Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 708

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 705

Archive 706

Archive 707

→

Help with my first wikipedia page

Hi Everyone,

I am new to creating articles in Wikipedia and I noted there are a lot of things I need to consider in doing so this is the first draft I made about the article I am writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carlosdanna/sandbox/Cynthia_MacAdams

There are several changes I need to make for example I couldn't find a way to set text before the table of contents, and I don't know how much references should use for this kind of articles.

Any kind of help is welcome, thanks.

Carlos Carlosdanna (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Carlosdanna. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately you have done what many new editors do, and plunged straight in to one of the more difficult tasks on Wikipedia: creating a new article. I would urge you to set that aside for a while, and get some pracice editing and understanding how Wikipedia works.

In any case, have your read your first article? that will guide on many matters. To answer your specific questions, you create a lead section simply by starting a section without a heading: that link indicates what should go in the lead. For referencing, see WP:references for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine. Thanks for the quick response sorry I've been making a lot of changes to the article. I see how overwhelming it is to create a new article, the article is a biography of a photographer/artist. I got the main source for this article because one of the sources is a biographical dictionary and is the only source I have complete with all the information in the article. I am guessing as long as I use that as main source for most of the content we put there and support it with other secondary sources it will be okay to publish, also I would appreciate if you can give me some comments about the current content and changes you will suggest. Thanks Carlosdanna (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Carlosdanna. Your draft currently includes a lot of promotional language that violates the neutral point of view. Examples include "fiercely honest black and white portraiture" and "she rejected the false images of women in Hollywood film" and "Her portraits of women, unclothed as in Rising Goddess and clothed, as in Emergence, seek to capture an individual’s truth and to restore woman as empowered goddess" and "In her quest for peace and transcendence, MacAdams’ work extends to the sacred in architecture and human artifact as well". I am sorry, but we simply do not allow that type of language in Wikipedia's voice. You could quote a photography critic making such assessments but your own writing must be factual and scrupulously neutral. This is a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Mendoza, Texas and paraphrasing

Dear fellow Wikipedians.... I haven't edited on here in a while, but I want some help with a few edits I want to make. First, a part of the Geography section in the article of Mendoza, Texas was unsourced, causing it to be removed from the article. Will someone please look at this edit and tell me what part I did not source, and how I can fully source it?

Second, I want to add the history section to the article of Blackfoot, Texas, and I will paraphrase what I want to add. I read WP:Close paraphrasing, but I'm not real sure how to do this. I will not copy anything on Wikipedia word for word, nor do I even plan on doing that, because I know that this is called plagiarism, and plagiarism is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please do not think I will write this word for word on the article, because I will not do so. How can I paraphrase the following:

Around 1850 a member of the family of Cynthia Anne Parker preached in a Primitive Baptist church located at the site. The first settlers came from South Carolina and Mississippi. They included Abe Hoff, Isaac Brown, and D.M. Crisp. The name of the community supposedly originated in 1870 when Uncle Hamp Hanks, Sr., was told that he was in the "Blackfoot nation." The oldest church, Friendship Baptist, organized in 1860, was located on the line between Ward and Blackfoot. Land was donated by Josh Taylor in 1890 for the construction of the First Christian church in Blackfoot, although the church had been organized a few years earlier. The post office was established in 1886 with William U. Stafford as postmaster. In February 1907 it closed, and the community's mail was routed through Montalba. Hogs, corn, cattle, and cotton were raised in the Blackfoot area. About 1880 Obe Childress and A.M. Kay built the first cotton gin, which operated for over sixty years. In 1941 the REA New Area Co-op was formed, and Blackfoot received electricity. Telephone service began in 1959. During the East Texas oilfield strike in 1930, a field was discovered at Blackfoot; it still had producing wells in the late 1950's. At the beginning of the 20th century, Blackfoot had a justice of the peace courthouse that was used until about 1935 for precinct court. The building remained standing on the Isabell farm until 1973, when a windstorm blew it down. The population of Blackfoot before the Civil War was an estimated forty. In 1896 it had decreased to thirty but by 1936, had increased to 200. In 1988, Blackfoot had a cemetery, the Friendship Baptist Church, and two dairies. The population in 1990 and 2000 was thirty-three.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message. I can't wait to hear from someone, and I really appreciate it! Colman2000 (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hrm. On the first part there, I see you DO have a source in there. The sentence in there that's unsourced is the one discussing how far Austin, Houston and San Antonio are from the town, and honestly, I don't see the problem. Inline sources are required for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged -- they are not, as some people erroneously think, mandatory for every assertion of fact -- and I'm at a bit of a loss to figure out what's objectionable about that statement and why the other editors think an inline citation is necessary. I've asked them both on the article talk page to enlighten us. (Later edit: One did, and directed me to numerous warnings on your talk page over several months for failure to provide sources for information you inserted into various articles, the Mendoza article being one. I also see more than one attempt to show you how to properly cite, and recommend you devote attention to following their instructions before adding more material.)

