Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 435

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 430 ← Archive 433 Archive 434 Archive 435 Archive 436 Archive 437 → Archive 440

Is a neighborhood notable if it is already listed as a place in Pennsylvania on Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_in_Pennsylvania:_M

I would like to create an article about Merion Golf Manor in Ardmore, Pennsylvania. It is the neighborhood in which the Merion Golf club exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merion_Golf_Club

I see that is listed as a place, but I don't know what type of place it is. I guess it is an unincorporated place within Ardmore and Lower Merion and Haverford townships. Are such small places considered notable by Wikipedia standards and if so I could use some help in finding references for it. I don't know what the standards is for including it in the list of places in pennsylvania. It currently exists there without a link to another article.

Danielhwilson (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Danielhwilson, and welcome to the Teahouse. I wouldn't use a link in any Wikipedia article to infer notability. Generally, it is better to consider the subject on its own merits. List of places in Pennsylvania: M doesn't cite any sources and might not be very well maintained. Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires a topic to have been subject to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. There is a more specific guideline for populated places, however, at WP:GEOLAND. It states that populated, legally recognised places are typically presumed to be notable, but that populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the general notability guideline. The question of what type of place it is might therefore be crucial here. That said, if you can find coverage of the place in reliable sources, then it will meet the general notability guideline and be considered notable regardless of its legal status. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) Please read the notability guideline for places. From your description I would guess it is not a "legally recognized place"; so whether it should have an article depends on whether it satisfies the golden rule. —teb728 t c 10:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Larry. This is a helpful reply. I'll see what I can find out.

Danielhwilson (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

RE: Warnings for soapboxing

Hello,

My question is this:

Am I right in thinking that persons granted the rights to patrol, revert edits, issue warnings etc. should be able to pass comment on the decisions of others who have such rights (justify even, or not, as the case may be, another "patroller's" warnings - that is in order to have this authority "patrollers" should have a common understanding/be like minded?)?

Regards,

Hum sufferer (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Hum sufferer. I don't quite understand your question, and wonder if it reflects a misunderstanding about rights on Wikipedia. Any editor can comment on any other editor, though if they don't comply with policies such as assume good faith and no personal attacks, they may find themselves blocked. Editors who have been given particular rights, such as administrators or patrollers, have no greater authority in a discussion.
You seem to be having a content dispute about The Hum: you should stop edit warring, and discuss the matter on the article's talk page, in order to reach consensus.
As a general note, posting a general question about Wikipedia management to this page without referring to a particular case is inclined to make experienced editors suspicious of your motives in asking the question. --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
To follow up on what User:ColinFine said, I will restate what I have said in the past about asking hypothetical questions at the Help Desk, since this is Help Desk Lite. When a user asks a 'hypothetical' or 'abstract' question at the Help Desk, I usually do two things, to look at the editor's posting history to try to figure out what the real question is (which ColinFine did), but to be cynical and think that the poster may be posing the question in a slightly slanted way in order to try to get an answer that will allow them to wikilawyer an argument in the actual dispute based on the abstract answer. So it is best to ask about an actual issue rther than a general or abstract issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I will comment that User:Hum sufferer is a very new editor, and should be advised rather than criticized. My advice is that, if one's edits are reverted, one should discuss them on the article talk page, Talk: The Hum. There has been no discussion on the talk page for six months. The talk page is the place to discuss whether the addition of that particular external link is a proper external link or an improper external link. Maybe the original poster didn't know that questioned edits should be discussed on talk pages. Now they do. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, this Teahouse is a very strange page in one respect. For whatever reasons, questions to it are top-posted, while almost everywhere else in Wikipedia, they are bottom-posted. I have moved this thread from the bottom to the top. At this Teahouse, questions that are bottom-posted, which is normally correct, are likely to be ignored, because experienced editors, and especially Teahouse regulars, know that this is a strange top-posting place. You didn't know that. Now you have been told that. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: The mobile version also automatically posts at the bottom when you click "Ask a question", which doesn't help. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
(I didn't know that. I don't use a so-called mobile device, because the mobile device that I do use is a full-sized laptop, which behaves like a desktop.) In that case, either the desktop/laptop version or the mobile version is wrong. There is no excuse for confusingly inconsistent behavior between versions. If there is a good reason why this Teahouse has top-posting (and I don't think that there is, but its originators thought so), then that is reason enough to put top-posting in the mobile version. At least, that explains why some questions get bottom-posted. It may not be a good-faith error by the editor but an error by the developers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree it is confusing, and can lead to new user's questions being ignored. But I use a desktop, and the "Ask a Question" puts my question at the top of the page. I thought they only went to the bottom if the editor did not notice that link and edited the page manually to add their question.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Does the mobile version provide the Ask a Question button? If not, it should. If not, the developers, who are not volunteers, should provide the button. By the way, it is also possible to top-post a question manually. I haven't done this, but I have manually moved questions, including this one, to the top. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

See also – empty

Hi Teahouse,

If an article's See also section is empty, should it be removed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beck_Ochiltree

Thanks! Mechanic1c (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. MOS:SEEALSO doesn't say so explicitly, but there are many articles without a 'See also' section; it is not a mandatory section. So there is no reason to include an empty 'See also' section. Gap9551 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, in general an empty section can occasionally be acceptable, but only if such a section is desired, see Template:Empty section. Gap9551 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

entry edited out

I am writing re: the content in Jeremy Gardiner's Wikipedia entry. Jeremy himself has created the content for his Wikipedia page and had it installed by Ginez 17.

