Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243

reference to cite??

Hey, guys!

so i don't get why i have to convert reference to cite. is there a way for that to happen automatically, maybe?

thanks so much for your help everyone! xo. Sarah312x (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah312x. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "converting reference to 'cite'", but perhaps you find the answer you're looking for in Help:Referencing for beginners. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah312x. Looking at your contributions, your prior edit was in Draft:Prestige Economics with the edit summary "i have changed the references to cite". There's a number of good reasons why we want to convert bare URLs to inline citations. AFAIK, the perfect semi-automatic solution has yet to be invented, but we do have reFill that will help to some extent. You can either open https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/ and paste the title of the article/draft into the Page name textbox. Or you can install a toolbox link by following the instruction here. I ran reFill on this draft, and as you can see there's still a lot of fields that need to be filled in manually. An alternative to reFill that sometimes gives slightly better citations, but does not run in batch mode, is Citer (formerly known as Yadcard). Sam Sailor 12:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was when I add a reference through "<ref> tag", I have to switch to the visual editor and click on the "cite" to get it into the proper format. Why? Is there no way to directly add it in that format from the source editor? Also, it seems like when i add a reference in the source editor, unlike other pages, they don't show up in the reflist section under references until I switch to the visual editor or publish the changes. Marchjuly I did try looking at the referencing for beginners page but I can't find anything that describes or tells me how to solve this. i really like to know because it's making editing pages really confusin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x (talk • contribs) 03:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah312x, you can add <ref>...</ref> citations through the source editor using code like this: <ref>{{cite web|url=...|title=...}}</ref>. You can use the code that VisualEditor put in as a reference (no pun intended).

You say that references you add through the source editor don't show up in the references section. Could you make an edit to your draft and show us? I can't figure out why that might happen. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is QCRACK notable?

QCrack was a program released in 1997 as a crack for the software iD STUFF, packaged with their incredibly popular CD releases of Wolfenstein 3D, Quake, and Doom, to name a few. I consider it notable because it rendered iD Software's shareware discs as collections of iD Soft's games, considering on the Quake CD alone you could get at least five games (I haven't thoroughly researched this topic yet). The problem is that I'm not sure it's notable: Very few people are talking about it, there are only a couple forum posts about it, and none are considered reliable sources. I wrote an article about it on Instant Floppy, too, so is this also a conflict of interest? P.S., I'm a n00b to Wikipedia editing so tips and tricks are welcome too :) RandomGuyDTB (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RandomGuyDTB. Based on a quick search, I would tend to think that it is not, since all hits are in forums, blogs etc., which is probably nothing unexpected for "warez" topics, but it means there are no reliable sources out there.

However, I could easily be proven wrong. Since you use the term "notable", I suppose you have some knowledge of our policy about notability? If you can find a newspaper article (it could be a pre-internet newspaper) from a decent publisher (not a college newspaper, but a niche publication will do), it would be a great source. Otherwise, I would think it is not notable.

As for the last part of your post: you do not have a WP:COI regarding QCrack itself (unless you were part of its creation), though you do have a COI regarding the article you wrote. For instance, you should not include your own article as a source without signalling to other editors (via the talk page, not inside the Wikipedia article itself!) that you have that COI, and you should certainly not lavish praise on yourself for demonstrating the sharpest mind and finer pen with that article. That is common sense, of course, but all editors do not have it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, Tigraan. I'm new to making articles, so I made sure to read the related instructions and such, but you're right that I should have definitely gone more in-depth with my research and looked more into possible COI concerns. Thanks very much for the input! RandomGuyDTB (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New to editing/creating articles, please advise reason for declined submission

Hello, I'm trying to get into writing and editing, and figured I'd pick a random topic to create a Wikipedia page for. I noticed Sunbelt Rentals did not have a page (link to the draft here).

Now I know it is a "rough draft" but I was hoping other people might also contribute to it as I continue to add to it.

The reason it was declined is: Straightforward advertising and product placement for a non-notable tool hire business.

How is a 2.4 billion dollar company that's been around since the 80's a non-notable business? I guess I don't understand. I do not care if the page is necessarily added, I just want to know what I did or didn't do correctly to get it approved. It's all factual, not really sure how it's seen as advertising - it seems very straightforward to me.

If you can give me some tips on how to correctly add future Wikipedia articles, that would be much appreciated. Bobbybuzz (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbybuzz: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft does not have independent reliable sources with in depth coverage of this business, that indicate how it meets the notability guidelines for businesses. It doesn't matter if it's worth 2.4 billion or two dollars and forty cents. The sources you provide do not offer in depth coverage of this business itself. The source about its acquisition is little more than a press release detailing a routine business transaction, which the guidelines specifically call out as an inappropriate source. Another simply confirms its sponsorship of an event.

Now that said, a valuable business that has been around awhile is probably more likely to have appropriate sources, but they need to be provided and be within Wikipedia guidelines. If you haven't already, please review Your First Article to learn what is being looked for in new articles. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobbybuzz -- You picked a tough subject area for your first article. I got bounced twice early in my career for writing about companies. Have some patience. Ask yourself, would you expect to pick up the Encyclopedia Britannica and see an article about Sunbelt? Perhaps if all the machines were rented for free in a new business model, or were all self-driving. As it is, the Sunbelt article is as long as Ashtead Group. Better you should add this article to Ashtead Group instead of fighting for a separate article. Rhadow (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request from User:Devzboi1

I reviewed a sandbox, which I moved to Draft:David M. Daniel, and declined it as not meeting musical notability. User:Devzboi1 then wrote to my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=823693962&oldid=823658162 I am not sure, but I think that the editor is asking me to do paid editing to improve their submitted article, presumably to advance their career. Can someone else please explain to them diplomatically but clearly that that is not what Wikipedia is for? Or can someone explain to me what they are asking for? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Devzboi1. Wikipedia isn't here to promote any individual or their career, and generally only covers topics once they have received sustained in depth coverage in published sources that meet our standards for reliability, usually things like newspapers, magazines and books, and excluding things like blogs, and social media. If you have not yet had this type of coverage, and it does not appear that you have, then it is too soon for you to have a Wikipedia article, and things will have to wait until you do. GMG ^talk 02:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't assume that "i need professional help" means they are offering to pay. Many people say "professional" about somebody thought to be experienced or knowledgeable, or the user may think you are paid by Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:PrimeHunter, User:Devzboil - If they just mean that they need experienced or knowledgeable help, then should that help still consist of explaining diplomatically that Wikipedia is not a means for them to advance their career? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Devzboi1 -- Put another way: David M. Daniel may be a musician; Soundcloud proves that. Unless and until a third party writes about him, he is not notable. Wikipedia doesn't make him notable, and won't. He needs to be discovered in the press. Then you can put references to the article, then it will stick. Until then, the article is rejected.

The English language is wonderful in its ambiguity. Professional can mean paid, or it can just mean qualified. A paid editor (something WP doesn't like) would make the situation worse. A qualified editor could help improve the quality of the writing, but cannot provide references unless they exist already.Rhadow (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone authenticate or help me in authenticating a signature of Mike Reiss, writer for The Simposns that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for me, although I know it is real?