The second bit is more complicated; you have a number of bits in there that might call for inline citations (and certainly for a general one) and other bits that can be separated out. For one thing, the elements there referencing the town's population are often set aside in a table (take a look at Montague, Massachusetts for an example); this needs to be sourced. Other elements might be seen as trivial ... for instance, how significant in the grand course of things is the identity of the person who donated land for the church, or that the town has a cemetery (how many don't?)? Ravenswing 07:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Technically, your copying that paragraph to this talk page qualifies as "publishing" it, is a copyright violation, and may result in its being redacted from this page. Maproom (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is an example of paraphrasing. Yes, many facts (names, etc.) were left out. The object of a town history should be to touch on salient information. I also combined and condensed all of the Education section into this history. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The name supposedly dates to 1870, when in answer to a question of where the settlement was located was that it was in “Blackfoot nation.” Friendship Baptist Church was organized in 1860, and First Christian Church in 1890. A post office existed from 1886 to 1907. Blackfoot was a farm community, with cotton, corn, cattle and hogs. Blackfoot had a justice of the peace courthouse that was used until about 1935 for precinct court. Electrical power reached Blackfoot in 1941, and telephone service in 1959. Oil was discovered in 1930 and oil wells existed into the 1950s. The population exceeded 200 early in the oil well years, but has since decreased to under 50. Education is provided by the Cayuga Independent School District.

Looking for help publishing my company on Wikipedia

HI, I am looking for help getting my company published in Wikipedia Announce247 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC) Let me know how can i get one.. some contacts will be helpfulAnnounce247 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. In the feedback messages on your sandbox draft and on your user talk page the words in blue are wikilinks to relevant advice. You need to read about notability, and there is advice at WP:Your first article, but as you refer to your company, you firstly need to read the advice at WP:Conflict of interest, and the mandatory requirements at WP:Paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, Announce247, but you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is and what it does. This is an encyclopaedia containing articles on topics of general or special interest to readers round the world. It is not a business directory, and it is not an advertising platform. If your company is interesting and important enough, sooner or later a disinterested Wikipedia editor will probably want to write about it. Please wait for that to happen. Any attempt by anyone connected to the company to hurry that process is unlikely to succeed, and may indeed make it less likely that the article will ever be written. Sorry if this is not what you had hoped to hear. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

How to create a article with non-wiki?

I want to create a article with non-wiki but if i create then he say "Your non-wiki article dosen't exist". zixuan (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Zixuan86, I have no idea what you are asking. What do you mean by "non-wiki"? --ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Zixuan86, you have tried to create User:Hambright, a user page for a user who does not exist. It was quite properly deleted. I don't know if this is relevant to your question. I have never seen any warning or error message referring to "non-wiki". Maproom (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please explain what you are trying to do. We really do not understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Zixuan75 - We still do not understand what you are trying to do. Please stop submitting blank pages and test edits to Articles for Creation. If you are trying to do something, please tell us what it is that you are trying to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Big 10 Conference (West Virginia) High School Football

I reviewed Draft:Big 10 Conference (West Virginia) High School Football. I said that it reads like a brochure about the high school football conference with no independent references. User:SGT1998 asked me, on my talk page, what can be done for the article to be accepted. Can other editors please look at the draft and comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty that could be done to improve the article, e.g. reduce the size of all the section headers, convert the section headers to sentence case, delete all the "External links". But without evidence of notability, all this would be a waste of time. Maproom (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reduced the header sizes. The external links are for conference member schools' web-sights so readers can get more information about them. Please explain why readers should not have this resource. Also, please explain your statement: "But without evidence of notability, all this would be a waste of time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT1998 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SGT1998. Please read our Notability guideline, which says, in part:

"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."

Your draft article appears to be based, at least in large part, on your own personal knowledge. We call this original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. All substantive content should be verifiable, which means that you need to provide references to reliable sources. The best references in your draft are to articles about population decline in West Virginia but they do not discuss this high school football conference and are therefore of no value in establishing notability. What you need are references to reliable, independent published sources that devote significant coverage to this football conference and its history. Your draft should summarize what those sources say and nothing more. You ask, "Please explain why readers should not have this resource." The answer is that Wikipedia accepts articles that fully comply with our policies and guidelines. We do not accept draft articles that don't. There are plenty of other websites with far more lenient standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you create a user's talk page?

Suppose you need to message a user about something and the user has not created his talk page yet, so is it appropriate to create their talk page and message them? Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hagoromo's Susanoo: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. User talk pages are meant for communicating with users; if a user's user talk page hasn't been created yet, it only means that no one has attempted to communicate with them yet. If you wish to do so, then you can. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hagoromo's Susanoo, if an editor doesn't have a talk page, I usually use the template subst:welcome or subst:welcomeip, to create their talk page AND welcome them all in one fell swoop :). Hope this helps. --Malerooster (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Should one create their own user page if it doesn't exist. I tried and it was promptly rejected fro not being notable....am I missing something? Shawn M. Kent (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That's because you submitted your user page for review for acceptance as an article, Shawn M. Kent. User pages are different from articles, and are supposed to give information about you as an editor. You do not need to be notable to have a user page, and user pages shouldn't be submitted for review. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The Japanese Letters