For some reason, his content was edited and replaced a few weeks later by some old entry created at random. There are a lot of inaccuracies and not enough information on Jeremy's career as an artist. As his name becomes more well-known, the pressure is on to get a correct Wikipedia entry for him. His website link is correct on Wikipedia: www.jeremygardiner.co.uk

I contacted Wikipedia helpdesk and got the following reply:

The content was rewritten as the previous version was copied from an external site that was copyrighted, which is not allowed under our policies. As this is technically against copyright law, I will not be able to restore the article. Yours sincerely, Matthew Dann

My reply is below:

Dear Matthew Dann, Are you talking about the parts from Lund Humphries website? The publishers of his monograph? Or is it Jeremy Gardiner's own website? I have actually created content for both of these, so in effect the copyright belongs to myself and Jeremy Gardiner, who is my husband and with whom I work to help spread his profile.

Could you please refer us to a fully qualified Wikipedia editor so that we can correct this and publish a new Wikipedia entry that is in line with Wikipedia's rules? Ginez 17, who we originally paid to do this for us is no longer available.

We really need to have this rectified asap.

Many thanks and kind regards, Veronica and Jeremy Gardiner 86.130.237.5 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Gardiner. 86.130.237.5 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Veronica. Wikipedia is very strict about copyright. When I go to Jeremy Gardiner's website, it says right at the bottom: "Jeremy Gardiner © 2016 / All rights reserved." There is no way that any lengthy extracts from a copyrighted website will be allowed on Wikipedia unless it is freely released (not reserved) under an acceptable Creative Commons license. And promotional website content is almost never appropriate for a Wikipedia biography. As for the person you hired, User:Ginez 17, they were inexperienced and all their article work was deleted by an administrator, presumably for copyright violations, as you can see on the list of their contributions. They have been inactive for three years.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social network for personal promotion like Facebook or LinkedIn. Subjects of biographies here do not control the content, and are strongly discouraged from editing. The pressures you feel are of no real interest to Wikipedia volunteers, since we work only on what interests us individually. You and your husband have a conflict of interest. You should set up an account, disclose your conflict of interest, and post suggestions for improving the article on its talk page, along with links to reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I note that you asked the same question, which was answered by me, in a very similar vein, at Wikipedia:Help desk - please do not ask in multiple places, in the hope of receiving a different/more favourable answer - that is considered Forum shopping - Arjayay (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Copying factual information from textbooks

I'm toying with the idea of creating a Wikipedia article. It would be about a particular taxonomic class of crinoid ("sea lillies"). It'll be short and mostly consist of a description of that class. I have a textbook that describes individual crinoid classes. The description is short and factual, and really there isn't any other way to describe the class, short of (pointlessly) shuffling the word order.

Can I legitimately copy such descriptions, attributing them to the original textbook?

ManyMore (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ManyMore. Here are a couple of observations: Althought facts cannot be copyrighted, the prose that describes those facts can be. Also, in general, a Wikipedia article should summarize reliable sources (plural). Accordingly, I recommend that you find other sources if possible, and summarize what they say in your own words. There are 23 references listed at Crinoid, many available online. Perhaps some of them discuss your taxonomic class. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Even if it is difficult to shuffle word order, I do think you need to paraphrase the text, ManyMore, otherwise you risk a form of plagiarism. The alternative would be to quote the portions of the text that you are unable to paraphrase. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

My contributions

Hi, how can I see how many contributions I have done? Also, where I can find templates about warning editors engaged in vandalism (although I hope nobody will go to vandalise my contributions)? Lostrigot (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your contributions are listed at Special:Contributions/Lostrigot, accessible via the "Contributions" link at the top of any page when you are logged in. There are extra links, including various stats, at the foot of your contributions page. You'll find warning templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and also at a sub-page at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I have another question, although I've been reading how Wikipedia works for three days! How can an article be deleted? Vetro Energy doesn't exist and I can confirm this with reliable sources. It was just a hoax by a businessman, R. Taci and this can me mentioned in his article, it isn't needed to dedicate an article to a "company" which actually doesn't exist.Lostrigot (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The ways in which an article can be deleted are outlined at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Lostrigot. However, there are reliable sources such as Reuters that appear to confirm that Vetro Energy does exist. What is your evidence that it doesn't? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
A later report from Reuters showed that no money was forthcoming. If there is a reliable source that the company was a hoax, that could certainly be included in the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If the company doesn't have any money, but is noted to have money, that sounds like it might be a notable hoax, but I haven't researched it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It was really a hoax. [1] Vetro Energy is famous only for its Albpetrol bid. As a "company" it hasn't any financial operation.Lostrigot (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The link you posted says that the Albanian government believes Vetro Energy may be not what it seems, but to accuse someone of perpetuating a deliberate hoax in Wikipedia's voice requires much clearer evidence. However, the information about the government of Albania's concerns could be put into the article, if properly attributed. Something like "The Albanian governement has also said that ..." and then a reference. Anyhow, hoax or no hoax, if Reuter's is talking about it, it is probably notable. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes indeed. The material from that source is worth including, but I don't see anything in it that suggests that the company doesn't exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
That company existed only when was time for Albpetrol bid. Can you find any current operation of Vetro Energy? Anyways, you are experienced editors and I'm letting this case in your hand. Thank you for your help! Regards!Lostrigot (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know whether it still exists, but a company doesn't need to currently exist for there to be an article about it. If the company has ceased trading, though, the article needs to be written in the past tense. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Require assistance.

