the original source.

I was also warned (see my talk page) that ‘persistent violators will be blocked from editing’. This is quite scary. I was unaware of precisely what the rules were, and I offered to change the article, but no one answered my query and half the article has been deleted.

I appreciate the management here has a busy task, but it would be polite at least to engage with users, especially users unfamiliar with the system. This has rather dented my confidence in helping with this project. Regards IFRS17 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hello IFRS17. I apologize on behalf of the community; it is true that Wikipedia is not particularly friendly to newbies. We try to improve that, but we are almost all volunteers like you; those who check out new pages often find material that is not acceptable for various reasons, and will use automated tools that leave standardized messages (templates) to patrol faster; those messages can feel impersonal and intimidating.

You left a message at User talk:IFRS17 (naturally, responding to the notice), but it is unlikely that it had been seen by any human. This is a talk page, but linked with your account for people to contact you. In the future, you should leave messages about a particular article on the article's talk page, in that case Talk:Morris Review. Anyways, I will answer: the short answer is "probably not".

The problem is that you cannot copy-paste a large amount of material from another source, even if quoted (attributed) or closely paraphrased (a small step away from a copy-paste), unless the source is under a license that allows you to do so (by default it is not the case, and here, it explicitly is not). Copyright violations (copyvios for short) will be deleted on sight, with a presumption to delete if there is a doubt, because leaving them in the open would expose Wikipedia to lawsuits. I cannot see the edits you made, but you should try to rewrite in your own words what the source says and put it back in the article, citing the report to source the claims. See WP:COPYVIO for more information.

Do not worry too much about persistent violators will be blocked from editing - clearly you are acting in good-faith and trying to understand what happens, so you will not get blocked unless you start reinstating the copyvio without discussing it first (and you coming here counts as discussion). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• OK many thanks, so nice to speak to a human! Can you just clarify whether it is OK to copy stuff using quotation marks? I would like to preserve the wording of the actual Morris review, at least in respect of the key findings. Note also that, ironically, the FRC material in question was itself sourced verbatim from the report itself, which as a government publication may be reproduced free of charge. IFRS17 (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be acceptable, policy and legal wise to quote large chunks of an official government report if it were attributed to the government agency, however it probably wouldn't be appropriate. We are far more interested in what secondary sources have to say and especially their analysis of the material. So your best way forward would be to paraphrase the review. John from Idegon (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @IFRS17: In addition to what John from Idegon said: it is OK to quote small excerpts of copyrighted text, but not to lift whole passages. How much is a "small passage" is subject to interpretation depending on the case. You can also end up quoting a lot of small excerpts but each of them needs to be there for a specific reason (other than "I was too lazy to reformulate").

Beware that "free of charge" still does not mean it is OK to use. Wikipedia's aim is to distribute material with very little restrictions, but price is not the only restriction. See Gratis versus libre for the distinction, see WP:COPYOTHERS for which licenses are acceptable on Wikipedia. (Headache warning!)

Reading Wikipedia:Crown copyright, I believe recent UK government works are not compatible with our license, but I would not say I am entirely sure. If you really want an answer, try your luck at WP:MCQ where people are more qualified to answer. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for this help I will persevere. IFRS17 (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

How do you submit your article ?

Hi There:
This is the first time I try to write an article in Wiki..... I am almost done with my article in the Sandbox and I am wondering how can I submit it for review or posting into Wiki.

My article is User:AntPeople/sandbox/Wang XiSan

Thanks for your help AntPeople (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I installed the sandbox tag on this article. It needs to stay there for two reasons:

1. A user's sandbox is allowed to bend the rules a bit, otherwise no articles would survive Wikipedia policy. It's understood that the article in the sandbox is raw and a work in progress.
2. Your sandbox in not indexed by search engines, such as Google. Outsiders can't find your sandbox page and the warning notice let's editors know what to expect.

You really should have created this article in your main sandbox and named it after it was ready, but I think you'll be okay as long as you leave that tag at the very top alone.

Now, to submit your article for review, click on the big square blue button that you now have. Don't lose heart if you don't pass the first review. Take their comments at face value and learn from them. Then get busy again.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 05:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with this being at User:AntPeople/sandbox/Wang XiSan rather than at User:AntPeople/sandbox, Myk Streja. AntPeople, if you submit this draft for review as it stands, it will certainly be rejected because it is not sufficiently referenced. You need to ensure that all of the material in the draft is supported by references to reliable sources, as explained at Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you need help with learning how to reference, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Page views

How can I see the amount of people who viewed a page that I created?

Niylesh (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Niylesh. The menu on the left side of every page has an option "Page information". Click that and scroll to the bottom where you will see the option "Page view statistics". That tool will give you the information that you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The same tool is also linked at top of the page history seen by clicking the "View history tab". PrimeHunter (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Templates havent all updated

I've updated the template for the alt-right, however even though I updated it, it's not shown to be updated on the other alt-right links in the template such as Alex jones, 4chan, etc.Vinnylospo (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vinnylospo. Pages are cached for performance reasons and there is a delay before template edits are propagated to pages using the template. The time varies a lot. See more at Help:Job queue. You can force an immediate update of a specific page by purging it but there is rarely reason to do that. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

How do do these codes

when doing a wiki page you have to do these codes like {,Red} or something like that that are used for the placement of the word and its location i think how do i use them and how much of them are there188.52.197.255 (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a code saying {,Red} and your current IP address has edited no other pages so I don't know which type of code you refer to. If you mean code like {{Red}} with double curly brackets then it's usually a template and there are tens or hundreds of thousands of them. See Help:A quick guide to templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

i want to learn how to make a best article

R. sir/mam i am vikas sharma i am happy to use wikkiedia and i want to learn how to make a article on wikipedia. so please teach me and provide me a better guidelines to creat wikipedia article. i shall e very thankful. Thank You Vikas Sharma (vikas sharma (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Vikassharmasfd, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think a good way could be to start from our pages Help:Getting started and Wikipedia:Your first article – they list and describe things one should do (and things one should avoid!) when writing articles, as well as they refer to other, more specific guidelines ang policies ruling Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)