I am editing an article which includes Japanese writing. I don't know how I can write Japanese (I am not a Japanese) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayyam123 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Zayyam123, welcome back to the Teahouse, and Happy New Year. You do like to pick a challenge, don't you? I cannot tell from your edit history which page you actually want to edit, but my advice would always be to only address elements of the topic that you can understand and enhance using availabe, independent sources. Anything else, you should leave well alone, and let others add Japanese characters (presumably for equivalent names?), or you could discuss what extra input you need on the article's talk page. Does this help? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The article was in Simple English Wikipedia called Kyotohttps://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayyam123 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the Simple English Wikipedia article about Kyoto, and I only saw two Japanese characters there (the name of the city in Japanese). I doubt that most people would want more Japanese characters in that article, since most people reading the Simple English Wikipedia don't know Japanese, and people who do know Japanese can read the Japanese article instead. If you need advice about editing the Simple English Wikipedia, I recommend asking at simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Updating Campaignboxes

Hi, I completed the editing of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_of_the_Vega_de_Granada Also I edited the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Reconquista including this last article.

However the updated Campaignbox shows only in the new article I created while in the other articles linked to the Campaignbox the Campaignbox itself does not get updated

Hiraseku2007 Hiraseku2007 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are seeing an earlier version of the campaignbox transcluded on some articles, you may need to refresh the page in your browser, and/or to purge the cache for the articles concerned. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No David does not look to be the case. The Campaignbox get updated only in the new article Hiraseku2007 (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. Can you give us a wikilink to a page which shows the old version of the box after you've refreshed the page in your broswer and purged the page using the instructions at WP:purge? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I fully understand why my article has been rejected. But I want to redouble my efforts to improve it! (Need guidance)

Primo, thanks to User:Kb.au for reviewing my article submission about "Stuart Candy". Your feedback is precious.

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

Secundo, I really want to improve my references in order to make my article fit with wikipedia's policy. Any suggestions?

Tertio, I started to edit my article with adding a "awards" section (this is a living person case) with some extra references. Do you think it can help my article to be better referenced?

Thanks in advance for your help,

Bappyh (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Bappyh: if you have some reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject, then use them, they will establish that he is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article. If all you have are sources written by the subject, or based on interviews with him, or with bare mentions of him, you may as well give up. If you have some of each, try as far as possible only to use the former; if you use too many of the latter kind, reviewers may not notice the good ones, in among all the garbage. And your suspicion is right: adding references for the fact that he has won some non-notable awards won't help at all. Maproom (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bappyh: Looking that over, it does not presently stand a chance. This is a "Who's Who"-style résumé page of someone with a career who appears to be competent and got through university, and has some work and some ideas, some of which have received praise from other non-notable poeple/groups. And that's about it. If that were good enough, at least a billion more people would have bio articles here. If you're convinced this person's doing notable work and it's just that reliable sources simply haven't noticed yet, keep it in userspace and add sources as they appear, until you have multiple instances of in-depth coverage in major, reputably published, reliable sources with no connection to the subject. I have half a dozen professional pool player bios like this in my userspace, and that's just the way it goes. Some may slide fully into obscurity, some may get sufficient serious coverage after a particularly good year and some international tournament victories. Be warned that academics and "quasi-academics" like Stuart Candy are among the most difficult subjects for whom to establish notability; see Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) for related discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 12:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear ::@Maproom:, dear ::@SMcCandlish:, Thank you so much for your precious guidance. That first submission experience taught me a lot. But I'm kind of frustrated when I look at Jeff Watson's page (a personality that I mentioned in my submission), specifically on its references that are quite poor and contains one I used. What's your opinion about it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Watson_(designer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bappyh (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The draft article strikes me as about someone who is on the edge of being 'notable'. For example, the Irish Times is clearly a reputable journalistic source that has written quite a lengthy article about Candy's work. With another article of similar reliability and depth I'd imagine the article being accepted from Articles for Creation. But as others have said, there's also a lot of tangential info, for example about a research lab he's involved with. The awards appear to be quite minor too. At the moment I agree the draft does sound like you're scrabbling around a bit for info about the subject. Sionk (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Professional Actor/Writer wants me to write him a wiki page - How can I help

Hey Teahouse,

I'm Sean, a part time writer and full time college student. I was recently contracted by a friend of mine to write a wikipedia page for him. He's a successful writer for television and film, as he's written for multiple television shows and is currently starring in a pilot episode for Amazon Prime. My question is, how much success does he need to have in order for wikipedia to accept my article submission?

Please let me know, I really want to help him.