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia. I wanted to join Wikipedia:Cleanup, so I added my username to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup/Members (you'll find the link to my username at number 136). Now, when I go to that list and click on my username link, the link dissappears! Gone! Vanished! Poof! It reappears when I reload the page, but I can't reach my user page by clicking on the link. I tried logging out and clicking my user link again, and the same thing happens. Is this some sort of glitch or is there a reason for this?

Any help/explanation would be much appreciated. Thank you.

PigeonOfTheNight (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, PigeonOfTheNight, and Welcome to the Teahouse. What a great way to kick off the New Year, helping with a cleanup of Wikipedia! I tried the links from that page, and they work fine for me. Sometimes problems like that are a matter of timing, where it can take a while for the changes to replicate across all the WP servers. I recommend giving it an hour and trying again. If that still does not work, please let us know what configuration you are using (what browser, what operating system and level).--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Gronk Oz, thank you for responding! Unfortunately, the problem still persists, so I'll just give you what configuration I'm using. My brower is Chrome and my operation system is Linux (I'm not entirely sure what level though).
PigeonOfTheNight (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I tried it using Chrome and Linux (UBUNTU), and it still seems to work fine for me. Let me confirm that I am doing the right thing. I went to Wikipedia:Cleanup/Members and scrolled down to find your entry there, at number 136. I clicked on your user name, and it opened your user page (User:PigeonOfTheNight). Did I test the right thing?
I will also put a pointer to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cleanup. Does anybody else have a suggestion? --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. No, Gronk, like you I checked out the link and it works just fine for me. Onel5969 TT me 15:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for checking! I've tried the link again and I still get the same problem, but as long as it doesn't happen to anyone else, I guess it's not such a big deal. Thank you again, Gronk Oz and onel5969!

PigeonOfTheNight (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@PigeonOfTheNight: It's very likely your browser causing the problem. The link to your user page and talk page also worked fine when I used them. North America1000 22:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@PigeonOfTheNight: The page uses columns where the browser has to split the text evenly between them. I have seen a report before of a browser which moved the first or last line in a column when a user tried to click it. I guess somehting like that is going on for you. The problem will probably go away (or affect another name) when the next user signs up. It works for me in Chrome 47.0 on Windows Vista. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, @PigeonOfTheNight:, that's four people who confirmed that the page itself works okay for them - so it really looks likely to be something about your individual setup. Does it work okay when you click on your link at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/List of participants? What about here: User:PigeonOfTheNight? And before we go too far down this rabbit hole - is it actually causing you any difficulty? You can always click on the link to your user page at the top of any page. I'm happy to keep going if it is causing you problems, but if it is more for the sake of chasing perfection then I might be inclined to write it off as "one of those things" ... let me know.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
My user link works fine at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/List of participants page. So I think you should just (as you said) "write it off as one of those things".
I was mainly worried that others might have the same problem, but since it only seems to affect me, it's not a big deal. Thank you again, all of you, for confirming this for me!
PigeonOfTheNight (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that, PigeonOfTheNight. I will add it to the long, long list of things I don't understand. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

How can I create my user page?

Hello! I made a minor contribution to Wikipedia last year and I'd like to be more active as an editor in 2016. I'm just starting my first article on Nemetics, an emerging topic I'm interested in, and I would like to have my user page ready too... Is there any unified format I should use? I've been looking at other users' pages, and they seem absolutly personalized in different formats (??). Can you redirect me to a tutorial o a pre-formated user page, or should I create mine from scratch? Thank you for your answer, NewsNeus (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! The policy about user pages is at Wikipedia:User pages and basically boils down to "don't keep anything nasty or totally unrelated on it". As for formatting etc. you can basically do what you want. Creating your own user page can be a great way to devellop your fancy editing skills. Also, as you visit other user pages, you may find something you really like (a userbox, a color, a way of formatting things). You can then imitate those things on your own user page. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, NewsNeus. There is no standard userpage format. Please take a look at the WP:User page design center for a variety of ideas. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your useful answer here, and for your nicely edited example-page, as a detailed answer in my Talk page (with your permission, I'll use it as a template for my user page).

I really feel welcomed to Wikipedia. Honoured to participate in this universal work in progress! NewsNeus (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

How to add films to a list

Hello,

I'm new to wikipedia. I would like to add some movies to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lesbian-related_films

However, if I choose 'edit' on the top right corner of the page, I don't see how I could add the movies I want to add.

