Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 540

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 535

←

Archive 538

Archive 539

Archive 540

Archive 541

Archive 542

→

Archive 545

Hello everyone, Please how do I start in creating articles on Wikipedia? I have a project at hand on the Wikipedia Asian Month before I move on to my interesting pages.--Music Boy50 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple ways you can create a new article for Wikipedia.

1. First, there's the kind of messy method of creating a redlink like this one, which automatically creates a page to be created. This is very easy to do, makes the article un-orphaned because it's linked to somewhere on the encyclopedia, and is a much appreciated way of killing the dreaded cloud of redlinks hanging around if said page is on, say, a List page.
2. If you go to "Beta features" under "Preferences," there is a beta feature called "Content Translation" that adds the following three buttons under your "Contributions" tab: "Create page," "Upload media," and "Translation."
3. If you search for a page that doesn't exist, in this case "Redlink," a line of italicized text reading "The page "Redlink" does not exist."' This is complete with a redlink to the page in question.

--Vami_IV✠ 02:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vami IV: Thanks for your ideas, cool. --Music Boy50 (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to create a few Wikipedia pages. How can I know if they are appropriate before I spend a lot of time learning how to do this and then creating them? I have several subjects in mind. - Two of the subjects are about historic architectural structures that are intriguing, beautiful, well done but not known at all. One of them was cutting edge technology for 1929 when it was built. The other one is a major surprise out in the middle of nowhere. Nothing has been written about them before so finding references will be impossible although I know the owner/developer of one of them. - I would also like to write an article about an artist who is deceased. Her work is amazing but I can find no documentation about her on the internet at all. I knew her personally and own several of her paintings. She also did some notable charitable work sharing her story, encouraging the abused and down trodden while helping women to love and understand themselves and live more fully with dignity and grace. Does anyone have any words of wisdom or direction for me? Do you need more information in order to give direction? Thank you. TrueColor (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@TrueColor: Welcome to the Teahouse. Although your desire to contribute to Wikipedia is admirable, I am sorry to have to tell you that your article ideas, as you describe them, are not acceptable for Wikipedia. We publish articles about notable topics, as Wikipedia defines that word. This means that the topic has already received significant coverage in independent, reliable published sources. When you say things like "not known at all" and "nothing has been written about them" and "I can find no documentation about her", you are telling us that these topics are not eligible for Wikipedia articles at this time. Anything that you could write about these topics would be original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. My suggestion is to research and write articles about these topics, and submit the articles to publications that do publish original research, such as local historical journals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

To add to what Cullen says, documentation doesn´t have to be on the internet, but it must still be WP:RELIABLE sources, and of course what he said about notability still stands. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Consider asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, maybe someone there has any bright ideas. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking through the recent article creations, I noticed a large number of articles about music artists which consisted of just a redirect to OWSLA#Artists (e.g. Aryay). Instead of going through the AfD process for each one individually, is there some way to get an Administrator (or somebody with mass tools) to address this situation? Gronk Oz (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like 32 redirects total. But, I'm not sure it really is an issue unless one of these artists' names is common enough that it would be displacing some other potentially notable subject. TimothyJosephWood 12:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm dubious about OWSLA itself: it seems to have a lot of promotion and not much substance. --ColinFine (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

As a ratio, it's not great, but that's mediated somewhat by just how little substance there is overall. I am tempted to call WP:INDISCRIMINATE on the massive lists that take up 80-90% of the article. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