Best, Sbfox19 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Sbfox19 - welcome to the Teahouse. Just a quickie before other post their replies to you - could you clarify if you meant to write "contacted by..." or "contracted by...". I t makes quite a difference to our answers to you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I did mean "contracted by"... he is paying me a fee for writing the article on him due to my writing skills. Sorry if I didn't clarify that. Nick Moyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.173.75 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to read Conflict of interest and WP:PAID and declare those before you start any article. Then after that you can see if he meets the requirements for WP:NPERSON NZFC^(talk) 21:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, there are a few things. Firstly, thanks for clearing up the other bit. Anyone who is paid to edit Wikipedia is required to disclose that fact in a specific way. While you've done it here, check that link, as that won't cover it, you must do it as stated in that policy. You'll also need to follow all the requirements for editors with a conflict of interest, so you'd start the article as a draft and have it reviewed by articles for creation. That aside, his level of success has nothing to do with it. What's required is that he be notable. That would mean that there are multiple reliable and independent sources that cover him in reasonable depth (so not just dropping his name or briefly mentioning him). If that type of reference material exists about him, make sure you cite it in your draft, and stick to only things the sources verify, don't use your personal knowledge or the like. If source material like that doesn't yet exist, an article about him would not be appropriate. Do keep in mind that articles must be neutral; we will not allow articles that are promotional, including "talking up" their subject. Stay away from marketese language ("leading", "award-winning", "successful", etc.), and just stick to the facts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry Sbfox19 - had to put the kid to bed in the middle of replying further. I see you've meanwhile had some helpful tips. Here are my observations I started to write to you: Don't worry, you did say what you meant. I just wanted to be sure it wasn't a typo. Ok, so we do have a few big problems here we need to identify. Firstly, it looks like you are a brand new user with no experience of editing at all? Unfortunately, you have chosen to attempt the very hardest task possible on Wikipedia, namely that of creating a brand new article about a living person who you know personally and who is paying you. My advice is to give them their money back and submit their name at Wikipedia:Requested articles. But if you insist on this challenging task you must take it one step at a time, and be prepared for bitter disappointment when or if your efforts are rejected for one reason or another. (Please follow the blue links to key information you must read and understand in all that follows). Bear in mind that this is an encyclopaedia - its content must be neutral in tone, the fact that you might know this person as a charming chap or chappess is utterly irrelevant. We don't care what you - or they think about themselves. They should use a blog or LinkedIn for this. Consider any Wikipedia article as a distillation of known facts that have been written by independent and reliable sources. Don't look at anything they have ever written about themselves - we discount these. So...

To save wasting your time, have a read of this policy Wikipedia:Notability (people). If a person doesn't meet our criteria for what we call 'notability' your draft article will be rejected until you can provide evidence that it does. How much they pay you to prove this is irrelevant!
Then go and learn the basics of how we edit here by spending an hour doing The Wikipedia Adventure - it's a fun, interactive tour of key elements of our site.
Then read and absorb Your first article - it contains useful links to a lot of stuff you need to understand.
Maybe you could look for a similar sort of person to them and see if there's a Wikipedia article on them. See how that is written (it might be good, bad or about to be deleted, who knows)
Do some online research about your subject. Discard their blogs, social media accounts or interviews they've done.
Collate all the independent, reliable sources that talk about them in depth - this is key.
Create your user page and read about our strict policies on conflict of interest and on declaring paid editing. You are bound by these and may be blocked from editing if you don't conform. Your user page is the place to declare your involvement to begin with.
Then read about our policy on writing biographies of living people and how every single statement you write about them must be supported by a reference. If it isn't, it'll get be deleted.
Use your user sandbox (the link at top of every page) to collate all the reliable sources. Chuck out the rubbish ones. Don't ignore trustworthy sources that dig up shady things about their past. You can be confident that if you don't put them in, someone else will later. Does the actor know this will happen? Then read those sources and (in your own words, not by close paraphrasing) write down the known and published facts about them. Support each with a full citation, not just a bare url.
Once you think you've got some of the basics sorted out, you can use the Wikipedia:Article_wizard to make a draft article to continue working on until you're ready to submit it for consideration at Articles for Creation. Chances are, it'll get turned down at first shot, with helpful advice to guide you in doing better, should you choose to resubmit it.
While you're absorbing this wealth of guidance and instructions, there is one thing you can do. Go get your camera and take some nice pictures of your subject. We don't want ones that someone else has taken, as these will be their copyright. Then you can upload your pictures to Wikimedia Commons, releasing them under a Creative Commons licence for anyone to use, be it for personal or commercial use. If the latter sound worrying, just upload a medium resolution image that is just good enough for a website and nothing else. Sorted! The great thing is that even if your article doesn't get off the ground, the pictures you uploaded (assuming they are yours) can remain on Commons forever. Suppose the person you're writing about were a very young Dustin Hoffman who had done very little film work and no-one knew about. He's going to become famous (in all sorts of good and bad ways in the future) - his picture will be there to use when he does, even if right now is WP:TOOSOON (click the blue link to see what I mean by this).

I'm sure I've missed a few things off, but hope this gives you a good idea of the task you might face. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sbfox19 I would add to the great advice above that you may want to read this essay on a person having an article about themselves on Wikipedia. The message of the essay is that it isn't necessarily a good thing for someone to have an article about themselves here. As Nick Moyes points out, anyone can edit such an article and put any information that appears in an independent reliable source in the article, be it good or bad. You can't prevent others from editing it, or lock it to the text you might prefer to see there. The person who hired you should keep this in mind. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Sbfox19 - I've just had an after-thought. Save yourself a lot of bother and tell us this person's name (you're going to make this public the moment you start writing as every edit we make - even in our personal user pages - is published online and public for all to see). We'd happily check him out and at least give you an informal steer as to what we think regarding his 'notability'. Nick Moyes (talk)

