Help desk
< April 7	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 8[edit]

Don't know what's going on here[edit]

And i'm sure this is the wrong place but I couldn't really figure out where to bring it up. Anyway

Hypertrichosis#References

Those refs are all full of errors I've never seen before. Figured it was something worth pointing out24.136.136.42 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was caused by some vandalism that had messed up a ref template. --Onorem ♠Dil 02:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:KRIZTE/Gjirafa.com[edit]

As you can see this is a user page created by me. it is an albanian search engine. i have included the details i know about the website & iam leaving the rest to other users. I want to display this page in wikipedia or in wikisearch. As this is my first article, how can i publish this user page into an article. please provide a fast response.

thanks for your help in advance.

Christy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRIZTE (talk • contribs) 07:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your current revision there is no text at all but only a warning box, so not sure what you ask for, plus I don't know what you mean by "wikisearch" in this context. Could you elaborate please? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gjirafa Search Engine fails WP:ORG --Ushau97 (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On this page there is only a redirect - which leads to a deleted page. Could you already have moved the article? Thomas85753 19:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, please see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gjirafa_Search_Engine Technical 13 (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

Is there a template for creating Wikipedia for a new fraternity. Our Fraternity would like to be added to Wikipedia. We have reviewed other pages and they are all set up the same way. Is there a template and how do I get to it?JawStringbean (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a look at WP:YFA before you begin writing an article. Please note, the fraternity will have to meet some level of notability (has been discussed by noteworthy news outlets, etc.) to be included in Wikipedia, which the majority of fraternities do not. Scarce2 (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the user's talk page. There are a *few* Fraternities with a single undergraduate chapter which have met notability, but the youngest that I can find started in 1920 and most started in the 19th century.Naraht (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information not being published[edit]

Hello! I have tried on several occasions to update the Survival Stories with my Grand Mother's info and it is not being published. She will be 101 on April 21st, she was at the harbour when the explosion occured. Why is my update not accepted and published?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.22.211 (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you talking about? Survival Stories does not exist, and your contribution history shows nothing relevant. Did you provide references to published reliable sources in your updates? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this refers to the article Halifax Explosion, which has a section Survival Stories. A website about the event was recently linked to on a popular blog (Making Light) prompting me to read it (hence my guess); possibly the OP has seen the same link or something that prompted it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, possibly referring to this edit from September 2012, which has no references to published reliable sources. It was reverted in this edit in December, but the editor reverting didn't explain the reversion on the original editor's talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watford Crystal Salt & Pepper Shakers[edit]

I placed an order for the Waterford Marquis Salt & Pepper Shakers, they came to me without the Waterford Gift box, I'm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.255.8 (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.--Ushau97 (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford Crystal[edit]

I'm very dissatified with an order I placed for Waterford Marquis Salt & Pepper Shakers. They were sent to me without the Waterford gift box and I need to mail these out of town.Besides A gift like this should be in the company name gift box. I will be returning them to Macy in southlake Mall, Merriville, In. I talked to them and I got nothing from solving this matter, will not go back there! Ann Hughes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.255.8 (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makaton entry[edit]

How is an additional reference added to the existing entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosieandcleo (talk • contribs) 13:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the guide to adding references. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updating 40 pages[edit]

We have 40 Wikipedia pages that will each need simultaneous updates. Other than a cumbersome copy & paste onto each one, is there a better method (batch process) that can accomplish the job?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.nolan4 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a heading because it doesn't look like this is related to the above question. Dismas|^(talk) 14:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either a WP:BOT or someone who uses WP:AWB would be best for this probably. What update needs to be done? Dismas|^(talk) 14:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the material that needs to be updated on all the pages is exactly the same it can be transcluded, then the update only needs to be done on the source page and it will automatically be shown on each of the destination pages. Roger (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried by the phrase "we have" from an editor with 4 edits, three of which appear to have been deleted - who are "we"? - Arjayay (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd it didn't give me an edit conflict - but posted my, later timed, post, before UKexpats - Arjayay (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And who are the "we" that you are referring to?--ukexpat (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, methinks the OP will not respond unfortunately, a quick google of K Nolan Aegis, (because his only contributions, apart from here, were to Aegis Limited (BPO), speedied yesterday under G11), gives us Senior Director and Head of Marketing (Americas).