Any kind of help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Miss_Castoro Miss castoro (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Articles are added to the category not by editing the category page but by adding [[Category:Lesbian-related films]] at the foot of the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Images from archived web or social media

Hello there. I am currently focusing in creating articles about multi-sports event. When I am searching for the logos, some of them are available only in web pages that had been archived or from social media account (Twitter or Facebook). My question is: can we upload these logos to the English Wikipedia (not Commons)? I know if you are uploading non-free logos from the official site of the Games, you just simply need to list the source, showing minimal use, etc. I am just unsure about this issue. Thanks. Griff88 (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Griff88. The use of logos (assuming they are copyrighted and not licensed for reuse by anyone for anything) is restricted and must comply with all the points of WP:NFCC. Usually one logo in the infobox of an article will be accepted to visually identify the subject of the article. For more than that you would have to give a strong argument of why the use significantly increases reader understanding of the article. —teb728 t c 10:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks teb728. So basically it means that if we want to use an image for the event infobox, it doesn't matter where the source is, even from social media? Griff88 (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that's right, Griff88, except that if you take a logo from social media you need to make sure that it's the right logo, in a way you perhaps wouldn't worry about if you took it from the organisation's website. --ColinFine (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks ColinFine. Of course I'll confirm if the logo is correct or not before uploading. Griff88 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

how to make my entry better, my first draft was rejected

Hello,

I have just submitted my first draft and it was rejected because "You need more than just one passing mention in HuffPo to justify an article. Also, do not footnote to other Wikipedia articles, please WP:wikilink (blue text) to them instead.

I strongly advise reading WP:Notability (organizations) which explains the benchmark of coverage the draft topic must show."

I would like to put more links/articles but I wasn't sure how to put several links that all refer to the same title mentioned in the body of the article.

Should I just list them one after the other, as a citation?

Im completely new to this, and I hope this makes sense...

Thank you! SelmaSelmaGreyscale (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SelmaGreyscale. There is a convenient way of referring several times to the same source: see Referencing for beginners, and in particular the section "Same reference used more than once".
I see that somebody has already warned you on your talk page about your probable conflict of interest in creating Draft:Greyscale Theatre Company. Please bear in mind that if you are part of that company, Wikipedia has very little interest in anything you have said or want to say about the company: it is only interested in what people unconnected with the company have published about it. (I'm sorry if that sounds unfriendlty, but the fact is that many people come to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting something they are involved in. We welcome people who are here to improve the encyclopaedia, but if the first thing they do is to try to create such an article, that is not what Wikipedia is for). --ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello all, thanks so much for all the advice. Yes I am connected with the company, so I won't post anything about it. SelmaSelmaGreyscale (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking for guidelines on good references

