Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 369

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Archive 365

←

Archive 367

→

Can I lose Autoconfirmed Status?

I was reading the User access levels page and I came across this: "Autoconfirmed or confirmed status is required to move pages, edit semi-protected pages, and upload files or upload a new version of an existing file." The use of the word required has confused me, do I have do all that stuff just on a regular basis just so I can keep the right to do that? AncientAryan (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello AncientAryan! I've never heard of someone actually losing their "autoconfirmed" status once they got it. That sentence that you've quoted just means that you need that autoconfirmed right to be able to do those things, not that you have to be active to keep it.

(On a somewhat unrelated note, admins can lose their tools temporarily if they have been inactive for quite a while.) CabbagePotato (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Autoconfirmed" refers to an account with 10 edits that is at least 4 days old. There's no way to lose it. It's just a way to prevent vandals creating accounts and immediately causing damage by moving pages etc. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Userpage

How do Users design their own unique Userpage?Arindam Skywalkar (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Arindam Skywalkar and weolcome to the Teahouse. For making your user page look nice, see: Wikipedia:User page design center. You can also "clone/borrow/steal" the code from someone else's user page. Just ensure that you change it enough that it does not look like you are trying to impersonate the other user. Wikipedia:User pages is a good guide as to what kind of things are appropriate in user space. And when you use the work someone else has created, in the edit summary please attribute the work to them by naming the user you copied the content from. If you want to add userboxes you can start here: Wikipedia:Userboxes. There are also many, many customized userboxes floating around on user pages in the Wikipedia, if you find one you fancy just copy the code from the page. If you are further interested in defining yourself and your style there is also the Wikipedia:WikiFauna. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I change the heading of an article?

I've done some editing on-and-off for a while. My current project involves the history of defunct historic canoe companies. I did one for the B.N. Morris Canoe Company and discovered someone had begun one for the E.M. White Company, but it's titled "White Canoe". In an effort to be consistent with the naming of these articles (and to avoid confusion, as white is also a color), I'd like to change the title to "E.M. White Canoe Company"... or at least "E. M. White Canoe". I see the Old Town Company article is titled "Old Town Canoe"... but I think that also would be better if titled "Old Town Canoe Company"... the article is about the company and its canoes.

While I'm at it, I should mention that each time I've launched into writing an article, I find I cannot remember my old password and, after wasting a bunch of time, need to create a new "handle" and password as I am told "someone else" has my name. Is there a way to lump my current self with all my past selves? Under one of my previous identities I contributed to several things that I'm proud of. Thanks! Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

While we strive for consistency in some ways, article titles should be the common name as used by the preponderance of the sources - for example DuPont rather than "E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company". As to user names, you can make a request to WP:USURP (one of) your previous user names.--ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If "someone else" has your old name, then your old account will have been moved to a different name. If you tell us the original name we can probably track it down quite easily. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

the "someone else" who has my name is me-- unless there are other women named Kathryn Klos who posted under that name. I did like using my real name. I posted under Kathrynklos too. Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I am an "old canoe geek" and the White Canoe is known within the Wooden Canoe Community as "E.M. White"... i.e. "I just got another E.M. White, and my wife wants to kill me."Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have answered you first question, Squirrelwhisperer: you change the title of an article by moving it. You should find 'Move' under 'More' at the top of the page. If you do move it, it will automatically leave the old name there as a redirect to the new one, which is usually what is wanted. --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

But, don't move an article just because you don't like the title. Titles must follow the WP:COMMONNAME guidelines and if a page move is likely to be controversial, it should be discussed on the article's talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Notablity?

I have submitted this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_TEAK_Fellowship) countless number of times now and it keeps getting rejected either for reliable sources or the most recent reason, notability.

I don't get what I'm doing wrong. I have at least 3 really good sources that I'm referencing. Wikipedia also doesn't like that I reference the program's website which is where I'm getting most of my information. How do people write Wikipedia about themselves if they can't reference themselves?? Judtrap (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"How do people write Wikipedia about themselves" – They're not really supposed to. If that draft is about an organization you are involved with, please read our conflict of interest guidelines. Wikipedia has to be neutral and does not serve to promote any person, organization or cause. Most of our articles are written by volunteers who might have an interest in the subject but aren't really related to it.

There's nothing wrong with primary sources in certain situations (WP:PRIMARY says they should be used "with care" and explains when to use them). But they don't establish notability. "Notability" on Wikipedia means that other reliable sources unrelated to the subject have taken note of the subject.

Sulfurboy is the one who has rejected your draft; you can ask them if you want some more feedback or an explanation on their talk page. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Dont Delete my page

Dont delete my page. because now am constructing the page G Raj Narayan (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: user has been banned for suspected sock puppetry and the article in question has been deleted, not that this is the right place to contest a CSD tag anyway. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Page to coordinate a narrow topic

Where is the most appropriate place to create a page for coordinating a narrow topic?