That was what caught my eye - it's a circular dependency where OWSLA has lists that look impressive because of all the (apparently) notable artists, but their articles are simply pointers back to that article. But if nobody thinks it is a significant issue, then that's okay.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, a quick news search returns ~28k results, so it seems unlikely on the face of it that the label would have issues passing a run-of-the-mill notability test, and it doesn't seem to need the lists to do so. That's not to say that stylistically, the article isn't a complete eyesore, because it is at least in my opinion. TimothyJosephWood 17:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: The label may be notable, but I think you're correct about the lists not being very encyclopedic. This basically seems to be a list of all albums released by the label and is nothing but free PR that is more suitable for the label's own website. Notable releases should be mentioned for sure, but everything else probably should go per WP:LSC and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, or split off into it's own article. Of course, deciding on what is notable might be a bit subjective, but removing any album without a cited source or stand-alone article might be a good place to start. It also appears that OWSLAjosh666 one of the main contributors adding that release info have a WP:APPARENTCOI -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Genstat, a software product of VSNi is being insistently rewritten by User:Biosci (Thailand) a VSNi group, who ignores a request to declare COI. I know there is way to mark suspected paid editing on the article talk page, but I forget what it is. On a peripherally related note, how can I report that WP:UAA has a three-day backlog. 09:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC) —teb728 t c 09:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello teb728 and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use {{connected contributor (paid)}} to label the suspected financial conflict of interest on the talk page, and administrative backlogs can be reported at the administrator's noticeboard. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, TPM here. I've reached 508 edits (509 with this one), and I've been on Wikipedia for over 30 days. I joined November 9, 2013. Does this mean that I'm now allowed to edit Extended Confirmed pages? The Phase Master (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

At the foot of Special:Contributions/The Phase Master there is a "User rights" link which confirms that you do have that right. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@The Phase Master: This right is granted automatically: see here. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

How do you put in a Youtube video in your userpage without an external link? Or is that not possible? Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Gary "Roach" Sanderson, If you mean embedding a youtube video in a user page, no, although WP does currently support the limited use of some embedded videos, embedding youtube videos directly is not supported, and likely never will be due to copyright issues. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If the user owns the copyright to the video and are the one who posted it on YouTube, they could upload it to Commons and use it on the userpage. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

But only if it is likely to be useful to a Wikimedia Foundation project, White Arabian Filly and Gary "Roach" Sanderson. --ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

...or at least I think that's what it's called. I've been looking at episode lists for the various Star Trek series, and now I want to work on the list for the 1964 Flipper series, which leads to three questions:

• Is there a way to have text following what will appear in quotes WITHIN the "title" field? A prime example would be: "SOS Dolphin" (pilot episode) - but there would be others as well. I'm considering the possibility of having an "aux" column-field substitute for the title field so I could manipulate it "freely", but first I'm wondering if the REGULAR title-field could be worked this way.
• Is it possible (and if so, how?) to have the display-row for each "short summary" divided into two parts, consisting of a larger section on the left for the short-summary itself, and a smaller part to the right for a guest-star list formatted as multiple lines of "name of role: name of actor" (and/or possibly special notes)? This info is too bulky to include in the "title/airdate" row (especially after I add fields for Writer and Director).
• Is there an official color scheme for representing various seasons of a series?

Thanks 2601:545:8201:AB7A:2539:DD26:C4D:FF93 (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Could somebody please direct me to the template that states how many times one's userpage has been vandalized? Thanks OldEnglishHero (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@OldEnglishHero: Is Template:User Vandalized what you want? Deor (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that the number isn't automatically updated in the case of vandalism (and there is no reliable way that it could be), so it relies on being updated manually. I don't really see any value in the template. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, this was what I wanted OldEnglishHero (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

A post I submitted about a month ago was declined because the reviewer claimed it did not adequately show the subject's notability, and that Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All of the sources used were from third party web sites and/or news publications, so I'm not sure why they weren't considered adequate. Can someone advise? Thanks, SS 24.148.30.197 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Since you are not using a registered account, and your IP address has apparently changed since you edited the article or draft in question, you will need to provide a bit more information before anyone can likely offer an help or advice. TimothyJosephWood 12:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Just logged in. Does this help? Thank you. Sschneider621 (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Sschneider621, looking at the sources in the draft, this is how they seem to break down:

• Sources 1, 7 & 14 - broken links
• Sources 2, & 3 - no mention of the subject of the article at all
• Source 4 - Official biography by employer (not an independent source)
• Sources 6, 11, 12, 13 & 15 - links to various website homepages, no coverage of the subject
• Source 8 - mostly about the company, mentions the subject of the article in passing twice
• Source 9 - mostly about the acquisition, mentions the subject of the article in passing once