I got Mike Reiss to sign one of his books that I bought of his called City of Hamburgers that I got signed by him in 2012 at the Wheeler Opera House in Aspen, Colorado following an event where he spoke. I know the signature is real, but I would like if someone could authenticate it or help me in authenticating it along with what I have said so that there is no dispute of it's aithenticity as all I can do myself is say it is real, which some may think could easily be a lie. I uploaded a png and jpg version of the signature at 250px and 250px under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International licenses. The image I took with my iPhone 6, then uploaded to my computer, cropped and then removed the background from the signature to make it have a transparent background. Can someone authenticate or help me authenticate this signature from 2012 of Mike Reiss so that there is no dispute it is fake? All I can do to authenticate it myself is say it is real, which could be disputed by some as only a claim with no proof to back it up. I can share the original non cropped and background removed image or take other images of the signature if needed as I still own and have the book the signature is in, that is still today, in nearly the same quality as when I got the book signed. Greshthegreat (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The advice at WP:Signatures of living persons includes the following: "Signatures of living persons, in general, should only be displayed in articles when a person has published their own signature, and reliable secondary sources reproduce the signature." --David Biddulph (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised that you uploaded the signature, Greshthegreat. I would have assumed that, even though the book is yours, the author would retain copyright in both the text and the signature? Dbfirs 08:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can signatures be copyrighted? My intuition is that they would be too simple. GMG ^talk 12:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag is what Commons has to say about things. It in part depends on the legal jurisdiction. Thincat (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures are generally copyright in British law, but this author isn't British, so I think you can safely ignore my opinion expressed above. Dbfirs 15:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this situation do you think the signature is real and that of Mike Reiss? And what are you thinking is the legality of it? I want to use it on Wikipedia on the page for Mike Reiss, but want to make sure I am using it legally and correctly on Wikipedia. Each responce has lead the discussion closer to an answer, but non has been reached yet. What should I do with the signature so I am using it legally and properly on Wikipedia? Greshthegreat (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Greshthegreat. My understanding is that owning the original signature is largely moot. If you can't verify it using another source, then you probably shouldn't use it. If you can, then you don't really need the original in your possession to begin with. GMG ^talk 15:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't read the answer I gave earlier? The long answer is at WP:Signatures of living persons#Inclusion, noting that all 4 criteria would need to be satisfied; the short answer is "No, you can't use it in a Wikipedia article." --David Biddulph (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should I go straight to ANI with this?

I recently reverted a series of edits by Ehipassiko2 (talk · contribs), and left a message on their talk page because of two edits that appeared to me to indicate an intent to insert a link to malware in the |url= param of a {{cite web}} reference they added to an article. There's been no discussion yet. I still assume good faith, and had there been only one such edit, I would wait for their TP response. But, given that malware was involved, and that the second edit seemed to confirm the first, I'm not sure if waiting is a good idea. The fact that in every other way, the edits appear to be constructive, is either a mitigating factor, or else very clever camouflage: while investigating it, I reverted myself twice at the article while trying to disentangle it. Not sure if this requires rapid intervention at ANI, or whether we should just wait and see. I'm concerned if there was bad intent, they could carry on at other articles, where it might not be seen. Should I go straight to ANI with this? For details, see User talk:Ehipassiko2#January 2018. Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mathglot. Although I am an administrator, I lack the technical skills to fully evaluate the case that you are making. However, the potential for harm and damage to Wikipedia's reputation is real, based on your description. Therefore, I believe that a report to ANI is appropriate, to draw the attention of administrators with the appropriate skills and experience. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen: Thank you for your advice. Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Posted here. Mathglot (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the web page and this is almost certainly a heuristic misfire on the obfuscated code at the top. I haven't attempted to deobfuscate this but this sort of false positive is a common occurrance with many antivirus programs.

ZephyrP (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting an LTA page

How long does it normally take for an LTA page to get deleted once someone has stopped vandalizing Wikipedia?73.32.209.164 (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anon. The answer really is that if there was an answer we probably wouldn't tell anyone anyway. GMG ^talk 15:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Assessment

Hello, so I believe I have improved the History of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa article, but it would be nice to what I could do to further improve the article. I would like to request an assessment for the article, but I am unsure how to do so. BreadBuddy (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At 35,000 bytes and 40 citations it is far better than the current Stub ranking. If you feel conflicted about changing that to Start or C-class yourself, you could start a new section at the article's Talk, asking other editors to do the reassignment. The unasked question is, do you want to try for Good Article? In that case, you nominate, someone else accepts responsibility of review, and you have to improve the article to meet their requests. The "to do" list on your User page calls for getting articles to GA - could this be one?David notMD (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help on getting article approved

Dear all,

I am new to this field, so any help would be greatly appreciated! On the wiki article I am submitting, I was given the feedback: You should include prominent sources and work in the format of the submission. The wiki page is Draft:Kai Lossgott. Can anyone please explain what is needed here?

Nlatoyas (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nlatoyas -- Do not be discouraged. The Wikipedia process just takes time. A cursory examination turns up a few things that would have slowed an instantaneous review: (1) It is your first and only article. You are known as a WP:SPA. Flag one. (2) More references are not always better than a couple of very strong ones. Of nineteen references, half or more are either written by the subject or are some kind of listing including the subject. For an artist, the important references are art reviews. Flag two. (3) Lists of works do not confer notability, unless the elements of the list are covered by critics or academic works. Flag three. (4) (Although I may not be the right judge here) The flowery language describing works is likely to interpreted as promotional (WP:PROMO). Rhadow (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that Rhadow is being unduly optimistic here. "The Wikipedia process just takes time" – no. It takes good references to establish that the subject is notable. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I haven't checked all the sources cited in Draft:Kai Lossgott, but I see that many of them are the subject's own work, and one of them, currently numbered 10, has no mention of the subject. I agree with Rhadow on points (2) (3) and (4). Maproom (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Rhadow and Maproom: Thank you for your kind words! I will continue chipping away at the entry to get it into shape. I am going to cut down significantly on all references that appear weak. There are a few very important references, which I think are extremely notable in that they come from international art critics and art reviewers local to the Johannesburg art scene. My concern is: How do I show that they are notable. Does the reviewer do a search online to view the art critics’ profiles? Unfortunately, to my knowledge, none of these articles are double-blind peer reviewed.

(3) Lists of works do not confer notability, unless the elements of the list are covered by critics or academic works. To address this, I will be adding links in which well respected art critics discuss specific works. Will this help? The flowery language describing works is likely to interpreted as promotional. This one is a bit more complex. My training in history of art taught us to be descriptive in how we explain an artwork, albeit using a concise and neutral tone with no indication of bias. Does the entry border on too flowery, or is it passable? Thank you for your time and patience!

Nlatoyas (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to italicize article title

Hello,

I've finished a draft article in my sandbox and would like to publish it to the mainspace. However, since it is about a book the article title needs to be italicized and I can't find how to do this. The draft is in my sandbox for reference. Grateful if you could help me out with this.