I just created a portal for a rare disease. It was immediately tagged for speedy deletion. Is there a better place to coordinate? Project page? My user page? POIS22 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.--ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

On Portal talk:Postorgasmic illness syndrome, you wrote "there is only one main article". If this is true, neither a portal nor a WikiProject are necessary. Talk:Postorgasmic illness syndrome is the right place to discuss the article in question. If you want, you can post various things somewhere in your user space (any page starting with "User:POIS22/", or "User:POIS22"): you could list useful sources, tasks you want to do or anything else that helps you improve the article. But for just a single article out of 4.9 million, usually the talk page is the only page needed to discuss Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

New Story

How do I start a new story, given worldwide headlines about the person?Chasdflynn (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Chasdflynn: !

The requirements for a stand alone article are that multiple reliably published sources independent of the subject have covered the subject in a significant manner. Merely being in the news is not sufficient, particularly with regards to living people. (see also WP:ATTACK and WP:NOTADVERT. )

The recommended process for a topic that you believe passes those requirements is outlined at: WP:AFC. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And note that we are writing encyclopedia articles, not stories. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi I have been submitting this article and it keeps getting rejected.....can someone please help me correct the issues?

The article is located in under Paul Soubry, can someone please let me know what kind of references are required as they keep rejecting mine as insufficientXcelsiorXE40 (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi XcelsiorXE40, I'm not surprised the article has been rejected, as your only 2 references are to his companies own website, and it reads like a resume, not an encyclopedia article.
Can you show that he has received significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent of him - if so, you must cite these in the article.
If not, you should read "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability", to understand why your article will not be accepted. - Arjayay (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing Talk Page

Hi Teahouse, just wanted to ask if I'm allowed to edit my own talk page without being in violation of the guidelines??? - Thanks.--Dominoooo's (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dominoooo's. Absolutely, you can edit your own talk page – and you already have, responding to other user's messages to you there. Since you ask, there are some things you should not do at your talk page though. See the section of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines known by the shortcut WP:TALKNO. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, my article was rejected because it did not include enough indepedent links (music page)

I've added a couple more - but I've now been told it's a duplicate of the previous article. How many changes do I need to add before it's not a "duplicate"? Thanks!Sazgoz (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You have two versions of the article, Draft:Litte Red and a version in your sandbox. Why not add the references to the version in draft space? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sazgoz. I have history merged the two and the only version now is the one with the additional sourcing. The draft can be resubmitted for review, using the blue button in the decline labeled "Resubmit".

However, your sources are inadequate to demonstrate notability and I would expect, if you resubmitted, that it would be declined on the same basis as before. The BBC Berkshire interview (which is described in the text but the link in the citation reaches a page that does not mention the band) would be a primary source; the record label is not independent of the topic and is just a tiny blurb; the local magazine, for what it's worth, is a mere mention of where they will be playing – as far from detailed coverage as can be; and the BBC Oxford source cannot be assessed because it just comes up with a page that says "Sorry, this episode is not currently available on BBC iPlayer Radio".

The question is whether the band has been the subject of substantive treatment in reliable, secondary, independent sources upon which an article could be based. It does not look like it has. If I'm wrong, you need to find those sources. If I'm right, no amount of further editing will produce an acceptable article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I am so brand new.

Is there someone out there who would be willing to adopt me? I would appreciate some guidance. Thanks, Denisemedium Denisemedium (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Denisemedium: Hi Denise. Thanks for your question, and welcome to Wikipedia! The Co-op is a space where you can get matched to a mentor based on how you want to contribute to Wikipedia, so you can request a mentor there if you'd like. I did notice you were working on an article here that appears to be autobiographical in nature; if that's the case, it's important to understand that writing about yourself on Wikipedia is discouraged and that it is not a space to promote one's self. I'd encourage you to consider editing another topic that you're interested in. Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

style question, em dash vs. en dash vs. hyphen

I would like to edit this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEMA_connector to make consistent use of either em dash, en dash, or hyphen. In particular in the technical names of the connectors which are of the form "5-15" or "L5-30". As a user viewing this page, I wanted to use my browser's seach feature to skip between all mentions of one of these. I of course used my keyboard's minus key and this only found a subset of them, despite being visually able to see other occurrences that my browser wouldn't search/jump to. I noticed that this was because some were hyphens and some were em or en dashes. The only quick way I could search for these was to cut/paste the em dashes from the article into the browser search and this skipped to the other subset of occurrences I was searching for.

I've read the style guide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes yet can't answer my question.

Do we defer to the standards-creating organization for their own definition of the style suggested for their connector names? Their site nema.org (free sign-up required) while having PDFs of their standards, have only image-capture PDFs, they are not searchable and you cannot tell what hyphen or dash they use themselves.

Personally I'd prefer hyphen so the browser search works but I'll follow what more experienced editors suggest before I do this edit.