Nick Moyes This is all awesome advice. I really appreciate how much you guys have made me feel like a part of the Wiki community. Is there a way I could share the information through a personal message? I don't want have him come across you guys telling him he has no shot of getting a wiki page (I think he does but that is neither here nor there). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.173.75 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome - glad to be of help. (It can be tough getting told you've got a big job ahead of you, and then for another person to be told they're not notable enough is pretty hard too. (~~My wife tells me that all the time!~~) To be honest, keeping the name private won't do much good - and already you're learning the first lesson. . . everything here is publicly visible. The moment you start making your first edit and declare a 'conflict of interest' with that editing, then that person's name is going to be known. I promise to let you down gently, though I don't imagine you told him to keep watch on the Teahouse helpdesk, did you? (do we get free autographs?). Why not leave it a while then? Get comfy with becoming a Wikipedia editor, read our notability guidelines and look for published sources about him and make your own initial assessment and discuss it with them, too. Maybe point out this link that 331dot helpfully supplied, and then come back when you think you're ready to work on something and discuss it again later (even though my curiosity's now quite piqued!). Nick Moyes (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Got ya, his name is George Boseman. Give him a look. That is a very good point though. I'll be honest, I could really use the cash and he paid me well so if its possible I'd like to work hard on getting an article up for him. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbfox19 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sbfox19: I did a simple Google search on his name and, once I got past the IMDB and Twitter entries and other self-contributed items, all I saw were things about some other people with the same name. So this is going to be an uphill struggle to find suitable citations that establish notability. Without something more substantial, I don't see how there can be an article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

One of j's points there is that IMDb content does not count as reliable referencing. (Same for You Tube.) So I concur that this is too soon for an article about your friend. David notMD (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Make mine a third vote. Sbfox19, I'm active in the area on Wikipedia dealing with deleting non-qualifying articles. From the research I just did on your friend, the only citation I could find in a reliable source was a press release, which doesn't count as supporting notability. Were I to encounter an article with this little notability support, I'd nominate it for deletion, and were I to see a nomination for deletion on him, I'd support that deletion. I quite understand needing the money, believe me, but this would be a losing cause. The bar for people in the entertainment field is quite high, and I agree with the others that he doesn't meet it.

My advice would also be to let him see this discussion. I think you're better off him seeing that several Wikipedia veterans are pessimistic that an article on him can be sustained than you either telling him what we said, or taking his money and failing to deliver. Ravenswing 08:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Sbfox19. I think the comments you've received overnight from experienced editors do seem fair. I too have struggled to find in-depth, independent sources which talk about Mr Boseman in a way that Wikipedia can accept. Of course, this is absolutely nothing to do with him or anyone's view of him - it is, I am afraid, simply whether a Wikipedia page can pull together sufficient material to meet its own criteria at this moment in time. That's not to say that things won't change in the future as a person's career continues to develop. To expand on the rationale for not accepting IMDb content - it (like Wikipedia) is user-edited, and subject to bias by those who add or remove content. We freely admit that here, and always strive to be neutral in all that is covered - which we why we demand sources (unlike IMDb). But we cannot guarantee it and, despite always demanding reliable, third-party sources, for that reason even Wikipedia is not accepted by Wikipedia editors as a reliable source! (See here). If you think you have the skills to help develop a personal website or other social media profile for him instead, there is of course absolutely nothing or noone who can stop you. (And don't forget my suggestion about photos for Wikimedia Commons - that still stands) Kind regards from a sunny and frozen UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above as well. Please note that this isn't anything against on your friend as a person—a lot of wonderful people aren't notable enough for an article here, and a lot of horrible people are. It just means we really don't have enough source material yet to write an article from. If he continues to do well, that may attract notice and one day that situation might change, but I don't think we're at that point yet. I just can't find enough good source material that an article would be written from, so I share the opinion that such an article will likely be deleted as things stand today. I would certainly hope that the individual would at least be willing to give you something for the work you've done looking into the possibility, and you can certainly show him this discussion as such. I've done consulting and freelance work myself, and while unfortunate, we can't always deliver good news. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

De facto restrictive or legally restrictive

If you see Video game rating, you can see many colors. ESRB M is red, but de facto restrictive. CERO D, South Korea Game Rating 12 & 15 are also red. but are CERO D, South Korea Game Rating 12 & 15 de facto restrictive, or legally restrictive?(I know AU Game Rating MA15 is legally restrictive.) 61.109.111.155 (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

We answer questions on how to edit Wikipedia here, IP. Perhaps they can help you at the reference desk. John from Idegon (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like an article content question that can be discussed on the talk page, Talk:Video game rating. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Talk:Video game content rating system is the proper place to discuss improvements to that article. The link above is a redirect. General questions about the rating system can be asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Saving work in draft page