Cheers, Gazelle55 (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazelle55: Welcome to the Teahouse! Is: (Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment) what you need italicized? (Plus: You should submit your draft for review before publishing it to avoid getting the article deleted)Thegooduser talk 21:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser:, thanks, I'll make sure to submit it for review. Regarding what I wanted to put in italics, I wasn't sure whether to use the whole title or just (Why Buddhism is True) for the article title. On the one hand, there's no other article close to it and the article for his book The Moral Animal doesn't use the sub-title, but on the other hand, the full title could reduce the risk of any confusion. I was leaning toward only (Why Buddhism is True). Gazelle55 (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gazelle55. I moved your well-referenced draft to main space, as Why Buddhism is True. Because you used the infobox for books, the title is automatically italicized.You did a good job. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination of David Meade (author)

I'm planning to nominate my article I created about conspiracy theorist David Meade. Do you think he fits under "Philosophy and religion", "Physics and astronomy" or any of the "Culture, sociology, and psychology" categories? He did made a prediction about a mythological planet known as Nibiru to destroy Earth and he did claimed to be raised as a Catholic, while some call him as a Christian numerologist. He did also claimed to study astronomy in college (on his website on a Washington Post news source). Which one of the GA categories do you think he fits under? --LovelyGirl7 talk 22:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of David Meade's predictions are the most important part of the article, the article should be nominated under Culture, sociology, and psychology. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 23:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Luis150902: Thank you. --LovelyGirl7 talk 23:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer/copy a Swedish Wikipedia page to English

Hello, I am placey33 and recently submitted a page for Summer Rose (American Musician) that was declined for a variety of reasons. I am working on the references, cleaning up the external links, and establishing notoriety in an effort to resubmit it. A page for Summer Rose already exists in Swedish https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_Rose. Since that had already been reviewed, approved and published, is there a way to transfer/copy to English so I can make proper edits to that rather than start anew? Thanks! Placey33 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Placey33: The page you linked to has only one sentence and no references. RudolfRed (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Placey33. The essential building blocks of an acceptable Wikipedia article are references to significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources. The article should summarize what those cited sources say. You draft lacks references, so it is not acceptable. The three sentence Swedish article also lacks references, so any translation of it is also unacceptable. What leads you to believe that this Swedish article has been "reviewed" and "approved"? It looks to me like somebody just plunked that article into Swedish Wikipedia, and I sincerely doubt that any experienced editor reviewed and approved it. So, your challenge is clear: provide references to coverage in reliable, independent sources that demonstrate that this person meets our notability guideline for musical performers. That comes first, and everything else is secondary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. Please pardon my use of the terms "reviewed" and "approved" - I made the (incorrect) assumption that all articles that have made it into publication have gone through these processes. Thanks again for your input - my next step is clear! Placey33 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention that if you do ever translate a Wikipedia article from another language, Placey33, it is important to give credit to the source article. Instructions are available at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new user

since I am new user please advice me steps to add article to wikipediaRaosaheb More (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Raosaheb More: Hi Raosaheb More, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'd recommend you start with this page and then read this guide on creating your first article - TNT^❤ 12:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piped Redirect Gadget

Hello,

I was wondering if there is a tool or gadget that allows you to check a page's wiki links and piped redirects to see if any are incorrect or not redirecting properly. Thanks, Jmnbqb (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to Preferences – Gadgets – Browsing, and enable Navigation popups, you can hover over any wikilink to see the first few lines of the article it links to. Does that help? Maproom (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out. Thanks, Jmnbqb (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics section of Illinois

Dear Fellow Wikipedians... I'd like to slightly expand the section on demographics in the article of Illinois with a number of sources. Would it be OK to say "Illinois has had a long history of losing its residents to other states. The most common reasons for this are job loss, the highest property taxes in the nation, weather, unionism, crime, education, unemployment, and the state's budget stalemate. The state's residents say it sucks to live in Illinois, in which it was ranked number 1 in residents who desire to flee the state. Many Gallup polls have reported that half of the state's population wants to leave. It is also reported to be the second most hated state in the U.S. after California. It has had a rate of population loss ranging from 1 person every 4.6 to 10 minutes. A study by United Van Lines has reported that it has been in yellow, meaning high outbound, since 1978. A couple who moved to North Carolina from Illinois created a website to help Illinoisans move out of their state. Michael Lucci, the vice president of the Illinois Policy Institute, said that working people and people who want jobs are fleeing the state. Due to its proximity in the Rust Belt, the state's unfriendly business climate makes it one of the top leaving destinations in the U.S. Illinois has lost residents to almost every other state in the nation." Here are some references to support what I'd like to add:

I have already posted a message to the Talk:Illinois about this, but no comments yet. I'm posting here because other editors might feel this is too much detail. Comments welcome please! Colman2000 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Colman2000. Your proposed edit seems to be pushing a point of view, using non-neutral language like "it sucks to live in Illinois" and "the second most hated state in the U.S. after California". That is advocacy language because a neutral encyclopedia would never say that anything "sucks" and "hated" is harsh language since most Americans (and other observers) can see both positives and negatives in all 50 states. As a Californian, I have heard such heated rhetoric about my state for decades as our economy has boomed and our population has grown. Please avoid using unreliable sources like blogs, Patch, advocacy websites and especially the websites of moving van companies, who profit when people move from a state, or move to a state. You cannot mention "many" Gallup polls without citing the actual polls. It is not at all surprising or informative to learn that some residents of Illinois may have moved to any of the other 49 states or may have retired to other countries. Some even move to California and are not masochists. This is normal. Reliable sources for demographic changes would be articles written by demographers and published in academic journals, or in-depth articles in respected newspapers and magazines with reputations for accuracy, fact checking and error correction. You have a lot of work to do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colman2000: I would add to Cullen's very good response that the innocuous sounding "Illinois Policy Institute" or its leader is hardly an unbiased source of information, being a conservative think tank as its opinions have no relevance to neutral information. It would never be accepted as a neutral source of information. Any information about demographic changes or movement of citizens must be from neutral sources. Please read about neutral point of view. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I have to disagree with you, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources specifically says "Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone", also Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources backs this up and states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". A fuller discussion is at Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources.rgds --88.104.156.90 (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that there are circumstances where such sources would be acceptable, but not in the circumstances the OP described. 331dot (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: and @331dot: Thank you for the input. I will not add these. Cheers to both of you! Colman2000 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boots Tyner Handmade Porcelian Dolls

I collect and restore vintage dolls. In my collection I have porcelain vintage doll I was having trouble Identifying because she had no markings. So I tried google. after several searches I came across a doll forum which led me to an obituary about Bootsie Calliou Tyner in Texas. I was able to find the name of her company. I could now google the company name. Finally I was able to look trough mages of her many dolls, and found one that matched my doll. if it hadn't been for this obituary I may have never learned the history of my very beautiful doll. This woman had so many accomplishments, but her name was not well know unless you lived in Texas. So I would like to write an article on Boots "Bootsie" Tyner, among her other accomplishments, started making dolls, and was the sole doll artist for Boots Tyner Originals. Her most famous doll “Sugar Britches” is an icon in the doll industry.