Mucm (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Chris the speller is a hyphen-expert (I've probably misused a hyphen already) but he doesn't usually edit at this time of day - hopefully he will pick up this notification early tomorrow UTC - or you could leave a message on User talk:Chris the speller - Arjayay (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

My first inclination would be to go with hyphens. Is there a strong argument to use a dash instead? There is nothing that I know of in Wikipedia style guides that covers this case. Unless some standards organization screams in 50-point type that en dashes must always be used and that people who use hyphens should be tarred and feathered, why not go with hyphens uniformly? It will be easier for most editors (and readers) to handle, and will be what most will expect. Generally, letter/number designators in WP use hyphens exclusively, e.g. General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, and there is little chance that "L5-30" will be taken to mean that 30 should be subtracted from anything. And using an en dash in "5-15" might be seen as an indication of a range of numbers. I would keep it simple. Chris the speller ^yack 20:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mucm. I think Wikipedia:Short horizontal line will shed some light. In short, do something consistent and don't worry too much about it. Purely for prurient interest, there was a ridiculously overblown dispute (now listed at WP:LAME) centered on hyphen versus en-dash in the title of Mexican-American War and related titles, which that essay is an outgrowth of.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mucm. I agree with other editors who have commented in preferring the hyphen, entirely because it is easy to type. Anyone who thinks differently is free to change any of my edits to some other difficult-to-type short horizontal line, as long as they keep me out of their endless arguments about something that 99.99% of our readers care nothing about. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Improving draft:All power labs

I am creating an article on a company that I have begun to work for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:All_power_labs. I had previously followed their work for years and believe I can in good faith create a formal, neutral and well-cited article about a project I respected before I became employed there. I have addressed the comments made by a series of editors following their rejections, and feel it now meets wikipedia's standards for formality, notability, neutrality.

Given my respect and involvement I may not be able to fully eliminate my personal biases, and so would appreciate any review that might point out specific ways in which it violates standards that I might be missing. Nesdon (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nesdon. Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest when asking your question. I recommend that you set up a user page where you also disclose that you are employed by this company.

I have indeed set up a user page User:Nesdon as you suggested. Thanks!Nesdon (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

When I read your draft, I perceive an overall promotional tone, which may be difficult for you to perceive since you are involved with the technology. One symptom is the use of promotional jargon. Another major shortcoming of the draft is that most of the references are bare URLs, which are difficult for reviewers to evaluate. These references should be "fleshed out" into complete citations. Referencing for beginners is worth reading and following. As a general rule, six or eight solid sources are far better than two or three times as many marginal sources. There is some strange syntax including inappropriate use of italics. An effort to comply with our Manual of style is time well spent. I hope my comments are useful to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

They are indeed useful. I have fleshed out my references and tried to limit them to the most useful and comprehensive. I did not find a section in the refTool dialogue to enter paragraph number as is APA style practice, and which I think would be helpful to judge the validity of a citation. How would I add a paragraph number to a citation, especially since I now have 3 cites to the same article. Nesdon (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The "inappropriate use of italics" was due to misunderstanding the wikipedia link markup. It should be fixed. As to strange syntax, I have tried to simplify the language in accord with the manual of style, but numerous edits can often accumulate odd syntax. Nesdon (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

As a specific example, please consider these sentences: "Inspired by this experience with do-it-yourself (DIY) power, Mason's original vision for APL was to expand this community into a larger, power-hacking culture, analogous to the one that had grown up in Silicon Valley with the development of personal computers and the internet. He hoped this culture would be able to help create, in a similarly disruptive and agile way, novel renewable energy strategies." That is promotional marketing-speak, more appropriate to a company brochure than a neutral encyclopedia article. All such promotional language must be removed from the draft article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that my use of certain words like 'vision,' 'inspired,' and 'agile' gave that impression, and while they sound like 'marketing-speak', were not intended to be promotional, but were references to failures, which I hope I made be clearer in my most recent edit. Nesdon (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to help me improve this draft. Nesdon (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please check my article?

Hello,

I have been working on a Wiki article and its had some copyright issues, so it got deleted. After a little bit of back and forth with very helpful Wiki editors I think I have finally understood the subtle differences between copyright and non-copyright text. I cut alot of stuff out of the article and only left in factual information that is verified by independent news sources. I'm hoping that I have finally understood what it takes to get an article approved for Wiki entry.

Can someone please take a look at the article I am working on and let me know if you think it has any more issues. And also I don't see any text below the article saying that the article itself is in line waiting for approval. I'm not sure if that is because the original article was deleted, or I still need to add some text or lines of code in order for the article to be officially submitted. I would love some help with this as well.

Thank you in advance for any help and assistance you can give me.

Here is the article;

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

Sacredcocreation (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Sacredcocreation (talk · contribs) -- I added the code you need to that now it is in the review queue. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Writing an article on open source software

Just like to ask for some aid the revision for the draft Gazebo_simulator.

My goal is to keep the article short and factual similar in style to existing example open source articles:

If you have detailed specifics on this matter, or know of an editor knowledgeable in the subject, please do not hesitate to inform.

