Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 360

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.

Oh, dear, I'm adding some extra spaces in order to show the markup/coding here....

This:
< ref group=Note >Explanatory note separate from the citations.< /ref >

properly shows "Note 1" as a ref. and displays the note under { {reflist | group=Note} }.

But I'd like the ref. to say "Note A" and I can't figure out how to get "Note" in there with

{ {efn-ua | More info. } } and { {notelist-ua} }

The help pages suggest that this ought to work: { {efn-ua | group=Note | More info.} }

But so far, I can have letter references or I can have the word "Note" but not both. An additional word can only precede arabic numerals? I've been fussing with it forever it seems. Am I missing something blindingly obvious and simple?

Thanks for any guidance. Valuenyc (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Valuenyc and welcome to the Teahouse. Just exactly where have you been "fussing with it"? The only thing I can see you working on is Joseph Rescigno (or am I missing something?), and that article has neither {{reflist}} or {{notelist}}. Something that an article should have. Instead there is a long list of External Links. Before you start with the more complicated templates for Notes with references, it would be best if you familiarized yourself with proper references. Read User:Yunshui/References for beginners and Help:Referencing for beginners and start converting the external links into proper inline citations. Once you have done that, just give me a holler and I'll help you sort out the Notes with the Refs. If you want to see an article where Notes and refs are used click here. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear W. Carter: I do hope I'm responding in the right way. I've never used this forum. I am fussing in a sandbox, just trying to learn the markup, while I'm working separately on some long-overdue improvements to the page you cite. In my sandbox, my notes are working beautifully in every respect but this. If you feel you cannot shed any light on my question, so be it. I thought it would be a pretty straightforward matter: Can one have "Note A" rather than "Note 1"? If so, what is the syntax?

Thanks for your interest. (I don't know whether you are supposed to be able to see my sandbox. But, FYI, for the moment, it is so minimal that I haven't saved my work there, only on my computer here. (I guess you could say I'm shy. ;-) )) Valuenyc (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Valuenyc: Well, shy or not, the more open you are with what you do, the better we can help you. We have all been new here once and we are here to help the new editors. Most of us don't bite. The letters or numbers are auto-generated so if you use the {{reflist}} you get numbers, and if you use the {{notelist}} together with the {{efn|Some text}} you get letters (lowercase letters), as you can see in the article I sent a link to. You can't do anything about it. But it is always easier if you have some text where an example can be shown. I will also leave some notes on your talk page about things that can be helpful to you. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

My problem is that this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes#WP:EXPLNOTE

says that {{efn}} supports | name= and | group= . I don't think I asked this in the most intelligent manner and I apologize for that. But it is | group= that I cannot get to work with {{efn}}. I'm fine with numbers here and letters there. It just seems that if one wants "Note" in the ref one must use <ref> and take "Note 1" but "Note A" (or "Note a") using {{efn}} is impossible. I do appreciate your continued attention, but if this must wait until I put up some real content, then so be it. (Wish me luck with MS Word to Wiki. Ugh. And thanks for teaching me that nowiki tag! Boy did that throw me at first.) Valuenyc (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Valuenyc: There are many ways to do the references, I am not familiar with all of them. Maybe some other editor know how to make the word "Note" appear in the text. As for examples, I have made one for you in one of my sandboxes where you can see how the whole thing works. Hope that this will clarify things a bit. A word of caution when you transfer text from MS Word to Wiki: Some if the characters, such as the " and ' are displayed as "slanted" (not the WP standard) if you just copy paste the text. You will have to fix that afterwards. w.carter-Talk 08:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Valuenyc: If I understand your question correctly, you have seen this example:

This part of the text requires clarification,<ref group=note>Listed separately from the citation</ref> whereas the entire text is cited.<ref>Citation.</ref> And this needs even more clarification.<ref group=note>Another note</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

You would like to use {{efn}} and {{notelist}}to have the ^{[note 1]} and ^{[note 2]} replaced with ^{[note A]} and ^{[note B]} respectively, but so far you've only gotten it to show ^[A] and ^[B].

The reason it seems impossible is that, despite what the documentation implies, it is impossible (at least without rewriting the template code for references). To understand why, consider how {{efn-ua}} works. Internally it gets translated into {{efn|group=upper-alpha}}, which produces the uppercase letter superscripts. One can instead use {{efn|group=note}}, which produces the [note 1] superscripts. But there's no way to combine the two effects - no group=note-upper-alpha. I suspect the reason it was written this way was that the word "note" in the superscript was necessary to distinguish numerical notes from numerical references, but if the notes are alpha instead of numeric it was presumably felt that there was no need for the word "note".