I would like to know what the 40 pages are, the main company article has been deleted, I tagged PeopleSupport with a G11 as well, the whole thing is just sourced to company press releases, someone might care to take a look at Aegis Global Academy, I gave it a cursory look, but was more concerned by the totally promotional company articles. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 09:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after a bit of rooting about here are some of them, a lot look like they're almost all sourced to the company website/press releases, there must be more, I found the Essar name on the website page that lists Nolan as the Head of Marketing of Aegis, if you check the Essar Group page I would suggest checking to see if the entities listed have their own article, for example I found Equinox Realty in this way.

Here's a partial spambuster list so far, other editors help would be appreciated!

Well that's another ~~ten~~ eleven, most need depuffing or outright deleting, or redirecting to the main article. I doubt that many pass GNG, there are not a lot of RS, mostly company blurb style refs and so on. Feel free to continue the hunt. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZMDI[edit]

Hello,

I am looking for the best way to update my companies Wikipedia page. The company has changed its name several years ago but the old name still appears on as the page title. I also would like to add an image to the page. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated as to the best process to rectify this. This is the URL ZMD and the company is now referred to as ZMDI (www.zmdi.com)

I added a heading to separate this from the above question... which I separated from the above question... Dismas|^(talk) 15:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reference of the renaming of the company other than the company's own website? Technical 13 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The company's own website is an acceptable sourse for uncontroversial information, per WP:SPS. Roger (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that the article passes Wikipedia:CORP, it has no references at all. Care to give it a Wikipedia:BEFORE anyone? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wikipedia's position on WikiTree?[edit]

I recently added an external link from WikiTree Sir Robert Cralle to the article on Sir Gervase Clifton (died 1471), and today an unidentified editor deleted it with the comment that self-published sources can't be used on Wikipedia.[1] I merely added it as an external link; I didn't use it as a cited source for anything in the article. However I did wonder at the time about using it at all, even as an external link, but the name WikiTree gave me the impression that it was something Wikipedia approved of. Can someone explain Wikipedia's position on WikiTree so that I'll know whether to cite anything from it in future as an external link (i.e. not as an RS for anything in an article; merely as an external link). NinaGreen (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Wiki" is often used to describe a website that its users can edit freely - a well known example being Wikipedia itself. The term "Wiki" itself is not owned by wikipedia though, and many websites that use the term are not related to the Wikimedia foundation projects whatsoever. A good example is WikiLeaks which is not related to Wikipedia at all.

I doubt WP has a position on WikiTree as such, but as it is a wiki it is not a reliable source so it cannot be used to cite anything. Using it as an external link would have to be decided on a case by case basis. Just because something has "wiki" in it's name does not mean there is any connection at all to Wikipedia, or even the Wikimedia Foundation. Wiki is simply a type of user-editable website, that is all it means (besides "quick" in the Hawaiian language). Roger (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that - there are different criteria for external links though. In this case i would say that External links to avoid, criteria 12: applies Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. Wikitree seems to be editable by the public and thus classifies as an open Wiki. The "substantial history of stability" part is a bit trickier, but a duck test would lead me to assume it doesn't qualify (There is no Wikipedia page detailing the site, only a handful of pages contain a wikitree link and a reported 73,000 editors since 2008 isn't overly large). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That clears things up! NinaGreen (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make notes when adding a source?[edit]

For example on Elvis Presley's page there is a bit that says "Presley's ancestry was primarily a Western European mix: on his mother's side, he was Scots-Irish, with some French Norman; one of Gladys' great-great-grandmothers was Cherokee." then it has [8]b and when you click the little b it takes you right down to the bottom of the page to a note, how do you make one of these?

Thanks.--Teutonic Man (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE discusses how to add citations in general, while WP:Inline citation discusses inline citations in more specific detail. Hope this helps! Doniago (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you could also check Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners#Using_the_refToolbar, which is an easy, automated way to make references if you are new to the game. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best method I've found is to use the code {{#tag:ref||group="nb"}} I usually change the group name to "Note" by setting |group="Note" rather than nb. This makes the links display Note 1 Note 2, etc. rather than nb 1, nb 2, etc. Your note goes in the middle (between #tag:ref| and |group="nb". The nice thing about doing it this way, is it supports references within the note to support whatever information is included in the note. Then you create a notes section and use {{reflist|group="nb"}}, {{reflist|group="Note"}}, or whatever you decided to give as the group name. Ryan Vesey 16:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically instead of trying to find different books to cite I've found a book that has a lot of stuff that can be used and I could just make notes like [1](the book) then beside it [a] then further down the page [b] etc etc. I'm just all a little confused! :P

Are the the [a] [b] considered 'notes' or 'footnotes'?