Thanks Ruffsl (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ruffsl -- I'd recommend posting your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics -- you're most likely to find someone knowledgeable there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

New here

Hi,

I got a note from the teahouse bot to stop by!

I see by the top question on this page that you discourage self work. I am going to be bold here. I am needing to get my company "back links" to my web site. My company has been around for 4 years with almost no web traffic. My products sell for very high prices (up to $200) at boutiques, but they triple the price, so that I have to keep the price so low that I can't make a living. Can anyone help me here?

Thanks so much!

Becky RMChaffee (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no, we can't help. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to advertise your business. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi RMChaffee, welcome to the Teahouse! This is a very good question, thank you for asking it. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is probably not the place to do what you want to do. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that we are an encyclopedia, and throughout the years we've developed many policies and guidelines regarding what kinds of content we want to include here. We have three "core content policies": all articles must be verifiable, written from a neutral point of view, and contain no original research.

The reason we discourage editing or creating articles about yourself or your company is because when you do so, it can be hard to keep upholding the core content policies, especially the one about neutral point of view (neutral point of view means that Wikipedia explains sides fairly and without bias, as opposed to taking a side or being biased). When you are closely attached with a subject, you have a tendency to write in a biased manner, for example including more positive reviews of your company's products over negative ones; we call this having a conflict of interest. While editing in areas you have a conflict of interest in is not exactly prohibited, it is strongly discouraged.

One important policy we have is that Wikipedia is not a means for promotion. Our goal is to create an encyclopedia, not to help out companies. We write about what other people have written; we are not a publisher of original content. It is important to understand these principles because in the past, editors have had to have their editing privileges revoked because they chose to ignore them. As harsh as that sounds, I hope you understand, and I wish you the best of luck. If you have any follow-up questions, feel free to ask. Mz7 (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC

Hi RMCHaffe. I'm afraid that after reading User:RMChaffee/sandbox that it seems like you might be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is all about. As explained above, Wikipedia is not really the place to try and promote your company. If, by chance, your company has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for specifics), then it might be possible for an article to written about your company. Any such article, however, would have to adhere to Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines in order to avoid eventual deletion. Unfortunately, as currently written, your sandbox has very little chance of being accepted as a Wikipedia article, so you might find it beneficial to take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article for more specific advice on writing articles. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please fix URL title

I cannot figure out how to fix this URL title (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Polytechnic_College_of_Engineering_and_Engineering_Technology). See, this former university (Southern Polytechnic State University) has somehow been changed to this new name (Southern Polytechnic College of Engineering and Engineering Technology). However, SPSU exists historically as a formerly-existing university with alumni. The new "college" name is specifically a school INSIDE of a new consolidated university called Kennesaw State University. The article about Southern Polytechnic State University has mistakenly been connected to the new school. Though the new school is named IN MEMORIAL of the former university, it is NOT the former university. Sirkevinalot (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(UPDATE: I think I figured out how to repair it. Looks like a redirect was not completely undone. I believe I repaired it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirkevinalot (talk • contribs) 14:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sirkevinalot: Actually, you tried to make matters worse by requesting to have the whole history deleted. If you think the article title needs changed, you need to discuss it at Talk:Southern Polytechnic College of Engineering and Engineering Technology; you'll probably need to go through the WP:Requested moves process also. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"tried to make matters worse" sounds a bit mean to me; they were clearly trying to help.

As C.Fred says, changing the title of an article should be discussed at the article's talk page. In this case, things are complicated by the existence of redirects (you can't simply move the page), but copying and pasting content without proper attribution is not something appropriate in any situation. Per the terms of the CC BY-SA license Wikipedia uses, attribution needs to be given for every edit made. This is usually stored in the page history, but if someone copies and pastes material between pages without proper edit summaries and/or talk page notices, it removes this attribution. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, y'all. It has been a while since I edited and yes I guess I mucked it all up. SOMEONE tried to connect the university with this new school and it shouldn't have been. I can't figure out how to undo their redirect. The history looks like it did have it fixed, but the name way up top is NO WHERE ELSE in the article except a one-time reference for the honor/memorial connection. I'll research how else to further revert the article to its proper SPSU name. Any advice (or help) would be greatly appreciated. Sirkevinalot (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sirkevinalot: I can somewhat make out what you are saying as I am facing the SAME problem! :) I think all that can be done is to request the administrator and "request move" of the page. It works. I solved my problem about moving a page through request to an administrator. :) Red Pen (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

QUESTION ON GENERAL EDITING

I had re written an article on wikipedia which had multiple issues related with it. The article was last assessed in 2012. I want it to be assessed once again. Whom to contact for that? this is that article ( re written completely by me :D ) AIPMT And I want to find more such articles which need General Editing like expansion, referencing, reviewing and spelling and grammar check. Where to find them?

Also, can i be an assessor myself, to rate some important articles as A class or above? And, how can i make my own "workgroup" on wikipedia? Red Pen (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vr parashar: anyone can assess an article. Personally, I don't recommend rating an article you've significantly worked on yourself, though. Some Wikiprojects have special assessment request rules: WikiProject India recommends putting |reassess=y in the code of the banner, which will automatically list it at Category:India articles needing reassessment. In this case, however, I've reassessed the class as C so you don't need to do anything.