So for various reasons, these sources do not contribute to the notability of the subject, mostly because they are not independent, or they are entirely or mostly irrelevant. Having said that, source 10 seems to be a really good one. It appears to be independent, and is in depth coverage of the subject himself. More coverage like this is what is needed to improve the article and demonstrate notability. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Presumably the draft in question is Draft:Pete Kadens? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I am working with that assumption, yes. TimothyJosephWood 16:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

How do I create an information box on the right side of every thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Medina (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Max Medina - Infoboxes are inserted as templates - we have lots of options - see Wikipedia:List of infoboxes - but it is often easier to see which box has been used on a similar article.
I suspect you want an infobox about a UK Act of Parliament, so look at the source code for another Act - say Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 which starts "{{Infobox UK legislation". Go to Template:Infobox UK legislation and copy the source code from that page, including the opening and closing brackets. Paste this at the top of your article and fill in the relevant information - do NOT delete parameters that you do not have the information for, these will not show in the article, and can be filled in by another editor at another time. - Arjayay (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

How to remove a citation from an article?Ankit ☎ 17:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ankit. When you are reading an article and see a references section near the bottom populated by a series of numbered citations, you might think that if you edit the page, you will see those citations typed in that section and be able to edit them. However, usually what you will see is markup similar to this:

==References==
{{reflist}} or <references />

In that case, (usually) the text of citations is actually in the body of the article, directly next to the first statements or paragraphs the citations support, using <ref>...</ref> tags, which display as Footnotes (e.g.^[1][2]) when you are reading an article. The template code shown above in the references section collates and displays all of the citations within the article in a numbered list in which the numbers correspond to the footnote numbers in the text. By clicking on the ^{^} symbol next to a citation display, you can easily find exactly where in the body of the article the citation text appears in order to edit it. For more, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

That being said, while there are sometimes good reasons to remove citations, that type of activity invites scrutiny because verification of content – use of citations – is the lifeblood of Wikipedia articles. So upon any removal, please leave an edit summary explaining the reason for your removal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:. Thank you. But is there any way of removing citations using the Visual Editor.Ankit ☎ 17:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. I don't use VisualEditor and can't try to look for an answer right now. I'm sure another user can help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ankit. As you have not specified the reason for removal of a citation, please do read article Wikipedia:Link rot before you proceed to delete a citation. Jazze7 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jazze7:. I created an article and then added inline citation to a wikipedia page, later i got to know that a wikipedia page is not a reliable source for citation so i wanted to remove that. Now can you please tell me if there is a way of removing citation using Visual Editor. Ankit ☎ 09:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ankit ☎

click on citation number / press del on keyboard. Remember that visual editor is in Beta mode. Some tasks are conveniently done in visual editor while others are easier in source editor. Jazze7 (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jazze7: Thank you for your assistance. Yeah visual editor isn't always good, though I use it to add citations,it's easier.Ankit ☎ 20:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

My first article was marked for speedy deletion. I contested (not sure what it is called), but not sure what the process is from here.

I honestly wrote the article in the most encyclopedia-ish manner I could, and felt like I was just stating facts. Also, I do believe the article meets the nobility standard. What do I do now? Can I go back and edit the article some more, or do I have to wait until a decision is made?

Finding the whole process very intimidating and don't want to mistakenly break any rules.

Thanks. Janis Jlk0221 (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Jlk0221. Creating a brand new article is one of the more difficult things to do on Wikipedia, and most do not get it correct the first time around. I have posted a note on the article talk for the reviewing administrator to consider moving the article to a draft (not generally available to the public yet). This would give you some more time to work on it and seek additional guidance without the risk of losing your work to one of the few processes on Wikipedia for deletion of articles that are not yet up to snuff.