You could achieve a very similar effect by prefacing every explanatory footnote with a superscripted "note", using {{sup|note }}{{efn-ua|Yet another note}} to produce.^{note [C]} Understand, however, that if you do that the next editor who comes along may look at that, go "Eeeuw! That's non-standard!", and rip it out. Probably best to resign yourself to what works in Wikipedia. Worldbruce (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, boy, I wish I'd checked here first before spending yet more time on this today. (I didn't get another message that there was an additional note here. I guess that's because it wasn't on my talk page? I'm learning....) Anyway, I thank you very much. I do hope there's some way to suggest a revision to the documentation? It's simple enough to say that you can't use "group |" because the "efn" tag already creates a group. As it is it really cost me (because I'm so stubborn.) ... Unless there's some other purpose for "group" that I'm too green to conjure up... Well, again, thanks. Valuenyc (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Valuenyc: I find the documentation misleading, but believe it's technically correct. One can use efn|group=note, or efn|group=upper-alpha, ... or efn|group=lower-greek, but not efn|group=note|group=upper-alpha, or efn-ua|group=note, or similar combinations. If you can come up with a better way of expressing this, then, this being Wikipedia - the encyclopedia anyone can edit, you can be bold and change the documentation yourself. A more cautious approach would be to suggest a change of wording at Help talk:Footnotes, which appears to be closely monitored by subject experts. Worldbruce (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, an article I published https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_jewelry_forum was marked for deletion. Originally there were notes that it did not have enough references, or links to other Wiki pages. I have added both. References are from a variety of sources including academic (.edu) webpages. Now those particular notes are gone from the page, but it is still marked for deletion with no indication as to why..... Are we good? Clarefinin (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Clarefinin - A formal deletion discussion (that normally runs for seven days) has been opened at WP:Articles for deletion/Art jewelry forum, please participate in the debate at that page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, What action to take when any reference takes you to the homepage of that website instead of redirecting to that particular page ? Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vivek.bekhabar. Do you mean when clicking on an existing reference in a Wikipedia article? That usually means the referenced text was once there but has moved or been deleted. See Wikipedia:Link rot for general help. We can give more specific help if you name an article and reference. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, PrimeHunter, yes same thing might have happened. Wikipedia:Link rot is helpful and discusses about using URLs in the first place and specifically not for existing links of these kinds. This is the wikipedia article I am talking about - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Gulabchand , please check reference number 1. I have come across several articles having issue of this kind. Suggest what to do in these kind of cases. Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vivek.bekhabar: Wikipedia:Link rot#Repairing a dead link is about existing links. Also note the following sections. Sometimes you just have to mark the link with {{dead link}}. The first reference in Ajit Gulabchand links to [1] which works fine for me. There is an article called "We create entrepreneurship against odds: HCC chief Ajit Gulabchand", as the reference says. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi@PrimeHunter:, this case is for reference number 5. By mistake I typed 1 instead of 5. Please check 5th reference of the same article. Sorry for inconvinience. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Vivek.bekhabar:, I have fixed the link now. It was pointing to a wrong page earlier. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rsrikanth05, Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vivek.bekhabar: Wikipedia:Link rot#Repairing a dead link has advice to fix this case. The new url is easily found with the Google search site:business-standard.com/ "Newsmaker: Ajit Gulabchand". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Ok...nice! It will help in repairing other dead links too. Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have an article in my sandbox thai I am still working on (Bobby Ogdin) I do not want to lose this. I want to begin a second article in the sandbox on a different subject. How do I do this? Thanks , eagledjEagledj (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Eagledj you can create as many subpages in your users area as you want - so you have User:Eagledj/sandbox you could create User:Eagledj/sandbox/Another or User:Eagledj/Another etc - KylieTastic (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eagledj. The article in your sandbox has a copyright problem, and specifically (I don't get to say this often) you are infringing on my copyrighted content, since I wrote part of the content you are using from Bobby Ogdin, which as you know was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Ogdin was closed by Joe Decker, despite my attempt to save it by adding reliably sourced content. I can fix that by a history merge. It was smart of you to work on this in a sandbox this time, but you should have requested it be userfied, rather than reposting and using prior content containing other people's writing. Anyway, the other issue is whether this is subject to section G4 of the criterion for speedy deletion (I deleted a prior re-post by you under this criterion), and I think it isn't as you've expanded it significantly. Right now the main part of the draft is a large single block of text. I suggest breaking it up into paragraphs.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I just edited my father's page (he is Joseph Flom). I added the year he got married to my mom. I didn't cite a reference .... do I need one? How should I put in that the marriage ended when she died? Also, should I add that he has kids? PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, published sources, so you should include references to anything that is not trivially true or any claims that might be challenged. This means that other readers can verify that what you have written is based on credible research and is not significantly biased in any way.

Because you are related to the subject of your article, I suggest that you consider whether you have a conflict of interest. It is very important to the credibility of Wikipedia that its articles are trusted to be written by authors who are not biased towards the articles' subjects. It would be prudent to make suggestions for how the article be written by writing on the talk page of your father's article, but refrain from editing the article directly.

tl;dr: Include references, avoid directly contributing to articles about family members so as to avoid introducing unintentional bias.