There is never a shortage of articles which need editing. They can be found in various different places: WP:BACKLOG contains a lot of categories you might want to take a look at.

You certainly can assess articles yourself BUT please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ's grading scheme very carefully before doing so. You might also like to look at some example articles rated in the various classes to get a sense of what they are like. I always keep a tab with the quality scheme open when I'm rating articles and still regularly consult it just to check I'm doing things right.

As for "workgroup", if you mean "WikiProject" then take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thank you very much for your guidance. :) I will surely work on your advices.

External Links

here, four book references are showing some problems, with the summary given being "Changes scheme from http to https and truncates url". Can these be fixed? If yes, how? Please let me know. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala, I don't think this is an actual problem. I believe that this is simply a side effect of the way the Internet archive's "wayback machine" works. If the links are in fact going to the desired pages, I think all is OK. By the way at least the first of these seems to be to an online version of a newspaper, not a book. And on Wikipedia we don't generally use the term "external links" for links included in a reference citation, even though they do link to sites outside of Wikipedia. That term usually indicates links for further information proivided in the article, most commonly in an 'External links" section, but sometimes in the text of the article. Putting such links in article text was once common on Wikipedia, but has been strongly discouraged for many years now. DES ^(talk) 11:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DES. By mistake, i quoted it as an external link. I am reviewing an FLC at the moment and i found this issue to be addressed. So, do you think, i can support it now? Here is the project page. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala, I don't see why it would be a problem, but I'm not really up on the FAC procedures, so it would be best to confirm with someone who is. DES ^(talk) 11:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

multiple infoboxes

Can an article have two infoboxes? I wanted to help shorten a very long article and was considering combining their two infoboxes into one. I was wondering, are there even supposed to be two infoboxes? It's this article: Jeff Gordon. Louieoddie (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Louieoddie. I agree that it is a very long article that could benefit from trimming or perhaps spinning off some sub-articles. But I only see one long infobox. Maybe my browser only shows one. Can you clarify where you see two? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a smaller infobox than the first right next to his Personal life section, here: Jeff Gordon#Personal life Louieoddie (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Louieoddie, I think they could be combined, but that would leave the single info box at a very large size indeed. Also, I have not worked with the NASCAR infobox, ant it may be that combining would cause some sort of problem. I don't often recall seeing multiple infoboxes in a single article. Remember that an infobox is supposed to summarize the article, not list every possible fact. The whole article is much longer that I prefer, see WP:SIZE. But the place to discuss that would normally be on Talk:Jeff Gordon. DES ^(talk) 11:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'll see what I can do. Louieoddie (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with the page?

Hi,

I just submitted this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Harry_Page

Got a message saying it doesn't conform to Wiki's guidelines.

I don't understand what's wrong with it?

Thanks,

Saskia

CIPFAmarcomms (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that you thought it was a draft since you used the word "submitted" but it turned up in main space. By the way, this is Wikipedia, not "wiki". There are thousands of wikis, referring to the use of the Wiki software. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The "Lead Section" in an article

Hi tearoom, please could you advise me Regarding the "lead Section" to an article. Would you recommend the "lead Section" is Titled. I.e. Introdution? or do you think it's best as a completely stand alone part of an article?--Dominoooo's (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Dominoooo's The lead section is never given a section header it just is the lead. It should concisely introduce the topic in the first sentence or two (with the subject bolded by placing three apostrophes on either side or if properly an italic title, five). It is an introduction and it should summarize the key points of the balance of the article, where one goes into more specifics. The link I provided earlier in this response has much more detail.

By the way, here's a trick: for any piece of information that is commonly referred to or is part of the interface, you can almost always reach a relevant information/help page about it by typing into the search field "WP:" Followed by whatever the item is, in caps, in the singular: "WP:NAME". These are shortcuts to those information/help pages. For example: redirects? WP:REDIRECT; dividing articles into sections? WP:SECTION; categories? WP:CATEGORY; and here, WP:LEAD leads to the page on leads, that I led with. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the IB Times a reliable source?

Hi! I plan to use this article as a reference, so I was wondering if it would be considered a reliable source. Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I also plan to use this. Thanks. Bananasoldier (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bananasoldier Both appear to be reliable, however, be sure not to copy verbatim anything from either site as you'd run afoul of WP:COPYRIGHT (not to mention the two sites copyrights as well!) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 17:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

IB Times is on the "just barely/sometimes" edge of "reliable". For the most part they are OK, but they also do things like the promotion of UFOs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Improving references

Hi teahouse hosts I'm trying to improve the referencing for This article which is a little ambiguous, so I have made a LDR reference list and correctly added a new reference. For the Stephen Pope reference in the list I have converted it to a book cite, but put it in comments so I don't get a list defined reference error. The problem is I don't know which part of the article it relates to, same with the Bretano reference. Any suggestions? CV9933 (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

CV9933 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I haven't looked at what is "in comments" but of course ideally each reference should support a specific part of the article. But one reference that doesn't belong is a Wikipedia entry because Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source. The references for the information taken from that Wikipedia entry are what should be used instead.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with my page? Socio-Economic Profiteering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-Economic_Profiteering

I got a message saying that it "may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained."