Do you think this would be a good article to ad to wikipedia.Mimi'scloset (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's notable enough to be an article, see Wikipedia:Notability for more information. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving video links

Hello, What method is recommended to archive video links? I a talking about news reports that have been uploaded on the official channel of a television station. Thanks, --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham: perhaps use the url and access-date parameters of Template:Cite news? Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rotideypoc41352, but I was referring to a way that you can archive a link with video on it. I am aware of the citation templates.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your ideas would be most welcome

Please see

Draft:Ealing_Art_Guild

The reviewer in December said there was confusion between footnote and citations. Fair enough. I thought I had made that distinction clear by the time I resubmitted the article, but apparently not.

Any thoughts on how to resolve this issue pleased. I’m keen to get this article approved.

Thanks. John. Jgdc47B (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a good job of separating the footnotes from the references. But I suspect you still need to cite sources to establish that the subject is notable. You must use reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. I've checked all the sources cited in the draft that I can on-line, and I find that no. 1 is the subject's own web site, and so not independent; while 2,3,6,7,8,12,13 and 15 don't even mention the subject. Maproom (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the text in your draft strikes me as original research, Jgdc47B. For example, "The original list, in the meeting minutes, did not include given names. The identities and addresses of some participants have been derived from the 1911 census". Who is doing that deriving? If it is you rather than a source, then it doesn't belong in the article (if it is a source, then its needs attribution). Similarly, the footnote "Could have been one of three daughters (Constance, Kate Ruskin or Phyllis), all of whom had exhibited at the Woman’s Exhibition, Earls Court in 1900" is speculative and doesn't appear to be based on a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maproom and Cordless Larry. You've given me something to mull over. Jgdc47B (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is a "when" citation needed and how do I do it?

Hello. I am quite a novice at Wikipedia but keen to learn. Quick question. The Broadcaster section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Williams_(singer)#Broadcaster asks for a "when" reference in the first line:

Williams currently[when?] hosts the weekly musical biography show The Legends of Las Vegas

The citation at the end of the sentence shows that it is still current. How should I answer the previous editors "when" question? I tried to add today's date with: Template:Date= 5 February 2018 but that didn't work.

What should I do?

Thanks. Bosents (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bosents. Well, the overarching rule of thumb is that you generally want to avoid time-limited statements in Wikipedia articles, because it's possible, but comparatively difficult to tell exactly when that portion of the article was last updated. (See also WP:RELTIME.) So you wouldn't want to say something like Sarah recently received an award for best person named Sarah in a motion picture since by the time someone reads it, that "recent event" might be quite a ways in the past.

Using "currently hosts" is a little bit redundant, since "hosts" is present tense and so necessarily implies it was current as of the writing. We do use time limited wording in the sense of verb tense, because it's just necessary in English. (See also MOS:TENSE.)

But one solution would be to add a hidden comment using  to show when the information is current as of. So for example you could put Williams hosts the weekly musical biography show The Legends of Las Vegas . This hidden comment would only be visible to someone editing the page, and would not be seen by readers, but it would help to give an indication to editors when this information might need updating. Hope this helps. GMG ^talk 13:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bosents: another option if you want the date to be visible to the reader is to use "{{As of|2018|2|5}} Williams hosts the..." The advantage of using this template over just writing the words is that the template will also add an article to the appropriate hidden sub-category of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Great advice and I will amend now. Bosents (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is declined twice / reviewers comment overlooked

Hi,

When my submission Draft:Bart_Cassiman was rejected the first time the reviewer added a comment for the next reviewer to look in the field 'Further Reading' as well as the field 'Sources' to get a full overview of the (needed) secondary sources. However, the article is once again declined because there are not enough secondary sources although there are more than 40 in said 'Further Reading' section. Can someone help me to get this article accepted, as it is well documented it feels it can be a real addition to the Wikipedia encyclopedia?

All my bests.

NG 1989 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NG 1989 -- I looked, briefly. Strip all the mentions of other artists with whom Cassiman shared a show. Strip all the primary sources. All that is left is, "He curated ..." "He was responsible for..." This guy is an artist. I see nothing that says "Noted critic Hohenzollern calls Cassiman 'a gift to his generation.'" The closest is, "Without any doubt one can say that he was one of the most active and energized persons of the artworld between the mid-eighties and the end of the nineties." Without a reference, I would say that is a very bold claim that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. By the way, about one can say, please read WP:WEASEL. Rhadow (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SOOOOO much of the content in the draft is not about him. Naming the artists he included in various shows does not make him (or them) notable. David notMD (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response Rhadow. The person who this article is about is not an artist. He is an exhibition maker, in that sense it is important to leave in the artists names, because that gives meaning to the exhibition he made. I will edit the bold claim about 'one of the most active and energized persons', this is perhaps too much... Can I address someone to 'quickly' review and accept it when edited with these remarks? This has been on review since the beginning of autumn so I'd like to finish it.

All my best.

--NG 1989 (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how to appeal a deletion

After unsuccessfully searching for a particular entry, in order to update it, I found this:

07:05, 11 December 2017 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Robert Raven Kraft (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I tried to contact Jimfbleak through his talk page, but I couldn't figure out how to initiate correspondence.

Please point me in the right direction to get this page restored.

Thanks, Flyseawing Flyseawing (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. On Jimfbleak's user talk page, if you want to start a new conversation you can use the tab labelled "New section" at the top of the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flyseawing. Because I am an administrator, I could read the deleted article. In my opinion, the article was "unambiguous advertising or promotion", since it included this sentence: "His biography was recently released: Running with Raven: The Amazing Story of One Man, His Passion, and the Community He inspired, by Laura Lee Huttenbach, is available in hardback and audiobook at Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, and your local bookstore." We simply do not allow that type of content on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the promotional line should be deleted, but can't the rest of the entry stand on its own? There are close to 3000 people who have participated in the Raven Run and I'm sure there is interest in keeping the statistics current.

Can you send me the text of the entry, I'll delete the unambiguous advertising or promotion and resubmit it?

Thanks, Flyseawing2600:1700:B860:B820:EDB3:B28B:2AF0:E587 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flyseawing. I'm afraid that "keeping the statistics current", however laudable or useful that might be, is absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia. What Wikipedia articles do is to summarise what independent commentators have published about a subject: nothing more. I've no idea what the statistics are that you are talking about, but unless independent commentators have written about them, they probably shouldn't be in an article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see that no one here cares about anything except exercising their power to lord over the subordinates. At this point, all I care to do is to unleash a diatribe of profanity, but since the subject is not all that important, I'll just use this as a reason to stop all my contributions to this organization, and use my influence among my peers so they do likewise.

Thanks for nothing, Flyseawing2600:1700:B860:B820:D0B0:263E:A9B2:BB7F (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is there a notability problem?