Kind regards, Matt Heard (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The information was hardly controversial. Just a date. PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything needs references. The obituaries may have the details. For a deceased wife you can put something like "Mary Doe (1940-1960) d. 1960". References don't need to be online, but they do need to be published in reliable sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

My article has been deleted twice yet it has sources and devoid of advertisement. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Onlyhitss Kindly assist Umeshakshayan15 (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Umshakshayan15, that article had been deleted 3 times, not twice, and the title has been protected so it cannot be created again. Your draft had been rejected for the same reason the prior versions were deleted. You have not shown that the subject is notable. Your references are a copyright listing for the name, and a site that publishes press releases. Wikipedia only publishes articles on subjects that have been covered in detail in multiple independent, reliable sources. You have barely shown that this entity exists, much less shown that multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have made note of it in detail. Until you can do that, you do not have an article on your subject. John from Idegon (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Need your advice, my article has been rejected despite the fact it includes independent sources (inman.com, bizjournals.com) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TenantCloud

The reason is:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

What would you suggest?

Thanks in advance

Volodymyr Korol (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Volodymyr Korol, and welcome ro the Teahouse. Text such as "that’s why they decided to find a better and cheaper way to set themselves apart as renters and ease the landlording process at the same time. This was the start of TenantCloud, a free service that helps landlords, tenants, property managers and service professionals to organize their rental data and manage properties more efficiently. And "Previously in 2008 Joe joined Governor Perry’s office and managed $487 Million in state authority with a focus on early stage and emerging companies." read like a marketing brochure. Wikipedia has encyclopeia articles, not company profiles. This is why people are strongly advised not to write about their own work, it is very hard for most people to write neutrally about projects they are involved with. Also, Wikipedia articles do not normally describe people by their first or personal names. So not "Vitaliy and Leonid previously started the company..." but Ivanyshyn and Korkuchanskii previously started the company....

As to your sources, the first is a paper written by Joseph Edgar, one of the principals of the company. Tha is not an independant source, and so does not conribute to notability. The secolnd is a Press Release also writen by Joseph Edgar. The third is almost an interview and is largely based on statements by Edgar. The fourth is behind a paywall, so i can't judge it.

In short, this draft needs to be rewriten with a ruthlessly neutral tone, with all value judgements and chatty comments removed, unless they are in direct quotes sourced to people independant of the company, published in reliable sources. Additional independent sourcs need to be cited. If that is done, the draft might be approved. DES ^(talk) 12:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Got it, thank you so much for your help!

Volodymyr Korol (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I have written an entry for the poet Mekeel McBride which was rejected. The reviewer, MatthewVanitas, referred me to you.

In the meantime I have added to my draft several references--they now total 8 (shows 10, but nos. 9 and 10 are redundant and I don't know how to delete them--can you help me there?). I don't think there is a question of Mekeel Mcbride being sufficiently notable. She has many publications.

My question: is there a way you can look into my sandbox and advise me as to what is lacking before I resubmit it?

Thanks,

Harmonium22 Harmonium22 (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Harmonium22, and welcome to the Teahouse. The main issue with Draft:Mekeel Mcbride, as I see it, is notability. You have several references to show that Mcbride had published poetry in several notable venues. But you don't show any evidence that anyone has writen about Mcbride, except for mentionign one review, and you don';t say anything about what that reviewer's opnions were. According to our General Notability Guideline (GNG) we need to see multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in some detail, or else at least one of the criteria at our guideline for notability of authors must apply, or better yet, both the GNG and the author guideline applies. That is what was meant by "See notability (writers)".

I have done some formatting cleanup, but you will need to supply additional citations. By the way, when citing offline (or PDF) sources, please supply dates and page numbers, and the same for web sources where these have page numbers. DES ^(talk) 13:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I got a notice on my article about link rot and I think I corrected the problem. Am I allowed to remove the warning if I have fixed the problem? Thank you for your time. Jrptwins (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jrptwins: and welcome to the Teahouse. Whenever you think a tag/warning is no longer appropriate, you are allowed to remove it- it's definitely been fixed now. With the linkrot warning, if you're using Refill like you did, you can change the options on that page to automatically remove the tag. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your fast response. You are appreciated!Jrptwins (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, What does hCards mean ? I have read it in few of the articles in hidden cateogry section. Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Vivek.bekhabar. Welcome to Teahouse. It is apparently some type of microformatting. Frankly it is way too technical for me to wrap my brain around, but perhaps hCard will make more sense to you than it does to me. John from Idegon (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @John from Idegon: Thanks! Yes I too think its a bit technical. Lets hope any other editor clarifies. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats/hcard help?--ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Good evening - my name is John. I just submitted an article for review and received a message mentioning that it contained copyrighted information. This is my first submission.

The reviewer was seemingly mistaken since the document that the reviewer is concerned about was a non-copyrighted, public/municipal/open source document. A quote from the Mayor of Shreveport was the passage.