I thought I followed the rules... Where did I mess it up? Melourn (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Melourn The message at the top of the page tells you that you haven't shown why this is notable. It suggests that you add a secondary reliable source to show notability.

Your'e sole source is investopedia, which is pretty much user generated content, so I'm not sure it would be considered notable here. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 17:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

So, if I find another source to back what I'm saying, then it should be ok? Melourn (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not just "another source", you need to show that the subject has received significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent of the topic - and cite these sources in the article.
If not, you should read "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability", to understand why your article does not meet our notability requirements. - Arjayay (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll see what I can find. Anyone know how long I hav till the page is removed? Or can I place it in a sandbox or something for the time being? Melourn (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Melourn. No, what you need to find are multiple reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the subject and discuss it in substantive terms so as to demonstrate that a verifiable encyclopedia article is warranted, that contains no original research. Regarding your follow-up question, typed while I was editing, the articles for deletion discussion will normally last for a minimum of seven days from the nomination date. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Eliminate Citations and verification warning?

I've added a number of citations and verifications onto a page that has a warning n it. How to i get the warning removed?

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Spahn)

Kmccall (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kmccall. The maintenance tag still belongs. The entire biography section is unsourced. Note that the lead section should be a summary of content written about in more detail in the body, and when that is the case, it does not necessarily need to repeat the citations already in the body (other than controversial claims and quotations). Here, though, the lead is content not found elsewhere, and everything after citation 10 is also unsourced. Sourcing an article is not finished by placing many sources in one area—adding four or twenty citations in one spot does nothing to verify content that appears elsewhere. By the way, all the external links in the body of the article (in the Discography subsection) should be turned into citations if appropriate for that purposes, but regardless, removed. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Submitting signature images

Hello,

I have never edited a Wiki article before, but I have used a company internal Wiki, and created pages on it. I found this very rewarding, and I would like to contribute information to a Wikipedia article or two.

I have gathered a few autographs from a few well known people (Red Skelton, Ian McHarg, others) that have a Wikipedia article about them. Just curious if 1. I have the right to submit these as enhancements to a Wikipedia article?, and 2. How do I do it?

Thanks!204.64.198.50 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello 204.64.198.50 and welcome to The Teahouse. My guess is each person whose autograph you have, or their estate if the person is deceased, would have the copyright and could approve a request to put the autograph on Wikipedia if the correct procedure is followed. That's not to say the request would be approved because they have to give permission for it to be used for any purpose. In the case of a deceased celebrity fair use might be possible.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

An unofficial essay on autographs in Wikipedia recommends that "Signatures of living persons, in general, should only be displayed in articles when a person has published their own signature, and reliable secondary sources reproduce the signature." Depending on how complex the signature is, I imagine it could either fall under {{PD-ineligible}} or be subject to copyright (although I doubt we'd allow it under fair use). This is a very tricky area; if you could get any of the celebrities to consent to their signature being published under a free license, that would be ideal. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

How does one become autopatrolled? Several thousand of the redirects I have created are yet to be patrolled and I think it could save time if future ones didn't have to also be patrolled. Rubbish computer 19:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:AUTOPATROLLED says "A suggested standard is the prior creation of 50 valid articles, not including redirects or disambiguation pages." If you still want to request the permission, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled is the place to visit. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thank you. Rubbish computer 23:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User Blogger Edited

Forgive me teahouse for have sinned :)Lol whilst trying to put blogger template on my page I think of edited the wrong bit, think I have ended up putting my details on page by mistake. if I have indeed done this please could you revert this page for me.Please see:- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dominoooo%27s&action=submit#. - Thanks.Dominoooo's (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

sorry wrong link given, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_blogger

Hi Dominoooo's it was actually Template:User blogger/doc you edited (now reverted). Note you could have found this by using the "Contributions" link top-right to your contributions then clicked on hist (short for history) and just clicked undo next to your edit. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

How to handle the buttons in the steps to create a new article?

I’ve got an article in my sandbox, User:Clockchime/sandbox, that I want to move to Wikipedia to create it as a new article. I have questions regarding the handling of a few buttons on a particular page. So, from the sandbox, I click on: “More”, a tag opens that says: “Move”, I click on “move” and now I come to a page that asks: Move page? and it offers many choices. I think the right choice is “Wikipedia”. Am I right about that?

Second question. Then on that page it says: User:Clockchime/sandbox. I should leave that alone? Am I right?

Third question: Then it says: To new title: ___ Now, at that point I’ll type in the title: Charles Hamilton (Handwriting expert). Am I right?