I submitted this draft Draft:BAJAJ Dominar 400 yesterday and was rejected on grounds of notability. The reviewer did not leave any comment as well. I have given 8 references of which 7 are independent,neutral and reliable. Please explain what exactly is wrong with my draft. I'm bewildered. Stark13 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stark13. One of your references just has specs and directs readers to dealers. I get security warnings when I try to visit two of the references. Some are forums or blog posts. So, your references are very weak. Also, they are presented as bare URLs, and instead should have full bibliographic details. See Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Thanks for pointing them out. I have fixed security warning issue and wrong URL that was directing readers to dealers. There are 3 references which are complete reviews of bike and 3 only spec sheets for info box. Everything is there for a purpose. Also replaced the blog with a newspaper article. Regarding "TeamBHP", they are auto reviewer+forum. Only the editors of that website can post a review on any bike/car. They are equivalent to AutoCar/TopGear/Overdrive etc. I had mentioned about this in "invisible comment" but the reviewer didn't pay attention to it. Also,can you please make those URLs complete? because my mobile view does not give me those options. Anything else that needs to be fixed?ThanksStark13 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, Stark13, but that TeamBHP review is a forum post by an anonymous contributor using IronH4WKas their handle. Reliable sources are signed by real people with their real names, and have a professional editorial staff. You can use the fully functional desktop site on a mobile phone so that you can reference things properly. I do over 95% of my editing on an Android phone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Rabbits (podcast)

I looked at Draft: Rabbits (podcast) and asked whether it satisfied web notability, but didn't answer the question and don't have a definite opinion. Will other editors please take a look and comment? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel satisfied that the article passes GNG in the slightest. Referencing is bare, and dubious in terms of RS's. Don't feel that there is notability just yet. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Noah Mark

I reviewed Draft:Noah Mark and declined it, but was asked by its author to re-review it. I see that they are commenting at my talk page that IMDB is the industry standard for credits in entertainment. It may be, but it is also my understanding that it is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. I would appreciate other comments, but the draft looks to me like a directory entry only, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Also, the draft is an autobiography, and Wikipedia discourages those, and in years of reviewing input at AFC, I can recall one that both satisfied notability and seemed neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guidelines for reliable sources, IMDB is only OK for external links - not referencing, as it is user-generated. Also, I feel that almost any autobiographical article will fail WP:COI, and that draft does not appear to be the exception to the rule. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, it certainly appears to me that recent Arbcom case on PAID says that autobiographies from people who are in fields where increased name recognition equates to a greater potential earnings figure are now subject to WP:PAID, not just COI. Not sure if this is a factor here. John from Idegon (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon Can you post a link to that case? That sounds like a difficult scenario to prove. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Article Insight

Hi! I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and have just written my second article ever on my draft page. Would anyone mind taking a look at it and offering feedback before I submit it for review? I appreciate it! Hwilson51 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decent job. While I cannot formally review, there seems to be a broad, varied, and reliable body of sources to establish notability. My only concern is the direct relation of this draft to your first article. It seems as though there is a strong overlap, possibly making a merge worthwhile, rather than the creation of a secondary, albeit well-written, stub. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response @stormy clouds! I really appreciate it! Hwilson51 (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to speed up the review process?

Hi,

I think that a good case can be made that my article was incorrectly rejected. Please see the notes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruin_(punk_band). Note that the reviewer himself/herself made the final changes that he/she wanted to see. It has taken well over two months to get to this point.

But that being as it is, I was wondering whether the re-submitted article can be reviewed for publication faster than the two or three months that it seems like it's going to take. Who would I contact for this issue?

Thank you.

Eliswinterabend (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eliswinterabend. As an administrator, I have bypassed the usual AFC process and your article Ruin (punk band) is now in the encyclopedia. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Let's discuss it! I can't tell you how much I appreciate your action. In gratitude, Eliswinterabend (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Cullen328: so that he, rather than his talk page, receives the message of gratitude. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page thanks you, as do I, Stormy clouds. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Question, what constitutes releasing an image?

For one of my newer articles I've created I can't find a picture of the individual online that is not protected by some sort of copyright protection. I went to my university's archive center and they granted me access to a picture, but there's no written proof I can upload it - so what kind of proof should I get in writing? And how does Wikipedia discern that an email I submit is, in fact, legitimate? If they were to scan and email me a picture and that's it, is this enough to upload? Thanks! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Semmendinger. The procedure is explained in donating copyright materials. Basically, the copyright holder in person needs to inform Wikimedia that they have released the image under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which will allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose, commercial or not. --ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, so can I upload the picture "pending" OTRS approval, and then have the university complete the Interactive Release Generator? That seems the most efficient way to do it, but I don't know if I am allowed to upload the file and keep it up (not used on any page) while the OTRS process goes through. I'd imagine it will take a number of days. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear, Semmendinger. The template commons:template:OTRS, which you can add to a file when uploading it, says that the email has been sent, but I don't know how quickly somebody will check it to see if the mail has been received. Have you made sured that the University is willing to release it under a suitable licence? I would wait until you know they have sent the email before you upload. There is no deadline. --ColinFine (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, When using the interactive uploader there is an option to apply a license to an already-existing Wikimedia file. That's what I was referring to above. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Semmendinger. You should upload the file and use Template:OTRS pending rather than Template:OTRS. You can select what license you expect it to be under, and if it needs adjusted because of miscommunication, it can be done once the email is confirmed. If the permission is not confirmed within 60 days the image will be deleted. GMG ^talk 01:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, thanks to you both! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi! Are we not allowed to use a reliable news outlet as a source if their report references a tabloid?

I used BBC News as a source, but their article mentioned that it was originally published by the Daily Mail, and so another user removed it saying it was still unreliable. (This was the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42023885)

And if so, would I also not be allowed to use a reliable source that references TMZ? (For example, this: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sylvester-stallone-rape-allegation_us_5a3ce122e4b025f99e165ce4) Because the WP:PUS says that TMZ "has received criticism for errors in breaking news and has a reputation for gossip, but it is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies" and so I wasn't sure if that was considered unreliable or not.

Thank you. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reposting this at the reliable sources noticeboard, a dedicated forum for exactly this type of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you! Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i had a similar problem i linked a video recording with elite army logo watermark that coincided with Turkish army announcing capture of a hill(it was all over Turkish TV) and provided the names of the 5 groups that are in elite army that where mentioned but weren't named, along with a link to the long war journal,(its far from the only place you can find the names but its all collated in one spot not in Arabic extra) who have been covering the morphing's of Syria rebel groups from like 2012.

and either my video evidence or my reference source was "deemed unreliable" should i have used the jihadists twitter news feeds instead, from the horses mouth" so to speak even if one its in non English and 2 they may delete stuff at any time 110.174.207.53 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources over primary sources, especially professionally-published academic and journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to access 'references' to correct link

Hello! I am a contributing editor for the page 'T.P. McKenna (actor)'. Under the 'References' section there's is a link (No.6) which is no longer valid. However, in entering the 'edit' source the links do not appear so I'm unable to correct/remove the errant link.

I'd be grateful for advice.

SMStephenMcKenna (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StephenMcKenna. References are defined where they are used in the text, not where the software displays their content. Please see referencing for beginners for more information.

On another subject, are you related to T. P. McKenna? If so, you should declare your conflict of interest, and be very much more circumspect about editing the article directly. (See the link in the previous sentence for more information). --ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can I resist the urge to vandalize wikipedia?

says it on the top TommyGu (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, TommyGu, I've never felt that urge, so I can't answer directly. But I would say, think about why you want to edit Wikipedia. If it's because you want to be part of one of the largest collaborative projects in existence, that might be enough to carry you through. If you are passionate about some field of knowledge, and want to get the articles on that area in perfect shape, great. But if you just want to play around, or if you just want to get noticed, then Wikipedia might not be the place for you (they'll notice you if you vandalise, but you won't be around for very long to enjoy it!) --ColinFine (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find that messing with vandals is far more rewarding than being a vandal.