Hi there. I've been editing Reference sections of a few articles, and well, the results have been disappointing. As a historian, I have a good understanding of what is and is not a good reference source. Unfortunately, a good number of the users who created those articles did not. Given that I'm not a subject matter expert myself (that's why I turned to Wikipedia in the first place), I really do not know what the good, current references are for the subject I'm editing. (That's what I was hoping to find, here.) For that, I'm going to have to turn to the users who ARE subject matter experts, and ask them to update the references. The best I can do is convert the references I find into Citation Style 1, fix dead URLs, research cryptic references, add ISBNs, etc. What I need is to be able to educate these users on proper references, but I realize I'm walking a fine line, here. If I try to do this myself, I may come across as trying to lecture them, putting them down, being a nit-picker, and the like. I think what would be helpful is to find some sort of Wikipedia guideline that explains what is and is not a good reference, and point the users to that. This way I'm not some newbie trying to come in and spoil the party ... I'm just reminding folks of the rules they should be following, and asking them to stick to them. You would not BELIEVE the kinds of reference sources they've been using. It's clear all they're doing is writing the article, first, then Googling to find "references" to support what they've written from the first match they find. As a professional, I expect writers to find and read a number of good references, then write the article on what they've learned, turning to the references to support what they're writing. It's what I do in my work. But how to tell that to some well-meaning users without offending them? Any guidelines you can find would be most helpful. Better yet, I could use some tips on how to search for them, myself. I've had some friendly users toss me a few fish, here and there, but learning how to fish in these waters would be even better. Thanks for your time and thoughtful consideration. Hi-storian (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Hi-storian, and welcome back to the Teahouse. We need more people with an attitude like yours! Both towards references, and to dealing with the less experienced editors. There are a few resources you can point people to, including:
I'm sure other people here will have other suggestions as well.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot - depending on who you are talking to, some may respond better to a short YouTube video such as this one from the WikimediaFoundation, showing how to use the Cite tool to generate references quickly and easily.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Gronk Oz Thanks for the leads! The question was not how to create references, but rather on what to choose for use as a reference. I found the following documents and subsections to be most applicable to the issues I'm seeing:
Referencing for beginners
Good references
Identifying reliable sources
Context matters Scholarship News organizations Questionable sources Self-published sources (online and paper) Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources Usage by other sources
Verifiability
Reliable sources Questionable sources Self-published sources Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
I also noted that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is available to provide a neutral second opinion on the use of a particular reference in a particular context. This would be great if the existing users start to raise any objections, to be able to bring in an experienced third party who can make a reasoned judgement. I hope not to need it, but knowing that it's there helps ease my concerns about users raising objections.
Looks like I've got a lot of work ahead of me, but the leads you gave do reassure me that my instincts and judgements are sound, and that I can back up my comments with good, hard policies that support what I'm trying to do ... turn a few Wikipedia articles from their current amateurish forms into professional overviews built on reliable sources. Thanks again for pointing me in the right way to get this done! Hi-storian (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, Hi-storian. I would just add a couple of points to the excellent suggestions made above. First, when dealing with historical sources in particular, contradictions between sources are very frequent. In such a situation reading WP:NPOV, and in particular the section on due weight, might prove helpful. Second, and more important; for reliability, context matters, a lot. The guidelines laid out in WP:RS are definitely helpful, but they are not set in stone. In addition to WP:RSN, project specific noticeboards are a very helpful venue to discuss the reliability of particular sources.
On an unrelated note, I personally am very glad to see somebody with training in history joining Wikipedia; there is always so much to do, and so little manpower to do it. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Hey there! Thanks for the additional pointers. I probably skipped over NPOV because it's so obvious to me and my work. In any controversy, I make a point of stating each point of view and the reasoning behind them, letting the reader make his own conclusion, armed with a full set of facts and perspectives. The other option is to avoid the controversy ... but life is full of controversies, and to ignore them is to paint a picture just as untrue as if you told only one side, or the other, of the story. I guess the other reason why I passed over it was because the subject I'm editing has articles that are so far gone that I need to start with the basics. I mean the refs I was looking at was a joke. Literally. Someone used a fansite for a popular SciFi comedy where users create funny entries for a mythical "encyclopedia" as a reference. I kid you not. Another ref was for a book that, as it turns out, (when I was looking up the ISBN for it) was for "ages 9 and up". Really. So I literally have to train these folks on what a ref is ... then worry about finer points such as balance and neutrality. The thing is to start slow, and take one issue at a time ... such as a ref that consists of a naked URL to a dead link ... or a ref to "op. cit.", the book in question never being mentioned in the article. Then we move on to why a children's book, or a website created by a high school student is not an appropriate reference, and so on. One baby step at a time ... that's the only way we'll get there. Wikipedia did not get to 5 million articles overnight. Overall, its quality has greatly improved ... but it's still spotty in places. I just happened to discover a spot! Hi-storian (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi-storian, I can sympathize; there are indeed some shockers. I recall one whose reference was "I know this is true and you can't tell me different". But let's not get caught up in telling war stories; they are never-ending. I don't want to swamp you with material, but it occurs to me that another resource which could be useful to refer new users to is User:Yunshui/Article creation for beginners. Firstly, it emphasizes the overall work flow that you described in your original post. And specifically it has a section on how to "Hunt for sources". Again, it is more about how than why, but it might help to steer people in more productive directions where they can uncover reliable sources. (All of which assumes they want to, and that is the hardest part.)--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Gronk Oz LOL! Gotta love it. Personally, I think the article I was working on was started by a grade school child or high school freshman, and he was using what he had and knew. You can't assume all users are adults. I'd guess 90% of vandalism is done by children ... of course I don't have any evidence to prove it, neither does Wikipedia, but I'm going on typical child behavior versus adult behavior. The problem of letting anyone edit pages is that anyone can edit pages. I do like the "Hunt for sources" section ... it's a good starting point. And yes, getting folks to want to do the hard work of finding proper sources is exactly what I'm trying to achieve ... which is why I wanted to find the right material, so I can embark on this adventure with the right tone ... being constructive and helpful with the right resources at the right time. Just like the friendly user who got me to sign up did. Thanks again for everything! Hi-storian (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is editors who don't know what a good reference is, so much as editors who know they need to provide a reference and just do what they can. Many of us, when adding a reference, don't have easy access to a good library or even a good bookshop. We use Google, and pick any references that serve our purpose. That is certainly what I did, the only time I created a historical article. If a real historian with a good library can spare the time to look at Chian diaspora, I'm sure they will be able to improve the referencing. Maproom (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
@Maproom: You raise a good point, and one worthy of further discussion. I think we have a philosophical difference here, and though I understand your point, I'm not sure I agree. You're coming from a very well-intentioned approach of "something is better than nothing". That certainly makes sense on the surface. I also understand that if you don't have the appropriate resources, then you can only work with what you have. Where we differ is in the question of "is a poor reference better than no reference at all?"
From where I stand, I actually would prefer to see {{citation needed}} than to research a reference, only to find that it is an inappropriate or poor quality source. The {{citation needed}} tag, to me, serves as a road sign, if you will, much as one that says "dangerous curve ahead". It flags to me that the article needs more work, and it is aware of that fact. If I'm a subject matter expert, it's an invitation to me to join in and share what I have with folks who need it. If I'm not a subject matter expert, and I'm trying to become well read on the topic, it's a warning to me saying, "this article is not quite ready for prime-time, use caution with the claims made here."
The problem of finding whatever reference you can, is that what it really does, is to mask the fact that the individuals who drafted the article, or reshaped it, did not have the materials they needed. The fact that the article is not built on Reliable sources has not changed. The only thing that changes is that the fact winds up being hidden. The problem with the "something is better than nothing" approach is that you wind up inadvertently adding Questionable sources and making the work of reviewing and assessing the article's quality that much more difficult.
Another example of "something is better than nothing" versus "nothing is better than something poor" is the question of foreign language articles. Using the "something is better than nothing" approach, you may say that adding a machine translated French article is better than having no article at all, or to point someone to a French article. As a person who speaks French, and have seen the results of machine translations, I know that machine translations are such a poor substitute for human translation that posting a machine translation actually makes the matter worse, regardless of how well-intentioned the user posting that translation may have been. I also realize that someone who does not speak French may not be able to appreciate this point. The problem is that languages do not translate on a word-for-word basis, the way machines work.