Then it says: “Reason”, and I think I can handle that one okay.

Thank you very much for any help on this. Clockchime (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Clockchime and welcoem to the Teahouse. On your various questions:

First: no do not choose "Wikipedia". Choose "(Article)". "Wikipedia" is for pages about how the project runs, such as this very page, not for actual articles.

Second: yes, that is the page you are planning to move. Do not change it.

Third: Thjis will be the title of the article. As there are several other articles about people named "Charles Hamilton" using "Charles Hamilton (Handwriting expert)" is reasonable.

however, you might want to review the page first. The formatting of the references could be improved, see Referencing for Beginners. (But that could be handled after the move. I would suggest using citation templates, but that is not required. Please do combine duplicate references.) The page needs more wiki-links to other articles. For example "graphologist" "US Army Air Corps", and the names of cities could be linked. Double check that all significant facts are supported by one or more references. Please make the tense consistent: use simple past, not a mix of past, past perfect, and present. I hope that these suggestions are helpful. DES ^(talk) 21:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

VERY helpful, -- all the advice -- thanks, very much. Clockchime (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Clockchime. Unless the creator of an article is very experienced, I would always recommend requesting a review: edit your draft to include {{subst:submit}} at the top (just as it appears there). This will put it in the queue for review, and if it passes, the reviewing editor will move it to mainspace. If it doesn't the reviewer will give reasons, and you can ask them for clarification. One of the reasons for recommending this is that sometimes articles are so incomplete that they get summarily deleted as soon as they are put in mainspace, though I don't think that would happen with this draft. By the way, I don't think you mean 'paleantologist'. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and advice, it's much appreciated -- and you have a very sharp eye -- not least regarding paleontologist -- I meant paleographer! Thank you again. Clockchime (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Clockchime and DESiegel, shouldn't that be "Charles Hamilton (handwriting expert)"? I had a hard time learning not to overuse capital letters here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much -- the word "handwriting" needs the lower case "h". Clockchime (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit

I put a local children's nursery in the amenities section it is a very old established nursery that my son goes to, but a richard harvey keeps deleting my edit he says I am not allowed to advertise but there is a local brewery with a paragraph to itself advertising their beer? Crosshills North Yorkshire. Strategic1900 (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Strategic1900, first of all when someone keeps removing an edit, don't just keep reinserting it, instead discuss the matter on the article talk page, in this case, Talk:Cross Hills. (See Bold, revert, discuss.) My personal view is that the entire "amenities" section should be deleted. None of it is sourced except to the sites of the various businesses, it is at least an invitation to advertising and promotion, and Wikipedia is not a tourist guide or business directory. That said, if you want the mention of the nursery to stay, find an independent reliable source, such as a newspaper, that has covered it in some detail, and cite your entry. If the coverage is more than local, that would be better. I would suggest posting the info and cite to the talk page first, and possibly pinging Richard Harvey, to see if you can come to some agreement on the matter. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed a bit of the inappropriate information, although the section is still a mess.

Wikipedia is absolutely not allowed to promote any company, organization or person; it should be completely neutral. The existence of poor content in a page is not a reason to add more (sometimes this fallacy is called "other stuff exists"). Wikipedia should give due weight only to topics covered by independent secondary sources. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have suggested removing the entire section on the talk page. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have previously attempted to remove promotional advertising edits, back in April, see this diff, though I was more generous in leaving some of the less contentious detail. Regrettably I was reverted by an editor who's edit summary indicated he would edit war. I am happy that others concur with my original edit. :). The childrens nursery edit was purely promotional as the editor who put it in has no constructive editing to any other article. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Richard Harvey, New editors are allowed to start anywhere, being new doesn't Make their first edits promotional automatically. I didn't think the edit in question blatantly promotional. DES ^(talk) 13:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Free image

hello tearoom, please could you help me to understand the difference between images you can have on your user page to those you can't. I understand it's to do with free image, I just don't know how to differentiate between the two.- Thanks Dominoooo's (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dominoooo's, all 27 million files on commons are freely usable. However, most images on en.Wikipedia are used under a fair use rationale, which almost always means they can only be used on an article about that specific subject, not on other pages, unless a specific rationale can be presented, which would not be possible for user pages. You need to look at the licence to be found on each image/file page, but do not try to add a rationale for using a fair-use image on your user-page. - Arjayay (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy on false edit summaries?

I've had a quick look and can't find one - does anyone know is there is a policy covering false or misleading edit summaries?

Came across an edit by Contributions/71.38.136.111 and noticed all the recent summaries are "Fixed typo; Fixed grammar; Added links"

I don't think its deliberate to hide anything, I just think its a general unspecific summary they are adding to everything, so not very helpful.