The draft is Draft:C.O. Simpkins, Sr.

Is there either an appeal process or an alternate way to include content that would be helpful to the article?

Thanks for any assistance you might be able to lend me. 2602:304:8922:C479:E073:505F:7D40:C98F (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Your assumption that the document is "non-copyrighted" is wrong. The default assumption is that any document you find anywhere is copyright, unless you can show that it is not. If it is sufficiently old, it will be out of copyright; and I believe that the US Federal Government declares that many documents produced by its employees in the course of their duties are in the public domain. But simply because a document has been written by a polity - even in the US - does not automatically mean that it is in the public domain. You would need to show that the City of Shreveport have somewhere declared that their council proceedings are in the public domain. (They might have done so; but it is up to you to demonstrate this - there is no automatic assumption).

Having said this, it is acceptable to quote from a copyright source, as long as the amount quoted is not too long, and it is explicit that it is a quotation, and cited to the source. So, I think the problem here is that you quoted an unreasonable amount from the source. A few sentences quoted might be acceptable. (I also think that quoting that encomium at length is completely out of place in an encyclopaedia article, for reasons of neutrality. But that is a different kind of criticism, and is open to argument.)

I know this is not what you are asking about; but there are other serious problems with the draft. The most obvious one is that most of it is unreferenced. You have a number of references, which is good (though note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and may not be used as a reference); but huge swathes of what you have written have no references. If you start from the assumption that every single claim in an article should be individually cited to a reliable published source - and most of them to a source independent of the subject - then you won't go far wrong.

Finally, the tone is far from the neutral tone required of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's voice should never, ever, say of anybody that he "has excelled in a number of pursuits". If a reliable independent source has said this, then the Wikipedia article could say so, making it clear that this is the opinion of the cited source. Wikipedia does not have opinions, evaluations, or conclusions, and its articles should never suggest that it has. --ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, I want to show my photo when people search me. Please guide me for that.

Thanks.

Worship Khanna (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Worship Khanna: Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the details of how to donate an image. Note that Wikipedia only accepts donations of copyright materials under a licensing that allow free use by anyone, not just Wikipedia. Also note that it is the consensus of the editors who determine which images, if any, will be used in the article, and so even if you donate an image, that doesn't mean that the image donated will be the one selected for use in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Worship Khanna. You seem to have managed to upload a photo and put it on the page Worship Khanna. However, it will shortly be deleted as a copyright violation. In order for a picture to be used in Wikipedia, the copyright owner of the picture (who is probably not you, unless you have a contract with the photographer or the agency which specifically says you hold the copyright) must agree to release the photo under a suitable Creative commons licence (which will allow anybody to use it for any purpose). See Donating copyright materials for how to do this. The article will also soon be deleted, unless somebody adds some citations to reliably published sources where people unconnected with you have written at length about you.

Your editing of that article, and your question, suggest to me that you are confusing Wikipedia with a social media site. It is not one: it is an encyclopaedia, and has a different purpose. If it is established that you are notable in the special Wikipedia sense (i.e. that people unconnected with you have pubished extensive writing about you), then there can be an article about you. It will not be your article, you will have no control over the contents, and it should be based almost entirely on what those unconnected people have written about you, and written in neutral language. If you wish to contribute a photo of yourself, and can persuade the copyright holder to donate the photo, that will be welcome. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not new user but I never tried to edit any full protected article, but I just want to know that how to make request for edit on full protected page? Thank you. --106.221.152.105 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi 106.221.152.105 It's Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Making_requests your looking for. Just add the template {{edit fully-protected}} to a new section with you request in it, on the articles talk page. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@KylieTastic:, I forgot to log in, thanks for your reply. (Thanks for welcome message too). Cheers. --106.221.152.105 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fully protected pages do not have an edit tab, at the top, only a "View source" tab - if you click that, the next page explains about protected pages and has a second button "Submit an edit request" - this takes you to a partly filled out request form.
Complete the form, preferably requesting a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Most importantly, you must cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information will be added to, or changed in, the article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

HI,

My Article was first declined due to wording used- they said it was more like an advertisement, i fixed this and even went to get it checked over on the chat site, they advised that it was much better.

I resubmitted and now ! Im told that something else was wrong, surely this would have been mentioned at the start, I do not agree with the outcome this time as the links and references are good ! they are all verified

can someone please help me, I have noticed a few people have left comments on this persons talk page for the same reason

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

Azura81 (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Azura81: While the first rejection did say "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view," that very same rejection goes on to state " and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @TheRedPenOfDoom:

HI, again im confussed by this, It has now been wrote in a neutral point of view, The links I have provided are articles that were created by newspapers/magazines, links that confirm airplay on bbc radio. I have followed the same route of other articles that have been created, the articles they used and ref were pretty much the same and it was accepted. I really dont know how to resolve this issue, When I got it checked on the UK chat site on wiki they confirmed that the links were good and the references, .. sorry Azura81 (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Azura81: Unfortunately, the article still has content like "Nasty P has an notable discography of albums and mixtapes from the acclaimed " so even the claims of "wrote in a neutral point of view" are not correct. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Azura81; most of those references (all the BBC ones, certainly) show only that Nasty P has done programmes. They don't show that people have been writing about him, and until people (not him or his friends or agents, but people unconnected with him) have been writing about him, Wikipedia isn't interested. It's possible that the Rolling Stone reference is such an item, if it is an in-depth review but not if it is just a sentence or two and that rating: it requires registration, so I haven't looked at it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thanks, Ive spoke with the person who first declined it and they have advised that I can use actual news paper articles that have been wrote about Nasty p, I wasnt aware I could do this and have lots of these so it should hopefully resolve the issue now. I will also correct the notable discography part, this was information taken from an article, I assumed that it would have been ok to use, I guess not., Thanks for all your help, I really appreciate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azura81 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Rose Cohen redirects to Howard Unruh because that was one of the people he killed. But I created an article about a different person named Rose Gollup Cohen. So if you could help me with that somehow so people who search for Rose Cohen get the option of Howard Unruh or Rose Gollup Cohen that would be great.GrandmotherClause (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the redirect to point to the author and added a hatnote on the author page to send people to the other target in case that is who they are looking for.

The other option would be to turn Rose Cohen into a disambiguation page where the two potential target landing pages could be listed if there are more than these two or if someone feels that a significant number of people would be searching for the victim rather than the author. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I like what you've done - no need for the other option I think. Thank you for your help!GrandmotherClause (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added a number of links to my entry on Mike Snowden to show that he is a real person and that the information in his bio is authentic. Do I need to do anything else to complete this bio?Nietzsche40 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably, so I have removed the BLP prod template. However, please take a look at referencing for beginners for guidance on formatting references properly as footnotes.--ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working on a wiki page about a TV show that's been produced by a Chicago museum and library for over 10 years. I've used the format that most pages about TV shows have adopted for tables of each season's episodes, but this page is getting really long. However, there isn't enough information for each season to have a separate page.

Is there anything I can so the page automatically only shows main headings, which could then be expanded/opened up by choice? Oh and this is the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pritzker_Military_Presents

([[User:Filterkaapi71|Filterkaapi71]]&#124[[User talk:Filterkaapi71|t]] )([[User:Filterkaapi71|COI]]) (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Filterkaapi71: I think what you are looking for is here Help:Section#Limiting_the_TOC.27s_depth. While I havent looked specifically at the article you are talking about, it might also be appropriate to spin off single article for all seasons/episode information - there is no reason to limit the options to "each season needs its own page" or "all seasons and episode information must be on the single page about the show" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I was actually looking into creating a composite page, but I ended up collapsing the tables in each section. The section on Limiting ToC looks helpful and I'll definitely use it to streamline the ToC box.

([[User:Filterkaapi71|Filterkaapi71]]&#124[[User talk:Filterkaapi71|t]] )([[User:Filterkaapi71|COI]]) (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a company called Catchword Branding and the information on their page is out of date and in need of being updated. Some of the key people listed in the article no longer work there and a lot of their work that is highlighted on the page is from many years ago. I was thinking of rewriting this article so that it's more current and detailed. I know that as a new user, I should only make small edits, but what if all of my edits are backed by citations and improve the quality of the article?

Jrendleman (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We encourage everyone — even new users — to be bold when making changes. If you are certain that your changes are in the best interests of Wikipedia, please go ahead and make them. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

At Shin-ik Hahm#Biography, a large number of examples is listed. Could this be seen as a form of promotional content? Rubbish computer 17:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Rubbish computer. In my opinion, the biggest problem with that section is that most of the claims are unreferenced. Anything that can't be referenced should be removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you. Rubbish computer 21:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a huge gap in this article: Víctor Santos (author).--Hienafant (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

the gap was caused by something in the unnecessary coding at the top of the table. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I have been trying to add a bean to bar chocolate maker.... and i am getting, 'please write the article first' several people, and being told i am soapboxing for wanting to add a bean to bar maker to a list.

could somebody please tell me where i can post a link to a valid article?

ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_bean-to-bar_chocolate_manufacturers&action=history

thank you! chonkat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chonkat (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse! For many of these list articles, there is an (often unwritten) rule that the entries in the list should already have an article about them. This is to make sure that only the most notable things get listed. Otherwise, these list articles would quickly become completely overrun with all sorts of non-notable things. To take an extreme case, imagine what List of people from New York would look like! Since the notability requirements for subjects of articles already exist, it makes sense not to reinvent the wheel and use the existence of an article as the requirement.

The next obvious question then becomes, what is notability and how much of it do you need for an article subject? On Wikipedia, notability means that people independent of the subject have written about it in depth in reliable sources. A good rule of thumb is that newspaper articles and books actually about the subject (not a passing mention) are good sources, and you need at least 3-4 of them. However, just reprints of press releases don't count. Hope that makes sense. Happy Squirrel (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi my article has been refused, I don't understand why. As I state in the article the man was a fighter pilot in WW2 and an "ace" - thus a notable person.