I don't want to have like [a] [b] [c] and use different books but rather [a] [b] [c] go to the same one cited referenced book if you know what I mean.

Also what does [nb] mean?

Thanks.--Teutonic Man (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley creates explanatory footnotes by the use of two templates: {{ref}} and {{note}}. If you are editing an article that uses these, then continue. This is the Footnote3 system and has been deprecated for years.
But if you are inserting notes afresh, then please use {{efn}} and {{notelist}}. They use the Footnotes system and are much more robust.
{{#tag:ref||group="nb"}} is overly complicated, more easily implemented by {{refn}} and usually even more easily by {{efn}} and {{notelist}}.
nb means nota bene or note well and is a one abbreviation for a note.

-- Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely new here as you can tell. :( what does 'tl' mean? What do you mean by Footnotes3? What's the difference between that and Footnotes1 and 2?

So if I'm wanting to add into an article a book as a reference so it will be like [1] (I know how to add a reference ^[1] ones, how do I go about adding the [a] and then when you click on it goes down to the footnotes and you can write a bit there and then later on using the same book as a reference make a [b] and write stuff for that too. Sorry if I'm being a nuisance.

Are notes and footnotes the same?

Thanks.--Teutonic Man (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced your <ref>...</ref> with {{dummy ref}}, as it causes errors that I can see since I have that feature turned on. {{tl}} is a template that you can use to show other templates instead of parsing them- click on it to see the documentation. As for notes, click on {{efn}} (explanatory footnotes) and it will give you documentation. I heartily recommend that you read the documentation for each template you use. Copy/paste from other editors uses is how bad uses or errors are propagated. -- Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 18:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the [a] actually called is it a footnote? I'm struggling to notice the difference between 'notes' and 'references', I've seen both used on different Wikipedia pages.

I'm reading the Footnotes page but still struggling with how to create the link where I can use one reference and use a [a] [b] in the page to go down to it.

Argh sorry if I'm being a pain.

Thanks.--Teutonic Man (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I have been confused by this before, apparently there are TWO citing styles used on WP and neither is to be preferred if an article already majorly uses that style. (I rely on other editors to point the OP to the relevant WikiGobbledeGook). I use the <ref></ref> and cite template style (please link relevant template), when you are seeing 1abcde this is usually achieved by using the trick of REFNAME.

A great tool if you want to make really good, referenced, and verifiable, links is this great automated tool (be patient toolserver is having issues atm). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having "References" and "Footnotes" separate is indeed awkward, but we need to be able to have a "Notes" section of the sort that appears here — background comments, which the Notes section here is, should be separated from citations, which the Footnotes section here is. It's especially important for pages like this one at which the background comments are themselves properly sourced, because when all of your notes/footnotes/references/citations are put together into the same section, you can't include citations within citations. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now how to make references quite clearly but what I'm struggling with his how to actually create a 'Notes' section. If one has a 'Footnotes' section will both the notes and references both go into that bit? This is not exactly very easy for a newbie to understand but of course once you get the hang it isn't rocket science!

If one page has 'Citations' is that basically another word for 'References' and 'Footnotes' is just another word for 'Notes'?--Teutonic Man (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ^[1] or ^[a] that appears in the content is called the in-text cite, inline cite, footnote marker or something else depending on which help page you read (attempts to harmonize the name have faialed). This is the link that jumps to the footnote/reference/citation. There is no standard name for the sections for the footnote/reference/citation or for the explanatory notes. -- Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 12:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Former rocket technician[reply]

I've figured out how to use create an [a] or a 'note' or 'footnote' but when you create this note and then want to give the reference to it but the note you wrote appears on two separate pages of the same book how do I create the reference so when you click the reference say [12] it then says dot dot dot pp 15 pp 21 for example.

Thanks.--Teutonic Man (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few corrections - not very important :)[edit]

Hello, Colleagues,

My name is Alexander Soifer, and I have a few suggestions on improving your article about me. Of course, I do not wish to correct anything myself!

1) The article says: In 1991 Soifer founded the research quarterly "Geombinatorics..." Since you have a page about "Geombinatorics," it makes sense to link my bio to that page. (It would be good to list on "Geombinatorics" page its editors.)