Hi. I started creating a new page using the Wizard. I wanted to come back and continue working on it but I couldn't find anywhere that said to save the draft, even though the instructions said there was a Save button. I didn't want to hit the Publish button as I understand that sends it through for review prior to becoming live. Now I can't find the work I did on the Draft page i.e. the Draft page has no text. (Luckily I have a copy myself so it's not all lost). So my questions are: can I retrieve the Draft page? How do I save the work I've done on a draft to come back to later? Would it be better to work in Sandbox instead?Gertrude206 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gertrude206: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The 'save' button was recently changed to 'publish'. Most of the instruction pages likely have not been updated to reflect this. To submit a draft there should be a 'submit your draft for review' button. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Wikimedia Foundation have confused users by changing the software to replace the "Save button" by something named the "Publish button", even in cases such as the Draft namespace where it isn't actually publishing the page to mainspace. They did so without changing the various instructions which refer to the Save button. Providing that you are working in either the Draft space or your user sandbox, you should be able to use the Publish button safely. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick replies. I appreciate it takes time to update all those help and instruction pages.Gertrude206 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a point of note to other Hosts and Visitors regarding those few of our Help pages that are still out of date: I have tried to update them all -or get others to change them - but a few remain which contain screenshots which themselves need remaking before the Help page can be fully updated. I maintain a complete list of all pages and files that are still outstanding here, and would welcome anyone having a go at recreating them and uploading versions with the correct text. (Or please add or tell me of any other pages that I've missed). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Maps

Guys i wanted to create a map of ranges of languages and how do i do it? Is a software requirement? Im on mac. :)

--Newslayer3015 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)newslayer3015:)

Newslayer3015: you create the map, using whatever software you like, preferably as an SVG file but PNG and some other formats are accceptable. Then you upload it to Wikimedia Commons so that it can be used on all Wikipedia projects. Maproom (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

how do i edit on wikipedia. and how also I want to delete the existing template on the page of wikipedia articles, and how also I want to lock the page wikipedia semi protection articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecal saputra (talk • contribs) 00:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

For a start, you don't ask the same question in two places, as you have done here and at the WP:Helpdesk. You might like to try out The Wikipedia adventure for an interactive tour of the basics of editing here. Then try this link at Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing. You only delete a template on an existing article once the concerns it raises have been addressed. You do this either by editing the article to meet those requirements, or you discuss them on the articles talk page, if you disagree with the issues raised by it. If a page is being repeatedly vandalised, you can ask one of our administrators to consider putting temporary protection on it. To learn how this works, please follow this link: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Do come back with other specific questions if you're still stuck on. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As a follow-on: If the article you are referring to is Incheon International Airport, I can see at a quick glance, that it appears in general to be fairly well referenced. There are nine 'citation needed' templates throughout the article. But these don't seem to warrant a big template on the top of the page as so much esle appears to be supported by references. But I'd suggest you look at those tags and see if you can address any of them. I see you've removed the referencing template, and (personally) it doesn't look like you've done something terrible. As always, we advise editors to discuss specific concerns on an article's talk page. There may well be issues and sensitivities with this subject that I'm not aware of. Nick Moyes (talk)

Edit blocked

Memory and aging project https://www.rushu.rush.edu/research/departmental-research/memory-and-aging-project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.119.133 (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

https://www.rushu.rush.edu/research/departmental-research/memory-and-aging-project

https://www.rushu.rush.edu/research/departmental-research/memory-and-aging-project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.119.133 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I assume this is about Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center. But I have no idea what is being asked. Maproom (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The OP might be concerned about the reference showing the error message "Missing or empty |title= (help)". In that error message the word "help" is in blue to indicate that it is a wikilink, in this case to Help:CS1 errors#citation missing title. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed the reference so it no longer produces the error text. Neiltonks (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

How to make a draft that will review?

How to make a draft that will review?Jason CoolDude Smith (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Read the advice on your user talk page(s) User talk:Jason CoolDude Smith and User talk:Jason Shades Smith, avoid sockpuppetry, avoid autobiography, learn about notability and about reliable sources, and then (if you wish to contribute an article on a notable subject) read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Jason CoolDude Smith welcome to the Teahouse. As this is an encyclopedia, not a social media site for self-promotion, Wikipedia only takes articles that meet our standards of notability (click the blue links to find out more). They must also be based upon what other independent sources have written about that subject. If there's nothing said about a subject, then that subject has no place having a page here. We term these reliable sources. I note you have created a user page (which you're normally welcome to do), but it has quite reasonably been put forward for speedy deletion as it appears have been made to promote you as a subject. User pages are for editors to introduce themselves to the editing community, and maybe express their interests in editing. We don't expect personal details like you've put in. Find out more here. Does this help? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

To be very blunt - you are not yet notable. Articles about you have not appeared in reputable print or on-line publications. YouTube does not count as a reference. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. There are Wikipedia articles about living people, written by other people - not the people who are the topics of the articles. If you want to stay involved with Wikipedia, your help welcome improving existing articles. David notMD (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Note also that edits such as this and these are liable to be considered disruptive. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this thread is now over, see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/JaySmith2018. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

How to list a Best Scottish Poem Winner for 2016, if she is one of 20

Hi,

I am working on a women poet biography. In the Awards section, I would like to include her inclusion in the Best Scottish Poems Award 2016 by the Scottish Poetry LIbrary.

I am not sure how I would list that in my bio, since she is one of twenty winners.