KylieTastic (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if there is a policy, but really, it's common sense edit summaries should summarize the edit :) The best thing would be to bring it up on their talk page. If possible, give examples of their edits with better summaries. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Just came across This help page. It's not a policy, but it does detail some expectations. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Canned" edit summaries are one of the problems with the mobile version of Wikipedia, I understand that on some phones, it is not particularly clear that the summary is even being included - let alone how to include a different customized summary. - Arjayay (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes - I just tried the wikipedia app on my phone and you have 3 default boxes you can toggle "Fixed typo" "Fixed grammar" "Added links" and "Other" that allow you to add actual text. So although the user shouldn't really just be selecting all three every time, the app does sort of encourage non specific summaries. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

How to upload a picture.

Hello, I would like to know how to upload a picture to a certain page for example upload the picture of my own Corolla to the Toyota Corolla page.Babar12345 (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Babar12345. If it's a picture you took yourself, then you hold the copyright, and you are able to donate the picture to Wikipedia: you need first to upload the picture to Wikimedia commons, and then you can add it to the article. See Help:Upload for details. However, Toyota Corolla already has many pictures, so I would advise you discuss it on the article's talk page first, and get consensus that there is a reason to add another picture. --ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing My 1st Article

I just finished the 1st Draft of my new (1st) article called Panama Real Estate which is in my Sandbox. Before adding templates for a Table of Contents I need help.

I need someone (a host) to review it and give me critique about it.

I have published a lot of articles about Panama and out of the 165 citations I included 20 of my articles (12%). I know that I am allowed to include my own published articles in the citations as long as they are relevant and not excessive. Please let me know if the 20 articles are "excessive".

I also want to explain that only a few Panama law firms have published articles about Panama Real Estate in English and I have included all of them. Panama Offshore Legal Services publishes a lot more articles than all other Panama law firms combined.

I also need to point out that there is only one English newspaper in Panama called the Visitor which publishes a weekly 32 page newspaper print edition, as well as, an online version. Most articles about Panama Real Estate appear in The Visitor usually authored by me or the Panama Offshore Law Firm. The Visitor has been in business since 1994 and they have an editorial staff which edits every article if needed.

Another large source for my citations is the Central America Data website which publishes parts of newspaper news stories about Central America business and real estate.

I also want to point out that I am not being paid by anyone to write articles for Wikipedia as I am doing this on my own free time as a way to educate the world about Panama.

If you do not have access to my Sandbox, please send me a message so I can send you a link to it. Otherwise, please send me a message after you read my draft article.

Thank you for your help.

Steven Rich in Panama (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Steven Rich in Panama. When I look at the edit history of your account, I see no edits to your sandbox, and a small number of edits overall. Did you write the draft article using another account? Can you provide a link to that sandbox?

The Table of contents is created automatically by the wiki software once you have at least three named sections.

A conflict of interest can exist even when a person is not being paid directly to write an article. If an editor is promoting their own business or professional interests, then a COI exists which should be declared. Self-citing 20 times in a single article seems excessive to me, but that can be judged by consensus once we can read your draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

My draft was rejected by impolite users

First, I have a page rejected by a few users who claim these pages are not made according to the rules.

Draft:JAG (franchise)

Motive

When I submitted this draft for the first time, the answer was this: This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

After I tried to it, the next message was this: This is not an article. Please do not submit your laundry list for review. Only submit things that actually are ready for review as articles.

I really don't know what to do...but I was recommended to ask you.

Fusionem (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. I understand how this can be very frustrating. It looks to me as though there are several drafts one after the other in your sandbox. I count three. There also appears to be a to-do list at the top. If this is the case, the first thing you need to do is split the articles into three separate drafts on three separate pages and submit them for review separately. The rejection reasons should have been worded more diplomatically, but a three-in-one draft really can't be reviewed. Best of luck, and don't hesitate to ask for more clarifications. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, there is, no page Draft:JAG (franchise) - do I assume you are referring to User:Fusionem/sandbox?

Secondly. there does not appear to be any evidence that the "JAG franchise" you are trying to write about, actually exists. Google has 1460 matches for the phrase "JAG franchise", but upon inspection of these matches, these are about Jaguar car dealerships, the Jacksonville Jaguars, or other sports teams called Jaguar

You appear to be trying to re-write the NCIS (franchise) article, as a JAG (franchise) article, but unless you can provide references, showing that this franchise (not its subsidiary components) has received extensive coverage in reliable, independent, sources, the subject does not meet our basic notability criteria for an article, so is unacceptable. - Arjayay (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sir, that's because my draft is in my sandbox. How could I show it to you? Fusionem (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the users who declined your drafts were impolite. The way you have several articles and a to-do list in your sandbox was and is really confusing to experienced reviewers. As the other editors have advised, when you have an article ready for review, move the article into draft space and submit it separately. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There is something I need to ask... What the hell is a "to-do list"? Because what everyone are saying doesn't make sense to me. Fusionem (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Fusionem/sandbox#My tasks sure looks like a to-do list. You have a table listing characters in The Indie-League. While that is reasonable material for user space, it isn't related to your submissions, and so its inclusion when you try to submit your sandbox just confuses experienced reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A to-do list is exactly what it sounds like. It's a collection of various tasks one wants to do. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 00:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)