If you need to muck about, try WP:Sandbox or User:TommyGu/sandbox. Those are spaces where you can test out stuff. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can someone check to see if my draft article has good references the article is called Draft:Graham Bruce Elementary School (Vancouver, British Columbia) thanks Thegooduser talk 02:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft cites no references at all, though it lists some. Most of those do nothing to attest the school's notability, as they do not discuss the school, they merely list it. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an informal guide, articles on high schools are not always allowed, and not grade schools or middle schools unless the building itself is notable.David notMD (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My submission was declined. Would you please look at it & give me advice on how I could improve it?

My wife, Carol and I have been involved in showing horsed for 48 years, We were the 9th & 10th exhibitors to be inducted into Palomino Hall of Fame in 2012. In 77 years, there have been only 13 exhibitors inducted into the Palomino Horse Breeders of America's Hall of Fame. We are the only PHBA Hall of Fame members in Alabama.

The Triple Crown Award that I received in 2005 was after I hiked over 8,000 miles, which took nearly 2 years. Please note that there are only 298 hikers, worldwide, that have received this prestigious award and I'm the only one in the entire state of Alabama that has received it.

Please look this over and give me suggestions on how to improve it.

THANKING you in advance,

Article draft

Carol (Juriga) Hardin was born October 20, 1941, in Johnson City, NY. She is a Horse Trainer and Exhibitor. Since she started training and showing horses in 1973, she has qualified six Palomino Amateur Supreme Champions, which is a PHBA record. Carol won WORLD CHAMPIONS and was PHBA’s National Year End Overall High Point Amateur in 1994 and Reserve High Point Amateur in 1987 and 1996. After many years of outstanding accomplishments she was inducted into The Palomino Horse Hall of Fame in 2012 as an exhibitor.

  http://www.palominohba.com/the-association/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-inductees/

Dothan Eagle Sports Editor, Jon Johnson, wrote the article Local family gains national recognition for horse showing. This article, that was in the Dothan Eagle May 15, 2012, was about her being inducted into the Palomino Hall of Fame. In the article he states; Cliff and his wife, Carol, are considered superstars of the sport of horse showing, and have trained hundreds of others. http://www.dothaneagle.com/sports/local-family-gains-national-recognition-for-horse-showing/article_8b0ecc81-2985-572c-8ee2-8526c10d450c.html

Clifford S. Hardin was born September 4, 1939, in Atlanta, GA. He is a Long distance Hiker, Horse Trainer and Exhibitor. He excelled at both endeavors.

He received the Triple Crown Award from the American Long Distance Hikers Association in 2005.

This award is given to recognize those that have hiked the full length of the three major trails in America, the Appalachian Trail, the Pacific Crest Trail and the Continental Divide Trail.

While there have been millions of people that have hiked parts of the three above mentioned trails, as of December 31, 2016. There have been only 17,898 hikers that have hiked the entire 2,135 miles of the Appalachian Trail. There have been only a total of 4,885 completed hikes of the Pacific Crest Trail, which runs 2,650 miles, from Mexico to Canada. There are less than 400 reported completed hikes on the 3,100 mile long Continental Divide Trail, which also goes from Mexico to Canada. More amazing, there are only 298 hikers, worldwide, that have hiked the full length of all three trails. They are known as “Triple Crowners” and received the prestigious Triple Crown Award.

    http://aldhawest.org/page-18139

Cliff started training horses on part time basics in 1970, while working full time in the Real Estate Business.

In 1985 he left the Real Estate business to do what he truly loved and that was training horses and teaching horsemanship to young and/or beginner riders. Most of his students became accomplished riders and several won World Championships and had National High Point Horses.

He trained and exhibited 4 World Champions and multiple National High Point Horses. In 1994, He earned the PHBA National Overall High Point Open Horse Award and the 1,434 points earned that year set the PHBA record for the most Open Points earned in one year, the record still stands today.

He qualified 3 PHBA Open Supreme Champions. There have only been a total of 99 Open Supreme Champions qualified in PHBA’s 77 year history,

He was inducted into the Palomino Horse Hall of Fame in 2012 as an exhibitor.

               http://www.palominohba.com/the-association/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-inductees/

Dothan Eagle Sports Editor, Jon Johnson, wrote the article Local family gains national recognition for horse showing. This article, about Cliff’s induction into the Palomino Hall of Fame was in the Dothan Eagle May 15, 2012 In the article he states; Cliff and his wife, Carol, are considered superstars of the sport of horse showing, and have trained hundreds of others.

  http://www.dothaneagle.com/sports/local-family-gains-national-recognition-for-horse-showing/article_8b0ecc81-2985-572c-8ee2-8526c10d450c.html

Ldhiker (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ldhiker. I've put the text of your draft into a box so it takes up less space; I hope you don't mind. I notice some differences between the text here and the text at Draft:Dothan, AL Notable People. If this is the text you want to have reviewed, please add it to the draft page to avoid any confusion.

I suggest you read the introduction to referencing to learn how to format references. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add to that, Ldhiker, that you should read WP:My first article. Please keep in mind that notability, which is our requirement for an article, isn't based on what a particular subject has done. It's based on whether or not the subject has been written about in detail by multiple reliable sources, totally independent of the subject. John from Idegon (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

linkspam?

Hey, so I added references Paradox of value but a user undid them because they were considered WP:LINKSPAM . Why? And how? i mean, this page needs more citation and i'm pretty sure i added pretty relevant stuff.

thanks. Sarah312x (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sarah312x and welcome to the Teahouse.

Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. When adding content, it is important to follow the relevant guidelines. Don't add content to the lead without adding to the body (the lead is an introductory summary to the body of the article). And when you add a reference, it's important that it be what the Wikipedia community considers a reliable source. At this point, most blogs do not qualify as RS.

I agree that that page would benefit from additional references. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this notable?

Hi!,

I'm new to editing Wikipedia and was wondering if the company "Cardlay" is notable enough to create a wikipedia page for? Concur and Expensify have one and Cardlay have just received funding. Thanks!

NadiaLarsen (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You need to read the notability requirements at WP:NCORP, and then look for significant coverage of the company in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject. Notability is not demonstrated by anything the company writes about itself, or by its press releases. If you are convinced that those notability requirements are met, you can read the advice at WP:Your first article and write a draft based on those sources, submitting it review through the Article for creation process. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NadiaLarsen:(edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. One company having an article does not automatically mean other companies get articles too. On Wikipedia, a company merits an article if it has in depth coverage in independent reliable sources that indicate how it meets the notability guidelines listed at WP:ORG. This coverage cannot include things like the company's own website, press releases, or transcripts of interviews with company staff(a more extensive list of what is not acceptable is also at WP:ORG). Wikipedia is interested in what independent sources write about a subject.

I would note specifically that a company being funded would be a routine business announcement that by itself would not establish notability. There would need to be other things independently written about it, like coverage of its business practices, news stories about it, etc.

Is there a particular reason you are asking about this company? 331dot (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As in, are you associated with this company? Being paid by this company to create a Wikipedia article? David notMD (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the user will return; and I take her removal of this discussion to mean that she is associated with the company in some way. Could be wrong, but.... 331dot (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt.[1][2] Doug Weller talk 15:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does {{!}} mean?