It is my first attempt at writing anything for Wiki and I can submit articles on these men to fill in the blanks (names in red - ie: no article exists) on the existing Wikipedia listing.

I am not very IT literate but have decades of researching experience and have reliable info. thanks for adviceResearcher1944 (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Researcher1944:. Within Wikipedia, "notable" has a special meaning. And just because someone thought that a subject might/could/should meet the notability guidelines and so created the red link to it, that doesn't mean that the subject actually does. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that as Wikipedia has countless articles on fighter aces who achieved less than 20% of Dettke's wartime success, that he should be includedResearcher1944 (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

you can "suggest" all you want, but when you make suggestions that are not based on the policies and guidelines, you generally won't get very far. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Researcher1944. Our notability guidelines have been around for years and years, and I'm afraid we don't just suddenly decide to make articles about everyone who was an ace. We base everything on reliable sources. If there are any more references to reliable sources that you can find which talk about Alfried Dettke in substantial detail, then add them to Draft:Alfried Dettke, use them to write your article and resubmit it. If there simply aren't any more references, I am afraid Wikipedia can't have an article on him. But if Dettke really did have as much wartime success as you think he did, then I'm sure there will be plenty of sources which talk about him. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hi Researcher1944 see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for why the argument will not help get an article accepted than your accepted. In my experience it's more likely to get other articles proposed for deletion. Also as you give no examples it's difficult to comment, however there could be so many other reasons they are notable, or they could have just been written about more for no particular reason. Success is one small measure, and in many topics there are people/companies/etc much more 'successful' than others, but not notable in a general sense. I clicked on a few random people linked from List of World War II aces from Germany and each one had much more content than yours. This doesn't mean Alfried Dettke is not notable, just that comparing to others is not good argument on Wikipeida. KylieTastic (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I saw this discussion and went over to your draft. I give it a little tweak just to give you a leg up. Mostly just some copy editing, there are now sections to give some order to the article. Not really my area of expertise, just wanted to help out. I'll keep it in my watchlist and help if possible. Cheers MAbbey (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Researcher1944. I have a different view of the matter than several of the other editors commenting here. First of all, I believe that there is a very strong presumption of notability regarding a World War II fighter pilot who shot down over 40 enemy planes. The "other stuff exists" argument pertains to pointing out unreferenced or very poorly referenced articles where coverage in reliable sources is mostly lacking. Anyone can type "Category:German World War II flying aces" into the search box to see that we now have about 480 biographies of such men in this encyclopedia. In cases like this, "other stuff exists" is a valid argument to include the article, and the draft article already cites a number of sources, though incompletely. Of course, some of these articles are better developed than others, but the group of articles as a whole shows that the broad topic area has received extensive coverage in reliable sources. I recommend that you model your article on the better of those existing articles. Read Your first article and especially, Referencing for beginners. There is no requirement that sources be available online, or that they be in English. But it is important that offline sources be referenced properly and fully, with authors, titles, publishers, publication date, page numbers, ISBN numbers and so on, all cited properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I continue to tweak the article I am working on. How does an article's grade improve? Do you need to request a review? Jrptwins (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jrptwins. Only Good articles and Featured articles require a formal review by uninvolved editors. If you are sure that an article has been improved sufficiently, feel free to upgrade it yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jrptwins. If you are referring to Joseph W. Papin, then I think it might be best for you to leave the assessing of the article up to other editors since you are fairly new to Wikipedia, are the creator of the article, and have pretty much only been editing that particular article. The article is listed as being within the scope of WP:WikiProject Biography and WP:WikiProject Visual arts. Some Wikipedia projects list the criteria that they use to assess and prioritize articles on pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment, so it might be a good idea for you to ask at WT:WikiProject Visual arts or WT:BIOG/A to see if there is anyone there who can help assess the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

On I'm with Cupid, at the very bottom of the page, it says "</noinclude>". How can I remove this? It isn't doing anything. Another thing: if I insert "#top" at the end of a url while on a page (which makes the URL look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#top) I go to the top of the page. Is there something I can insert instead of "#top" to make it go to the bottom of the page? —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: About that "</noinclude>" text: It was apparently due to the inclusion of two "</noinclude>" tags in Template:Breakfast at Tiffany's. I've removed one of them; all articles that have this template transcluded (including I'm with Cupid) should display correctly now. I don't know the answer to your second question, though; sorry about that. CabbagePotato (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Replacing "top" with "footer" does what I want. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi what does this mean - Template:Ref-web & Template:Ref-notícia ? I found it in the references of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADctor_Santos_(author) Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Vivek.bekhabar its because it's a translation from another language wiki (https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADctor_Santos the Catalan version). The templates are often different on different languages so the reference template still need conversion. i.e. Template:Ref-web would I guess be changed to a Template:Cite web. It's a new article today, so I'm sure they be fixed soon enough - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi KylieTastic, Ok, got it. I will put that page on my watchlist, if it doesn't change. Then would bring it up. Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible,that I can complain against an administrator? Where can i do it?Silver Samurai 06:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Silver Samurai, yes it is, see Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") for your options. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