2) I am presently President of the World Federation of National Mathematics Competitions (the bio lists my previous position of Vice President). It would be good to add a link to the Federation's web page, which is http://www.amt.edu.au/wfnmc/ .

3) My current count of publications is over 300 articles and 10 books.

4) "The Mathematical Coloring Book: Mathematics of Coloring and the Colorful Life of Its Creators" was in the works for 18 years (not 28), and has been published: Springer, New York, 2009.

5) My courses at the University of Colorado include not only mathematics & European Cinema, but also courses on avant-garde art of the early XX century, Art and culture of Equatorial Africa, and the Art of Animation.

These are just suggestions. I am not asking for anything at all.

Best wishes,

Alexander Soifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.10.150 (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Soifer, you may wish to offer your advice on the talk page for your article, where it is most likely to be noticed by someone interested in updating and correcting your article. Also, it is not "against the rules" for you to edit the article yourself as long as you do so from a WP:NPOV and declare that there may be a WP:COI using at least one of the available templates. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan header removal[edit]

Hey guys, how can i remove the orphan tag from Chrome Cats ? I linked it to a few other pages so it's no longer and oprhan, but the tag still remains. Please help me take it off, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joehillliman (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Orphan tag, ran citebot, and wikEd fixed the page formatting a little. Technical 13 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put the orphan tag back - there is only one incoming link from another article - Pop duo, which is itself nothing more than a listcruft page. Orphan tags belong on articles with less than three such links. Roger (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see Wikipedia:Orphan.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... which makes it clear that the orphan tag belongs only on an article with no incoming links, so the removal was correct. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression from the OP that he may have been confused about Wikipedia's meaning of "orphan". He says he "linked it to a few other pages", but of course "orphan" refers to the absence of any links from other articles. I'll remind the OP of the difference, in case he doesn't see it here. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

The notability of the subject is doubtful, there are no WP:RS cites. Roger (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music Notability says that the group needs to be featured on major music Chart. The groups single was featured on the billboard charts, as well as magazine publications/national radio rotation making them credible. Also featured on United Airlines. I don't see why it's in the criteria of not being notable when it's notable according to the guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joehillliman (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those claims are cited from reliable sources, if you can add such sources it would resolve the problem. Roger (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's stated here Wikipedia:Notability_(music) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joehillliman (talk • contribs) 08:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article needs more changes/edits, please help me out/show me how to do them. I just don't see how the article "May not meet wiki's general notability guidelines" when they've been featured on major publications/radio, notable according to Wikipedia:Notability_(music) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joehillliman (talk • contribs) 09:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem is that all of the references on the article are from the the group itself or it's label. Take for example the claim that it featured on a Billboard chart, it is referenced to the record company's website, which is not an independent source. It would be better to rather cite the Bilboard website, which is an independent source. Similarly with the other claims, reference independent sources as far as possible rather than the group or it's label. Roger (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... How did this discussion go from "Do any other Wikipedia pages link here or is it an orphan" to "How notable is the page and should it even be on the wiki"? I may be out of line, but I think everyone should try to stay on topic. Dodger67 (not sure why your signature doesn't follow WP:SIG#confusing, but I digress), if you think the page isn't notable, tag it as such and nominate it for deletion. I would love to discuss it as well and offer input, but I feel that it wouldn't be tasteful to do so here. Thank you and happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sub-heading to demarcate the shift in the topic. We could continue to discuss it at the article talk page if you wish, but as far as I'm concerned I'm pretty much done with the matter anyway - I've given advice about using secondary reliable sources to prove notability.

I fear you have missed my point. The appropriate forum for such a discussion would be on a proper WP:AfD page (WP:Articles for deletion/Chrome Cats more specifically), and not here at the help desk. If someone was to bring it up there, I would likely support the deletion. Technical 13 (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using this signature for almost seven years, you are the first person ever to be confused by it - "Roger" is my real first name. Roger (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have been using it for a long time, and I may be the first person that has ever told you I was confused by it; that does not explicitly imply no-one else ever has. Either way, this isn't the forum to discuss that either. I just wanted you to be aware that it was confusing to me, and if you decide to change it based on that, that is great. If not, so be it. Technical 13 (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I hope I'm not now confusing everyone who until now have recognised me simply as "Roger", but as they say in the classics "rules is rules". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it. I kept going to User:Roger and thinking you were a "Software architect living in France." who hasn't edited since 02:56, April 9, 2002. Huh, wait a minute...