Hello! I see that a bot added an {{!}} sign to one of the references in the source code (User:MJesio/Book_of_Demons). I was trying to find the answer on my own on the internet and wikipedia, but probably the search engines aren't capable of handling the syntax as a regular text.

What does the {{!}} mean? MJesio (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find the answer at {{!}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! MJesio (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MJesio, welcome to the Teahouse. A citation for [3] says title=Book of Demons is a Delightful Jaunt Across Hell {{!}} Unwinnable. The cited page has the html title "Book of Demons is a Delightful Jaunt Across Hell | Unwinnable", usually displayed on browser tabs. I guess you used a citation tool which automatically adds a title by reading from a web page. The tool used {{!}} to avoid the pipe character ending the title parameter. In this case "Unwinnable" is the name of the website which is already in another citation parameter website=unwinnable.com, so you can just reduce the title parameter to title=Book of Demons is a Delightful Jaunt Across Hell. Please always check that automatic citation tools give reasonable values to citation parameters. There are other citations in the page where the website name is included in the title parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance! I will fix those references. It strange, it appears that Editors (and citation tool) work differently on different languages. Just a curious fact :) MJesio (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The citation tool simply copied the title from the html source of [4] which says: <title>Book of Demons is a Delightful Jaunt Across Hell | Unwinnable</title>. It is the website which chose to include the website name in the title. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hoe is the long war journal not a reliable source on syria?

i submitted short excerpts with prominent links, the long war journal is one of the longest running continuous recordings of the various morphing's of jihadist groups in syria you where missing the names of the various groups that form in elite army i provided them, with source links to long war journal which in turn referred to the jihadists own media releases. if memory serves i provided a video attributed by the Turkish army to the elite army on bayraba hill or some such. (had their water mark, turkey announced capturing the hill that day) in what way was any of my source material not backed with video evidence or similar?110.174.207.53 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion would be better at the reliable sources noticeboard. Previous discussions (1, 2, 3, 4) don't seem to arrive at any clear consensus. It is not really a news service but a propaganda outlet for a political think-tank (regardless of one's opinion of said politics). The safest bet would be to attribute their claims to them, instead of stating their claims as unqualified facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review my article?

Hello! I was tinkering with the translation of the article about Book of Demons game on my page User:MJesio/Book_of_Demons.

Since I'm not a native English speaker and the article is almost complete, could any of you review it and point me language errors? Maybe there is a wiki page where I could ask about rewievs of the articles? MJesio (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! What do I have to do?

CBNMKJUH (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is citing sources that other wikipedia articles cite allowed when creating a draft for submission?

CBNMKJUH (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CBNMKJUH: Hello and welcome. If you are asking if you can use a source that is used in another Wikipedia article in a draft you are writing, as long as the sources supports the claim you are making, you can likely use it wherever you wish, at least as a general policy. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Thanks! I really appreciate it. I've looked stuff up on wikipedia for years but never created an account until yesterday. Then I made an article, but it got rejected because I didn't cite it properly. I was kind of feeling dissapointed, so I cited what I knew from another article. If you want to see my article, search for: Draft:Super Mario FX(game). Once again, thanks for letting me know!

CBNMKJUH (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CBNMKJUH: You're welcome. If you would like to learn more about citing sources, there is information at WP:CITE that you can review. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:Thanks!

CBNMKJUH (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CBNMKJUH: when doing this, don't just copy what the source looks like. Copy the actual citation in wikitext. A citation that says:

"Dylan Cuthbert". Twitter. Archived from the original on May 25, 2014. Retrieved February 6, 2018. SNES Central @dylancuthbert

makes no sense as it's obviously citing a website but you copied it without including the metadata that has the actual URLs. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia have any articles on Beach Wheelchairs?

OttoWerlin (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OttoWerlin: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. In using the Search Bar in the upper right corner of the screen(I'm using a computer), there is no article on Beach wheelchairs specifically, but we do have a good article on wheelchairs located at Wheelchair(click that word to access it). It lists several types of wheelchairs, but I don't see beach wheelchairs mentioned. I don't think beach wheelchairs would merit a stand alone article, as they are simply a variant of a wheelchair, but they likely could be mentioned in the general wheelchair article along with the other types listed. My suggestion would be to visit Talk:Wheelchair, the talk page for that article, and propose such an addition. The editors that follow that page can help you with adding the information. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There is Wheelchair § All-terrain wheelchairs which includes a paragraph on beach wheelchairs. My off-hand opinion is that we probably don't need a separate article on beach wheelchairs, but that section could really use some references and a picture. Chris857 (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with those below. Work on expansion of the existing article if you have an affinity for the topic. There is no pressing need for a stand-alone article at this point in time. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About wikipedia's policies of vandalism

Why are Wikipedia's Policies so stict, to the point where it is unforgiving, could you give vandals a chance of redemption? TommyGu (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyGu: I'm not sure what aspect of vandalism related policies you find "strict", but if someone blocked for vandalism explains in an unblock appeal what they did wrong, why they won't do it again, and what they will do to be a productive contributor instead, they will be given another chance. If that chance is abused however, the odds of being given subsequent chances diminish considerably.

This is the second vandalism related question you have asked which I find curious. Unless you intend to be a vandal, how vandals are dealt with isn't something I would worry about, if I were you. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)For the same reason that library policies are strict about readers who scribble in their books, or tear out pages. Wikipedia vandals are usually given warnings, and are given a chance to become genuine editors, but some are incorrigible. We hope that you will overcome your strange urges and become a useful editor. Dbfirs 21:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia images

How do you copyright a Wikimedia image? Seacolor88 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Seacolor88, welcome to our Teahouse. (Anyone who wants to write about plants is especially welcome, as far as I'm concerned!) Now, I don't quite follow your question. Any image that is on Wikimedia Commons is available for free use (both non-commercial and commecial use) under what we call a Creative Commons licence (see WP:CC BY-SA for a typical licence we would expect an image to be released under). The copyright is still owned by the creator, but all the images on Wikimedia Commons have been released under a licence which requires the copyright owner to be attributed (credited) - and that's done automatically on Wikimedia Commons. So there's no need to mention the author's name if you use that image in a Wikipedia article.

However, what we can't do is take any old image found on the internet (say this one) and put it on Wikimedia Commons. You could if you were the copyright owner, but not if you aren't. Any image that you took from a website in that way would sooner or later be deleted as a breach of copyright.

Once an image is on Wikimedia Commons it can be used by someone else, but that second person isn't able to suddenly claim copyright over it, even if they were to edit it or modify it in some way. As far as my understanding goes, the original image creator still needs to be credited as the orginal author of the derivative work.