KylieTasticThe link you gave looks like it is for very serious issues. My issue is minimal and i want some neutral administrator's view about a decision made by an administrator which i feel is not right. --Silver Samurai 10:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Silver Samurai, ok fair enough, you did say "complain against an administrator" rather than just get a second admin opinion.... so in that case I'd suggest using {{Admin help}} to just ask for a random admins help. Hopefully that's more in line with what you need. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I've had my submission rejected twice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Trauma_Risk_Management

The reason for rejection both times was that the subject already exists and directs me to an existing page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Risk-targeted_interventions

Although related to this existing page, the page I am trying to create is a subject in its own right, there is a wealth of information and evidence about it, I added a number of independent references to support this. It's been suggested I edit the text in this existing page to include my subject. But other feedback has advised that it should be a page on its own (which I agree with) so I am finding the advice very conflicting. I would appreciate any help or advice on how I can create this page. Also I don't know if I am an authorised user which I would need to be to edit the existing page as it is protected. Thank you in advance, Kirstin Kirstinhay (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Kirstinhay, your article was rejected twice previously but it has now been accepted by Fuhghettaboutit today and you can find it at Trauma risk management. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

My account has not been confirmed yet (I haven't made 10 edits) but I need to replace the picture displayed in the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonelli_Erede_Pappalardo. The one appearing on the page is out-of-date, since the firm has changed its brand name.

What should I do?

Thank you in advance for your help. SB88 (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi SB88, you can make requests for such things at Wikipedia:Files for upload - alternatively make another 8 edits and get confirmed ;) - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I just visited the New York Historical Society for an exhibit of Al Hirschfeld’s art and the exhibit mentioned his first marriage. He was married three times. The web page only mentions his second and third marriages. This is a quote from the NY Times obituary. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/theater/al-hirschfeld-99-dies-he-drew-broadway.html

“Dolly Haas Hirschfeld was his wife, adviser and social director for 52 years. An earlier marriage to Florence Ruth Hobby ended in divorce. In 1996 he married Louise Kerz, a research historian in the arts and a longtime friend, who survives him.” 108.35.186.164 (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the information. I've added it in this edit. Just so you know, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is being built by volunteers and always needs new serious editors willing to help out. You could have boldly added this information to the article! See much more at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. We wouldn't expect you to know how to do the more involved citing of the source (a key requirement when adding information you intuited by providing the NYT link), but formatting can always be fixed. Signing up for an account has many benefits and takes just a moment. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

HI

I have submitted an article about a Journal. It has got rejected twice. Please help we on how can i improve it and sound the article like an advertisement about the Journal. I just want to provide information about the journal in the article.

REgards ApurvaApurva1410 (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Apurva1410:. You need to find and present what third party reliable sources have discussed about the subject not just rehashing the promotional blurbage from the journals website and PR docs. Another test you can do is look at every adjective- most of them are probably going to be inappropriate. Also, any claims such as "has evoked a highly encouraging response" will need to be backed up by a third party source that directly expresses the same sentiment, and, unless you have several reliable sources all expressing that sentiment, you need to attribute the analysis ("A review from Chief Librarian magazine said the journal had 'evoked a highly encouraging response'"). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Blurbage" - what a perfectly cromulent word, I Like it!--ukexpat (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday, I added a bunch of links to a list of video games. Today, I checked the page I edited and found a notice on the top stating "This article currently links to a large number of disambiguation pages". It came from the DPL bot, so I verified and corrected - or so I would hope - all the links. The notice is still there, so I presume the DPL bot has to run again. I read that it runs twice a day, so I suppose I won't have to wait that long; but, because I may still have errors that I missed, I would like to be able to correct them immediately. Is there any way for me to call this or other bots to verify my changes? AudioDesigner (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! In general, if you have fixed the problem described by the tag, you can just remove the tag. If a tag is specifically not meant to be removed, it will say so. So in this case, I would say remove the tag. If someone finds more problematic links, they can fix/tag them. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for the welcome and the advice! AudioDesigner (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm trying to utilize photos from the national sorority's website on the sorority's Wikipedia page, but my photos are coming back as nomination for speedy deletion because there is no copyright or source. Do I just need to add the reference to the main website to get these photos off the speedy deletion list? What other info do I need?

Msnicolem (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Msnicolem: The copyright information is usually at the bottom of the page. The assumption is that the national has an all-rights-reserved license over content on the website, including images.