Please advise. Thanks. MauraWen (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, MauraWen. The Scottish Poetry Library is a notable institution. Simply write that she was one of the 20 winners that year, and provide a reference. Describing awards in prose rather than as a list allows you to make such distinctions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328! MauraWen (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Can an article be recreated after being deleted?

Hi, I'm just curious about the policy. Can an article be re-created years later after the original consensus of an AFD was for it to be deleted? Snickers2686 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In a word, Yes. But there must be new independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability in a way that wasn't possible before. It's not OK for an article that was deleted to be recreated with basically the same content. Quite often an article is deleted about a musician, actor or personality on the grounds that it is WP:TOOSOON, and that they haven't yet been covered in depth by reliable sources. When that situation changes, it's quite OK to try to create a new page. I'd recommend going through Articles for Creation and being prepared for it to be looked at sceptically at first. So make sure that recreation really is justified! Hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"See also" section

Is there a MOS or other guidance on what the "See also" section of an article should include? ▲RedScrees (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@RedScrees: Yes, see WP:SEEALSO which will take you to that section of the MOS. RudolfRed (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thanks! ▲RedScrees (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to add, you might want to check MOS:ORDER to show the correct ordering of sections. (as I always forget where "See also" should appear, and often have to remind myself). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:COI with ex-employer?

If I no longer work at a company nor have a relationship with them, do I have WP:COI? If so, is that clear somewhere in WP:COI and I'm just overlooking it? Thanks! ~ Rick305 t·c 01:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rick305. There is nothing definitive about ex-employees although you should pay attention to the concept of apparent COI. If you were to add content unfavorable to the company, someone may suspect that you are a disgruntled former employee seeking revenge, or a current employee of a competitor. If you add something favorable, someone might say you were currying favor in an attempt to get your old job back. Caution is in order. I suggest that you disclose your former employment on the article's talk page, and pay special attention to the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain this template?

I just encountered an editing template that is pretty interesting, and I'd like to know more about it. It appeared as"PDB: 3HTS", and renders as PDB: 3HTS, where the first half is a link to the relevant WP article, and the second half is a very useful external link to the Protein Data Bank's page on the 3HTS protein's structure. Where can I find out more about this template?--Quisqualis (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: Welcome to Wikipedia. I took a guess, and found that this is probably the template: {{PDB}}. Follow the link to learn more about it and some related templates. RudolfRed (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Why can't a add an image in an infobox?

I want to add a picture, JHShonkwiler.jpg, to Draft: J. Harvey Shonkwiler but I keep getting a message about "articlespace" (?) and a manga girl image. Mephiboshethsmaid (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mephiboshethsmaid. I do not see a file by that precise name, either on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Did you upload it, and if so, where did you upload it? Please double check the file name. Even the slightest error will cause problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability and citations questions regarding a biography of a living person

Hello. An ex-colleague wrote a biography of me, asked me to check it and provide citations, which I did. I thought the biography disproportionately long but I submitted it for him as he can't get along with the system. It was declined, and I understand why. He is keen to resubmit but again I find myself at coalface, so to speak. Three questions: First of all - should I ask him to submit it, not me, as the Wiki reviewer thought it was an autobiography, which I know is strongly discouraged? Secondly - the article contains references to books I have written (published by mainstream publishers) and articles I have written (published in national newspapers, e.g. Daily Telegraph). Are citations to these books and articles sufficient? (They are in libraries and online newspaper archives.) Thirdly, during part of my career I was a hotelier (which is relevant to the books I wrote). I tried to provide 'evidence' by citing (independent, nationally published) reviews of the hotels in question - are these citations sufficient? Help grateful appreciated. I've combed through much information, I haven't found answers to the above. This is the first article I have been involved in from scratch, though I've successfully edited other articles before. Orlando Murrin (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Orlando Murrin: citations of your owns works, and of newspaper articles showing you once worked as a hotelier, are certainly permitted. But they do not help to provide evidence that you are notable, which seems to be the problem faced by you and your ex-colleague. To establish that you are notable enough to justify the existence of an article, it would need citations of several reliable independent published sources, with in-depth discussion of you. Maproom (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, unless the published reviews mention you by name, they do not verify that you were a hotelier. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I hate maintenance templates?

Oh really, this article could benefit from more citations? Aww geez this very technical article is too technical? There's not enough inline citations in this article? Oh, and this one has multiple issues!?

Seriously though, these boxes are an eyesore. Almost every article I visit has one or more maintenance templates at the top. I want to argue they serve no purpose; particularly at the top of the article. Maybe they trigger some bot or flip-over a number on some ticker-counter somewhere on village pump. They could do so at the bottom, or as teensy collapsed boxes in the corner of the page.

Why they serve little or no purpose...

First, this is Wikipedia; it's Don't Panic written by volunteers in their spare time. My 6-year-old knows Wikipedia articles are not perfect representations of world information, and can have mistakes. So whenever I see a random maintenance box like Needs more references at the top of an article, I quietly whisper to myself, Thank you... Captain.... Obvious.

Second, almost every one of these declarations can be checked by the reader, in real time.

"hmmm, did that sentence I just read end with a reference?"
"hmmm, that paragraph seemed like it would be a bit too technical for a layman"
"hmmm, this article was pretty crappy, it has by my estimate, multiple issues"

Third, they make a call for a quantitative or qualitative change by some arbitrary amount. Due to this, nobody knows when to remove them. So they just sit up there, stacking up, festering, forever.