Also, maybe of note, but probably not, there was a post on that user's talk page 4 years ago that may have been for you and missed. Technical 13 (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info. Now that i've added a more credible reference, can the "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline" be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joehillliman (talk • contribs) 18:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say probably not. They don't look notable to me, and I couldn't find any sources to lead me to believe possibly otherwise. Find some more reliable sources, and I'd do it quickly if I were you. I'm sure that someone is itching to nominate it for deletion. Technical 13 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how it can be nominated for deletion when it's notable according to Wikipedia:Notability_(music) . They're on the billboard charts as well as magazine press/national radio. One of the references is the actual billboard website. Billboard is the biggest music chart in the world, if a group is featured on billboard it's fair to say they are definitely notable. New Music Weekly & Music Connection are also some of the references as well. Surely, are mentions on Magazines & Billboard not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joehillliman (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only notable source there is the Billboard 40 IMHO, and on that reference they are not listed in the top 40, but instead as an "INDICATOR HIGHLIGHTS" - This does not lead to notability... Technical 13 (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to [[Wikipedia:Notability_(music)]] If they have (1) "Been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable" & (2) "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" ; They are considered notable. The 'Indicator highlights' is a section of the Billboard charts, on the billboard website. You must have major radio play in order to be featured on it. Also, it's listed that if the artist/group (3) "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart", they are notable. They have features on publications Music Connection, New Music Weekly, Billboard. I can't understand why having features in these big publications can be looked at as being not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joehillliman (talk • contribs) 20:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe you are actually misreading Wikipedia:Notability_(music) The second sentence of the second paragraph of the page says, "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Also under the header "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" it says "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:" (emphasis on may is mine). These are guidelines for what may be notable, not what is notable. GB fan 20:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else "may" agree with you, I do not however. Sorry. Technical 13 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, do you not agree that Wikipedia:Notability_(music) says the things I quoted or do you not agree that it should say those things? GB fan 20:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that Chrome Cats meets the requirements that Joe mentions. From what I could see of what was on the sources, they were only mentioned in passing. Technical 13 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GB, Technical was telling me that he doesn't see the article as notable. I was saying they match the criteria of 3 things on the Wikipedia:Notability_(music) page. I don't see why the page would need to be thought of being deleted. That should definitely add some notability. If an artist/group is even mentioned on Billboard, the biggest music source in the industry, that is a very notable thing.

Sorry Technical, I thought you were responding to me that you did not agree with what I was saying. The only criteria that really counts is if there is significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. I have not reviewed the article or looked for sources so I can not comment on that but if they are not there being mentioned on a chart does not make the group notable. GB fan 21:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. They are featured on some major magazines as well as radio/press/major newspapers so I think that should add to notability as well. As a matter of fact, almost all of the referenced links they are featured on (Press) have their own Wiki pages. They are reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joehillliman (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they have been featured in some major magazines and newspapers that is what you need to establish notability. If they are online find links if not you will need to have information about the Magazine name, article name, author, edition, page numbers so that others can look up the information. GB fan 22:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated & put the links to some of them in the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joehillliman (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and Contents Box[edit]

I am creating a new article on the author Nicholas Basbanes (User:Dnikkir/Nicholas A. Basbanes) and I am just stuck trying figure out how to insert an Infobox. Doing this and confirming that I will get a Contents box are all I feel I need do before I can (finally) submit this article. I have read the instructions about finding the source for the page for an Infobox and I can't seem to get it. Can someone please walk me through this in an elementary way without any jargon? Thanks so much.Dnikkir (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of adding an unfilled Template:Infobox writer for your page that you will just have to fill in. I also cleaned up some minor formating errors and ran the citation bot to clean up your references. I hope that all helps and Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Table of Contents is automagically added as soon as there are more than three section headings. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It already has a TOC Dodger67. It also now has an infobox and an image and it is almost ready for a request to be moved into (article) once there are a few more reliables sources verifying notability. :) Technical 13 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Little Einsteins episodes[edit]

There is a wonderful page missing. Someone put alot of work into entering in every disney episode form this show linked to it's classical music and art. The page seems to have been removed? The link still exists in the main Little Einsteins show page to the episode breakdown article, but you never make it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.231.103 (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That page seems to have had a very colorful history. It seems like the main page wasn't so large that the listing had to be pulled out and put on a separate page and it was mostly merged into the main article. Technical 13 (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]