That said, I have already—before I saw this message—added non-free image use rationales for some of the images. You can look at File:Theta Phi Alpha Mascot.jpg for an example of how the source of the image was noted, as well as the purpose of its use, how the image could not be replaced with free content, and how we're otherwise respecting the copyrights of the image.

For some images currently in the Theta Phi Alpha article, like the member's badge, I don't think we can use the images from the website, but it's tricky. That might need some expert help, since it's a picture of a three-dimensional item.

In short, yes, it can be tricky to use non-free images on Wikipedia, even for veteran users! —C.Fred (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

how do I create a userpage for myself? im still trying to figure that out?ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Just click on the red link in your signature and write a little bit about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. What do you want to do? What subjects interest you? Then click save. As time goes on, you will probably modify the page with more information about what you end up doing, funny things, userboxes etc.Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

oh ok thank you very much :)ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice job! Happy Squirrel (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This is about the 2015 film Max, who is a German Shepherd.

Please see your entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_%282015_film%29

The average reader, like myself, would like information on Max himself, the star of the movie.

We'd like to know who trained him, why he was chosen for the role, if the cast found him easy to work with, etc.

Thanks for considering my request.

Ruth Deming69.137.136.10 (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ruth. All of Wikipedia's contributors, like me, are also just one-time readers who got interested and realized they could help build the encyclopedia. Mostly, people started to volunteer because they saw a gap—a subject Wikipedia did not cover, or an article lacking information they thought it should have—and rolled up there sleeves after learning the basics of editing. This is to say, very similarly to what I said to the person in the thread below, you could have boldly added this information to the article! See much more at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. You don't even need to have an account to edit, although signing up for one has many benefits and takes just a moment.

Please note that all such edits you've suggested need to be backed up by reliable sources that verify the information to be added – by citing such source alongside each piece of information added in your own words. If such sources don't exist, we could not add the information. So, please go right ahead and add this information to the article, citing the sources of your information. If you do not feel you can do this, you could list here (or at the article's talk page) the sources that we could use to fulfill such a request. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, Ruth says she does not know these facts about Max and would like to see them added to the article. To get the information, she should go to the Entertainment Reference Desk. To add it or suggest adding it to the article, the advice above still applies.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Performing the research to fill what appears missing from an article is at the heart of the editing process and the necessity of doing so was I thought a tacit element of my suggestions. But your pointer to the reference desk as a means of finding sources is well stated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The way I read it, Ruth didn't know how to find the information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. I received a copyvio warning about text that was on Wikipedia Commons and is sourced to the Library of Congress. I believe this is Public Domain? The text is also on the Library of Congres / UNESCO project the World Digital Library. Isn't the whole idea of it to make photos (and related info) available in the public domain? Is there some sort of accepted list it can be added so no one else gets a Copyvio warning? Thanks for any insights and suggestions.. Also, my above question about where to request photo cropping hasn't been answered. :) Thanks! NotAnOmbudsman (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, NotAnOmbudsman and welcome back. The page http://www.wdl.org/en/legal/ says: "Content found on the WDL web site is contributed by WDL partners. Copyright questions about partner content should be directed to that partner. When publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in a WDL partner's collections, the user has the obligation to determine and satisfy domestic and international copyright law or other use restrictions." Therefore I don't think you can automatically assume that these works are PD or are under a free license. You would need to find a clear notice about a particular work, or from a particular contributing organization about all fo its works, clearly saying that thjose works are PD or released under a specific free license, and cite that notice. If the text or image was actually created by the Library of Congress staff, it might be free of US copyright as a work of the US Federal Government, but you ought to cite a specific indication that this is so for any particular text or image. Most images and many texts held by the LoC are under copyright. DES ^(talk) 23:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DES. That's helpful. My only remaining question is how to indicate in a cite that an image description is from the Library of Congress itself and not a caption or description from the photo itself. Does that make sense? If you cite: "Image XYV4983 image description, Library of Congress" it seems to me that could mean that it's a description that is somehow part of the image (comments or titling on the back of the photo for example) OR a description added by the LoC.. I'm not sure how to clarify. Maybe it's not a huge issue but I would like to be accurate. In this case the source seems to be the LoC which is including explanations of the images it uploads to the WDL. NotAnOmbudsman (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Through its Ask a Librarian feature, I have submitted this question to the Library of Congress' Law Library section:

I'm attempting to determine the copyright status, or lack thereof, of summaries provided for items on your website (NOT the items themselves).

To give a concrete example, there is a text summary for the item http://lccn.loc.gov/2013646213 starting with "Photographs depict people and locations associated with the Second Anglo-Afghan War..." Who is the author of this text, and is it in the public domain and if not, what copyright license does it bear?

If you confirm this summary is indeed written by an employee of the Library of Congress, then may I assume it is public domain, as "a work prepared by an officer or employee" of the federal government "as part of that person's official duties" (quoting from 17 U.S.C. § 101)?

Thanks so much for taking the time to answer.

The site says all questions are answered within five days. I'll report back.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)