Do these answers help you? If not, perhaps you could explain a little more clearly what it is that you would like to achieve? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Having taken a quick peek at your draft article on D.splendens, you might like to utilise this IPNI entry and this Catalogue of Life entry when you come to work on it. Bear in mind that Csapodya splendens appears to be a synonym (though this will need checking carefully as Deppea might just be a basionym), so you will need to avoid having two conflicting page titles. (we usually put synonyms in a taxobox, but they can be mentioned in the text if you wish). A WP:REDIRECT can also be created to link two different names to the one primary article, too). Nick Moyes (talk)

Hello, Seacolor88. I'm afraid you'll have to explain your question a bit more, because I don't understand what you're asking. "Copyrighting" isn't something you can do to an image: all images are automatically copyrighted, unless they are in the public domain either by reason of age (eg pictures published before 1923 in the US), or because they are below the threshold of originality (eg a logo consisting of simply geometric shapes) or they have been explicitly placed in the public domain by their copyright holders (eg many images produced for the US federal government). --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! I see why you might be asking now, Seacolor88. You've made rather a big mistake by trying to re-upload this image to Wikipedia when it already exists here on Wikimedia Commons in a higher resolution format, and properly licenced, too. That's a no-no, so it has rightly been marked for deletion - so just let it go, and don't try that method again. LOL! What you only needed to have done is to look for the "Use this file" box on the Commons image and copied the text that's displayed there when you click the tiny 'W' logo, i.e.: [[File:Csapodya splendens BOGA Bern 1.jpg|thumb|Csapodya splendens BOGA Bern 1]] then paste it into your draft, just as I've done here, though I've shortened the caption a bit. Does that make sense now? Nick Moyes (talk)

What if scenario

What would happen if for one day, admins let people do whatever they want to wikipedia and not get caught TommyGu (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyGu: This page isn't really meant as a forum to speculate about Wikipedia; it meant to ask questions about using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyGu: For a new editor, you seem to have an odd preoccupation with questions of vandalism. Wikipedia is not an anarchy and is free and open only to the point where it does not interfere with creating an encyclopedia. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyGu: Why are you so keen to know how to ruin the best encyclopaedia in the world? Dbfirs 22:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regular editors do a pretty good job of reverting vandalism, so I'm sure we'd cope for a day without the ability to block users. It would waste a lot of those editors' time, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TommyGu These repeated questions about your desire to vandalize Wikipedia are not constructive and not welcome. If you have questions about improving the encyclopedia this is the appropriate forum, otherwise, that's quite enough. GMG ^talk 22:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To confess, I've vandalized Wikipedia because my gut said so a very long time ago. I still feel the urge and I need help please, i need to prevent myself from vandalizing Wikipedia again and stop myself from being addicted to it. Please help me give reasons why I shouldn't vandalize Wikipedia, I want to become a good faith editor but don't know how TommyGu (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike many other young editors who make great contributions here, are you saying you realise you don't yet have the maturity to control your urges to damage the hard work of everyone who works so hard and collaboratively to build this encyclopaedia? It's great that you recognise your weakness, and want to do something about it. But it's rather sad if you can't control a childish urge. I assume you don't want to get totally blocked from editing, so the best way is this fresh start, and demonstrating what you can contribute to. Take a look at your contributions so far: [5] You can watch them grow as you make small improvements, bit by bit, to articles you're interested in. Only add facts that you can support with evidence, but why not start by simply reading articles you're interested in and making small improvements, like correcting spellings or punctuation? There are lots of jobs that we'd love more help to do. Why not check out Wikipedia:Task Center for ideas? You obviously know other editors will see all your work, and that you'll soon get blocked from all editing if you were to mess around. But wouldn't you rather be thanked or know that you're helping out positively? No more questions now - you're beginning to sound like some trolls do - so just go off and work together with everyone else to make Wikipedia even greater. In ten years time you might be looking back and saying, wow, look what I helped to build! No more questions on this topic - there are no more replies to give you. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyGu: Your repeated raising this vandalism issue is itself a form of vandalism, as you are wasting time of people who commit to help others. To cite Master Yoda ""Do or do not, there is no try." For you, either make useful edits or do nothing. David notMD (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Sprinkler systems marked as "defunct" - now what?

I don't understand the instruction on how I can add a 'dodo' item to a wiki page marked as 'defunct'. When I go to related pages, I find that they're usually short and incomplete, therefore where do I start?

ThanksEweezeke (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eweezeke, welcome to the Teahouse. Please link the page you refer to or give the exact name. I couldn't guess it from searches. And what do you mean by a 'dodo' item? Do you think the page shouldn't be marked defunct? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, instead of 'dodo' I meant 'todo'. I wanted to add something important to this page that is marked 'defunct' when I go into the talk area. The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_sprinkler_system Eweezeke (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is the project WP:WikiProject Fire Protection which is labelled as defunct, not the article Fire sprinkler system. If there are edits which you feel need to be made to the article, and you can support the edits with references to published reliable sources, you can either make the edits yourself or suggest them in a new section on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eweezeke: Yes, you can just click the "New section" tab at Talk:Fire sprinkler system and post a suggestion. Or click edit on the article and edit it yourself with references. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a criteria for image replacement in an article?

Hello Teahouse. I do some editing but most of my contributions to Wikipedia have been images and I am starting to get into video. It has not become an issue yet but I have wondered if there is a criteria for replacing an existing User:image in an topic article with a better one? I do not intend to offend but if I have a better image (better illustration of topic; sharper; better exposure; taken on a sunny day etc.), under what conditions and by what mechanism would I replace an existing image in an article?

With word editing, I would just wade in; make the edit and state my case for the change. If there is no protest after some time, my edit stands until someone changes it in the future. Does image replacement work the same way as word replacement?

Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this.GRDN711 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a photo which is objectively better than the existing one - say the current one is out of focus/bad angle/obscured, it's probably best to be bold and change it. Also, depending on the article, instead of replacing the photo you may wish to add your photo in the prominent location and move an existing one elsewhere (if there is room and value in doing so). This is all contingent on there not being controversy about which image to use - in that case, you should discuss image options on the talk page. Chris857 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are exhibit names italicized?

...such as the examples in this section? I wasn't sure, and removed them, and got blowback from an editor who gave me a good going over on my talk page, and suggested I come here. Quite the place! I've heard of the page and the project, but never looked at it and don't really understand the entire concept. Will study up. Thank you for your help with this question, and for all of your work here. Pretty cool. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, MOS:ITALICS says to italicize "Major works of art and artifice" and "shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks". But, I do not see any specific advice on museum exhibits; the closest examples would seem to be paintings and sculptures. On the other hand, the NPS website uses double-quotes to refer to the exhibit. Looks like we might be in slightly uncharted territory. Chris857 (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 126: / Line 126: @@
 :Welcome to the Teahouse, {{u|Mathglot}}. Although I am an administrator, I lack the technical skills to fully evaluate the case that you are making. However, the potential for harm and damage to Wikipedia's reputation is real, based on your description. Therefore, I believe that a report to ANI is appropriate, to draw the attention of administrators with the appropriate skills and experience. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 03:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 ::{{re|Cullen}} Thank you for your advice. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 04:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)  &nbsp; <small>Posted [[WP:ANI#Introduction of a malware link into a citation|here]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 06:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)</small>
+:I took a look at the web page and this is almost certainly a heuristic misfire on the obfuscated code at the top. I haven't attempted to deobfuscate this but this sort of false positive is a common occurrance with many antivirus programs.
+[[User:ZephyrP|ZephyrP]] ([[User talk:ZephyrP|talk]]) 04:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 == Deleting an LTA page ==