For example, if you go to Google Translate, and enter "It is hot." and ask it to translate that to French, it will say, "C'est chaud." That is not what a French speaker would say. He would say, "Il fait chaud." The natural machine translation back to English would be "He makes hot." The actual translation is "It is hot (outside)." The machine translation sounds like someone is making a fire, while the statement is simply an observation that the outdoor temperature is high. (Google Translate actually translates this one correctly, but only because a human manually added the phrase.) This is why I say that no translation is better than the machine translation. Try entering something like song lyrics into Google Tranlate, and convert it into any foreign language. Then take the result and translate it back to English. The result is often hilarious. There may be lines and phrases that make it back into perfect English, but many will not ... and when they fail, they tend to fail very badly.
No translation leaves the door open for a French speaker to come in and make the translation. Whereas the machine translation gives the appearance of having been translated, but masking the fact that the translation is, by its nature, extremely poor.
I know this is a bit of a long-winded reply, and perhaps not what you may have been expecting. Please know that I value and respect your efforts to try to improve Wikipedia to the best of your ability. As a professional, one thing I have come to understand is the ability to say, "I don't know" is the key to professionalism. We are all human. We all have limitations. Being aware of those limitations, and knowing not to cross those boundaries is the essence of professionalism. Certainly, medical doctors make a good example of how this works.
A cardiologist, for example, may be a great person to consult for a heart problem, but if you're suffering from diabetes, he may not be the best doctor for your condition. That's not to say he's not a good doctor, just not the right one for your problem. Likewise, a general practitioner might refer you to a number of specialists. Not because the g.p. is a poor doctor, but rather, that he is, by profession, a jack of all trades. He is trained to recognize and understand the whole spectrum of illnesses, and to know who is the appropriate individual to consult for any given case. It is, in fact, an entire speciality, in and of itself. For effective health care to work, it is essential that doctors are willing to say, "I don't know", and turn to other doctors for help.
So going back to your example, what I would prefer to see you do is this: First admit to yourself, "I don't know." That is not a defeat. That is a recognition that every human knows only so much. Then, instead of Googling for the best thing you can find, try, instead, asking for help. What I would do, in your case, is first to go ahead and add the {{citation needed}}, then turn to the article's Talk page and post a question. I'd use the point I'm trying to make as the section title and then say, "Hey, I'm trying to make this point, but it's really beyond my expertise. Does anybody familiar with (your subject) have any good references that talk about this issue?" If that doesn't produce any results (perhaps because nobody with that expertise happens to be looking at that particular page at that moment) and I really needed to move the article forward, then I'd try asking somewhere else. Perhaps there's a page that's broader in scope and more closely watched. They may have ideas. I do believe I saw something about a "reference exchange" while I was researching policies. You can ask the Teahouse about that.
Get to know your fellow users. I'm new here, but I already know someone who knows Wikipedia style, and someone who knows ancient literature, and that if I have a question about those areas, they'd be good people to turn to. If someone asked me about Wikipedia style or ancient literature, I'd gladly refer you to them. Folks in the Teahouse may not know an expert in your subject, but they can refer you to someone who may know someone else ... and so on, until you've found your expert. That's exactly how healthcare is structured to work. This is what professionals do, constantly. And that's what I'd encourage you to do, as well. I hope you can take my comments and advice in the constructive and helpful manner that I intended. I'd be glad to continue this, perhaps on my talk page, if you'd like to explore this further. I hope this helps, I really mean my comments to be helpful rather than critical. Wishing you the best, Hi-storian (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
High-storian: Your views are all sensible, I don't disagree with any of them. But something you are failing to take into account is that a Wikipedia article must cite adequate references. Without them, it will be deleted. The Chian diaspora article I created is a good example. The subject interested me, I thought it worthy of an article (and I still think so, that article gets more visitors than any other I have created). So I created it, using the best references I could find with Google. If instead I had used [citation needed] tags, it would have been deleted. I could have travelled to the nearest city, obtained a library card, and spent a few hours researching the topic: this would definitely have resulted in a better article. But I am a volunteer (unlike the doctors in your analogy), and that's not how I want to spend my time. I also tried to persuade Christopher Long, the author of the best of the sources I found, to contribute to the article: he seemed keen on the idea, but like me, has other uses for his time. Maproom (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@Maproom: I understand your concern. I, myself, am still trying to sort out what the Wikipedia guidelines are, exactly, but I think you may be overreacting, a little. Certainly, if the entire article has no references at all, and the neutrality and/or factuality of the article is doubtful, it may be subject to deletion, but I don't think that it would be deleted wholesale without some effort to verify it, first. Indeed what Wikipedia:Citation needed states and recommends for deletion are: specific claims (not entire articles) that are "palpable nonsense" (such as "the sky is hot pink"), "controversial, poorly sourced claims in biographies of living people" (such as "Barack Obama is not an American"), or "If you are sure the statement ... is not factual" ... but the policy does add the caution, here, "Be sure to add a suitable edit summary such as 'Very doubtful - please do not revert without giving a citation'. If the original statement was accurate after all this gives someone the chance to put it back, hopefully with a proper citation this time."
On the other hand, the same policy also says "If a statement sounds plausible, and is consistent with other statements in the article, ... then consider making a reasonable effort to find a reference yourself." In other words, give the author of the article the benefit of the doubt, and try to prove the claim, first. Yes, it does say "In the process you may end up confirming that the statement is too doubtful to remain." but keep in mind the converse may also be true. In the process, you may end up confirming the statement is factual.
I believe that if the work you're doing is a good faith effort to tell a story that you believe to be factual, but have limited means to provide proper references and are honest about that, and appeal to the Wikipedia community to assist you ... then that's exactly what they'll do. I don't think anyone out there is looking to delete an article wholesale for the slightest infraction. Indeed, the subject I'm working on is fraught with dubious claims that have been unsupported or poorly supported for years, and no one has deleted those articles. I truly believe that if you ask for help with an article, and are honest and forthright about your situation (it sounds like you live in a rural community, quite distant from a major city with an adequate library) that editors here will be understanding of that, and will try to assist you.
Also, the Internet has far more resources available than you may realize. There are many more tools to find good information than Google. If you open your own Teahouse question asking "where can I find help finding proper resources for Chian diaspora?" then I think a number of people would be glad to point you in the right direction. They may not lead you directly to the proper resources, but they can lead you to the right place where you can find further help. Likewise, they might not have the exact references you're looking for, but can again point you towards the next step on the path. It may take many steps to get to your destination. Do not be discouraged. This is perfectly normal, it's what we deal with, all the time. Think of it as a journey. Along the way, you'll learn a number of interesting things and find new resources you didn't realize were out there. In time, you'll find yourself working on a totally different project and saying, "Hey! I know where to go for this ... someone pointed me to this resource, which didn't help for my other project, but is totally perfect for this one." In other words, it's all good. Help that may not seem to be helpful now, may become a lifesaver later. With a little time and patience, you'll find what you're looking for.
BTW, we're all volunteers, here. Wikipedia has no professional editors. That's one of the defining traits of Wikipedia, and what makes it different from other projects. As I understand it, the only people getting paid are the folks behind the scenes who run the machinery that make this place go. Maintaining the servers, writing the software, that sort of thing. But the articles, themselves, no. That's all volunteer work. Even the folks here in the Teahouse are just volunteers. It's a labor of love. People doing what they enjoy and can do best. That said, why would I, or anyone else, not want to help someone asking for help on an article? Why would anyone want to delete an article unless there was something truly wrong with it, like a character attack on a living person that is clearly and obviously biased? Give us a chance to help you. That's what we're here for. Hi-storian (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I grew up in a small town, myself, so I can sympathize with you on not having access to a good library. But one thing that any library has is access to other libraries through what we call "Interlibrary loan" (ILL). It's a free service. If you ask your small town librarian for help finding some good books on a topic, and they don't have anything, ask if they can find something through Interlibrary loan. I'm sure your librarian would be pleased as punch to do that for you. What happens is they'll check the catalog of a major library that participates in ILL, and ask them to send to book to your library. Any restrictions of the original library apply, such as if you can take the book home, or not. Usually you can, unless the book is rare. Of course, it may take a week or so for the book to get to your library, but it will get there. This is a key service intended exactly for people in your situation. It's seldom used. Any good librarian would love to be asked about it. It would make their day. Really! Hi-storian (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I changed a redirect