Lastly, I love helping improve the quality of Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia. Never once -- not once -- have a seen a maintenance box and gone "boy, ohhh boy... MULTIPLE ISSUES!, I can't wait to get to fixin these"

I just needed to get that off my chest. Carry on my good fellows Niubrad (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Niubrad: This is not the forum to gripe or complain about aspects of Wikipedia; this is a place for new users to ask questions. Not everyone is like you, and many people find the templates helpful in pointing out issues. What is obvious to you may be totally unseen by others, especially new users. If you want to work to eliminate maintenance templates from Wikipedia, you are free to do so, though I think it unlikely to succeed- but this isn't the place to do it. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, see, I knew this would be helpful... I was looking all over for the right place to gripe about this, and now maybe you can help me. Where is the appropriate place to voice this opinion? Also, note that not everyone is like you, and many people already understand these very basic things about Wikipedia articles. Aaaand, I'm not proposing their removal - just that they be collapsed, out of the way somewhere. So people like you who want to know the article needs more citations, can expando it at your leisure. Niubrad (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If the templates are hidden then they can't be seen by people who might not be aware of them. Moving them to article talk pages is a perennial proposal as described here and I think the reasons listed there for not doing so are still valid. There are also previous discussions linked to there that you may wish to review. The question you seem to be asking is if Wikipedia should be designed for people like you or more occasional, inexperienced users(who potentially could be experienced users). However, I would say that the correct place to discuss changes in this area would be the Village Pump. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the maintenance templates populate an appropriate category. There are editors who gnome away working through them, but perhaps not as many as could be wished for. Nobody is obliged to do anything, but with ACTRIAL up and running there should be fewer maintenance templates going on new articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Niubrad many of them are (or were) added by new page reviewers who are working through a back log of unreviewed new pages. Your help would be much more welcome than your sarcasm. Lots of the templates are quite easy to remove, but with a huge backlog it is simply better and more efficient to inform the page authors of the need for improvement than to ask the reviewers to check and fix every mistake or omission made by the contributors to the page. Conscientious page creators and editors respond to these tags by fixing things, but as you can see - many editors do not. You can check WP:NPP for further details. After reading you might be more inclined to see the merits of maintenance templates than to complain about them.Edaham (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Niubrad, I agree with you that maintenance templates are counterproductive, many are inaccurate or outdated and I'd add that their introduction may be a major cause of the shift from the sofixit culture of our early growth phase to the sotemplateitforhypotheticalotherstofix phase. Unfortunately for reasons inexplicable to me there are others who think they are useful and who resist proposals to turn them into maintenance categories. But such talk is probably more productive at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) than here. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

succinctly highlighting the difference between a Pre-2010 Wikipedia with a few thousand (maybe in the tens of) active editors creating keystone pages on core subjects and a modern Wikipedia where millions of active editors create pages on anything and everything that takes their fancy. Maintenance templates are a great idea and part of a process. Get over it. If it helps you sleep at night, Wikipedia will outlive you ^{[citation needed]} by innumerable generations, during which time most of the backlogged templates will be resolved - (wp:deadline). Happy editing Edaham (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The editing community was at its largest in 2007. I'm not convinced that the current activity is any less core subject focused then it was in 2007, but more of our new editors were staying with us. Whether it is template bombing that makes us a less welcoming environment to new editors is still a controversial idea, but it fits the evidence as well as any other theory. Personally I don't regard it as the sole cause of the contraction in the community that happened from 2007 through 2014, but it is one cause that the community could choose to fix. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Article submission not approved yet

Hi, I had submitted a Company article for one of my clients (Statkraft BLP Solar Solutions) almost 3 months back and and it has not been approved yet. Kindly look into it and let me know if any further changes needs to be made for it to go live. Below is a link of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Statkraft_BLP_Solar_Solutions

Your immediate response in this regard will be highly appreciated.Venugopals.rahul (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Venugopals.rahul. Your draft was declined on December 2, 2017, as reading like an advertisement, and I agree with that assessment. Your references are presented as bare URLs and lack bibliographic information. Several of your sources are to the company's own website and others appear to be reprints of press releases, and are not independent reporting. You have failed to show that this company is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia article. In addition, you have not fully complied with the mandatory requirements for paid editors, since you have not disclosed who is paying you on the draft's talk page. Since you are being paid (while the vast majority of editors including me are volunteers), then please do your job correctly instead of ineptly. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And now, rejected, a second time. David notMD (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello

first come. hello! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobs2633 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jobs2633 Welcome to the Teahouse. We're here for you if you ever have problems trying to edit Wikipedia. Like you, we're all volunteers and will do our best to assist, even if we can't reply immediately. I see you've completed part of The Wikipedia Adventure and have a few more missions to complete to gain all your badges. It's always a good idea to learn slowly by making small edits first, and picking up skills as you go along. Do come back if you need any particular help or guidance. (I'll pop by and leave one of our welcome messages for you, which contains a few useful links which newcomers often find most useful. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)