Hi guys, I recently changed some stuff and removed a redirect to someone else page info, I informed the person who origianlly setup the redirect, Have a done the correct thing informing them after making the changes or should I have informed them first?Willsrob (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, in general it is ok to turn a redirect into an article, as you did at Danny Keogh, and you don't need to inform the person who created the redirect (but you are welcome to do so on their talk page). (Related to this, see also WP:EDRED). However, your article does not cite any sources except IMDb (which is considered to be not very reliable, see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). If you don't add reliable sources, the article may be deleted soon. Read Wikipedia:Your first article for tips on how to write an article. By the way, also note the different spelling Danny Keough. If the person is deemed notable (WP:NACTOR) and the article accepted, that redirect (and maybe others too) should be changed point to the article, or used as title. Gap9551 (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, unfortunately the article you created was also a direct copy of his IMDb biography so I have had to nominate it for speedy deletion. Sorry about that. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok I have come across some new information regarding Danny Keogh and entered it, Also i asked a friend of mine who lives in South Africa to find out some information about the man and entered what they told me, I know it doesnt look like a normal Wiki page so am wondering if someone can help rectify it for me please.

I have stated in the text that the spelling it different and not to be confused with the Danny Keough that was married to Lisa Marie Presley. Again can someone help me tidy it up as I am still learning how to write these pages myself.Willsrob (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

conflict of interest

I'm a university researcher who works inter alia on superdiversity and Wiki didn't have an article on this concept so I started one. There is now a notice on the article saying I have a conflict of interest even though I have not promoted my own work. How to deal with this?BrumEduResearch (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Resume the discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Superdiversity. There had been some discussion, but there has been none in the past six months. If you are doing academic work on the subject, that normally is only considered conflict of interest if you are receiving grant money from an organization that has an interest, but you should resume the talk page discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I have no view on the conflict of interest, but I would argue that the article is about a word, not a subject, and should therefore be deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maproom (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
It is an area of academic enquiry with a large literature. Check Google Scholar if you doubt this.BrumEduResearch (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Robert. Any advice on what I should say on the talk page?BrumEduResearch (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I was involved in previous discussion on the talk page of this article, Maproom, and for what its worth I think that it is a notable concept. BrumEduResearch is right that there is a significant literature on it, including whole issues of journals. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Notifying PamD, another contributor to the article, of this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - I've tweaked a typo of my own that I spotted, but I don't think I've got anything to add to the discussion. PamD 21:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
But, that said, I've now looked further at the article and its talk page and various other discussions and concluded that we can remove the COi tag so have done so. PamD 23:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much User:PamD.BrumEduResearch (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

moving page

I have recently created a wiki page in an out of date name, and I have created the same article under a new name. I have mentioned this in the edit. Do I need to move the original page? I can't remember my log in details for that account! The original wiki article is called Ahmed Saad (Islamic Scholar) and the new one that I have created is Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari. Also, why doesn't the page show up on google even if I type Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari?

ThanksAhmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I can find it using Google. Perhaps it's only just been found by their system. Would it be better to make one article a redirect to the other? Do you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? Dbfirs 22:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Ahmedsaad.ihsan. Do you have two accounts? I can see that you created Ahmed Saad Al-Azhari, but Ahmed Saad (Islamic Scholar) was created by Ihsaninstitute.ahmedsaad. What you should have done if you wanted to change the name of the article was to move it. There are now two articles and one will have to be deleted or turned into a redirect to the other. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey Ahmedsaad.ihsan. I have deleted the cut-and-paste-moved, duplicate article as both a copyright violation under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion ("CSD") (see WP:CLOP for the copyright attribution you must provide when copying content across internal pages), but also as a routine housekeeping matter under CSD G6 – and have moved the existing article to the better title. If the page didn't need to be deleted anyway as a duplicate I would have fixed the copyright issue rather than deleted it. Note that your former account name was improper anyway, so the fact you don't remember the login doesn't really matter. The article is rather promotional, and given your older and new account name, please review our conflict of interest guidelines. By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Cordless Larry and Fuhghettabouttit for your advice and feedback.

I will make edits to try and make the article appear less promotional. I am the author of the article, but not Ahmed Saad. I am one of his students.

Any other feedback will be greatly appreciated!

ImranAhmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

also thank you DBfirsAhmedsaad.ihsan (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Carro Morrell Clark

I reviewed Draft: Carro Morrell Clark and declined it as inadequately sourced. User:Kennethclark17 then posted to my talk page: “Hi Robert, Thanks for the feedback on my Carro Clark article. She is a very distant cousin, though I am trying to write a book about her. Does that constitute conflict of interest? If I clear that hurdle, can you clarify third party sources? Do you mean secondary sources? I have quite a number of primary sources such as newspaper and journal articles from the period that attest to her ground-breaking work. Please let me know. ” Would other experienced editors care to advise this editor, and either to agree or disagree with my decline? If she is only a very distant cousin, then I would be inclined to say that conflict of interest may not be present. It does appear that there is some confusion because Wikipedia uses the terms primary source and secondary source differently, and that Wikipedia does consider newspapers and journals to be secondary sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Kennethclark17, third-party sources are not necessarily secondary sources, but rather ones that are about rather than by the subject. It looks like all of the sources you have cited so far are third-party; the issue for me is that there aren't enough of them to demonstrate notability and to support all of the material in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit or Completely ReWrite?

I understand why my first submission was rejected. I've tried three edits and none saved. Can I just write a brand new one on the same subject, with corrections, and try again that way? Kennethclark17 (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand the question. You say that you tried three edits but none saved. I see that you made multiple edits to the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the protocol when an article gets hijacked by a POV pusher?- David Bain article

I recently joined up and made some small edits to an article on which I have some fair knowledge. Unfortunately it is a very controversial case/topic and has been for years. Within no time an editor came on and started rewriting the thing, removing a lot of stuff and adding in other stuff and this has become a edit war. I almost immediately stopped editing the article and have now taken my arguments to the talk page for the article. However the person has effectively 'seized control' of the article and is even editing stuff off the Talk page for so reason, making accusations, all in all being a bully. (or so it seems to me). What will Wikipedia normally do when when this kind of thing occurs.? It has happened on this article in the past. Do we just stand back and watch the article be destroyed, or what? advice appreciated thanks NZgreygoose (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This is about David Bain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maproom (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The policy to look at is Dispute resolution, NZgreygoose. You have done the right thing by engaging on the talk page: please continue to follow the procedure. --ColinFine (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
With regard to David Bain, the editor who has been inserting the derogatory material which is contrary to the biographies of living persons policy has been formally cautioned. The dispute resolution policy lists several ways to discuss if discussion at the talk page, User talk:David Bain is not successful. I would suggest either the dispute resolution noticeboard or the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you meant User:David Bain and User talk:David Bain; try David Bain and Talk:David Bain. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I have corrected the error. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The person who was cautioned was not the person I was referring to, but thank you in any case. NZgreygoose (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipage for a book series

I am wondering if it is okay to create a wiki page for Medicinal Plants in Australia by Cheryll Williams. The four volume set describes different uses of plants around the world with reference back to plants native to Australia. Peer review has given the series high regard, especially from Economic Botany Journal Several Wikipedia contributors have helped with the book with images and advice. Ringpicker (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ringpicker. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with our Notability guideline for books. Based on what you have said, I think that it is likely that the book series is notable and should have an article. I encourage you to think of the project as an "encyclopedia article" rather than a "wiki page". At its best, this project is dignified and we should keep that in mind. Your first article may have some useful advice for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_435&oldid=1077822195"