It may be helpful to check out guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article, and consider the tutorial available at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Adventure, as they cover a lot of the bases that are needed for getting used to the way things work here. TimothyJosephWood 21:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jlk0221: Welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your first question, yes, you can edit your article at any time, including if it is moved to draft space. A few other comments: Your references are poorly formatted. Please read Referencing for beginners, and follow its recommendations. Also, you have used another Wikipedia article as a reference. No user-edited websites are reliable sources, and that includes Wikipedia itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

As a suggestion, you can add the text {{subst:AFC draft|Jlk0221}} at the very top of the article, including the curly braces, once it has been moved to draft status. This will allow you to use our Articles for Creation service, which allows experienced editors to review a draft (once the draft is submitted for review) and either leave comments on it about what needs to be improved or tell you the draft passed the review. (If it does pass, they will also move it out of draft space for you.) AfC is specifically designed to help new editors like yourself to avoid situations like the one you're in right now. — Gestrid (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I am making a biography page, and want to include that box in the top right that explains important parts...Ugafan0618 (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Ugafan0618. You must be looking for one of our many infobox templates. I suggest you try this one. — Gestrid (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

For types of inboxes not related to people, or if you need more information, see MOS:INFOBOX. WikiPancake 🥞 12:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

What is wikipedia's policy in ongoing hoaxes that haven't been yet exposed as such but are actively perpetuated as truth? Talk page? I can't really go on and edit them to page.. This is like the hoax with Chernobyl(Elena Filatova), but with massive amount(social media) of people thinking it is true. It isn't helped at all by the fact its circulated as genuine story in mainstream news.

Just to be on safe side, see Talk:Fukushima disaster cleanup#Edit proposal:new section.22Controversy.22.3F, Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster#New section proposal:Cultural impact and Talk:Namie, Fukushima. Same info in all three talk pages, as they should be applied there fast as possible.

※〶 23:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

As a rule, Wikipedia doesn't take a position, but rather lets reliable sources determine what is and is not a hoax, and then follows their lead. TimothyJosephWood 01:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Problem is that "reliable sources" have fallen to this - The Daily Mail, The Mirror, New York Post, and CNN.

Or, in two pictures:

• Japanese government material of exclusion zones, including the actual "red zone" http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/english/topics/GEJE/20160826_fukusima-now.png
• Places in "Red zone", according to video and pictures released by Keow Wee Loong. In truth, its Namie, Fukushima http://www.podniesinski.pl/portal/wp-content/uploads/Keow-Wee-Loong-map-2.jpg

Daily Mail publishing article without doing proper research themselves ignited this hoax all over again. ※〶 01:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest you find a reliable source that confirms that it is a hoax. — Gestrid (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

There is only one: http://time.com/4403093/fukushima-exclusion-zone-japan-photos/ ※〶 01:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Well that reliable source seems to regard the pictures as genuine. Dbfirs 15:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Good. Then everything is settled.(Pictures itself aren't the _main problem_, but how he _obtained_ them. See discussion on Talk:Fukushima disaster cleanup#Edit proposal:new section.22Controversy.22.3F)※〶 16:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Bow to create a Wiki project. What template to use on Wiki project. How to get Wiki project functions, just like Wikilove, Wikipedia as in month etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Nijwmsa Boro (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Please, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Creating_a_WikiProject. Ruslik_Zero 20:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed Draft:Gordon Griffin and declined it, as had the previous reviewer, as not providing adequate footnotes. In particular, the list of film credits is unsourced (and that seems to me to be the key to establishing notability). The author added a few references including IMDB and the subject’s own web site. I said that IMDB and the subject’s own web site were not reliable sources. The author, User:Rogersansom, then posted to my talk page:

Hello, Robert. Thank you for your review. I want to improve this submission. I did not know that IMDb is not considered a reliable source - I expect I can find a reliable source for these film credits. No intention of re-submitting without addressing previous concerns. I am inexperienced at this, not having originated an article for years. I at first forgot to insert the inline source references, and when the first review mentioned this, I did so. If I missed other concerns, it is because I am very unused to following the procedure, which is complex. I will address these concerns in due course, having researched the screen details. Would a published film reference book (I can think of a possible one) be considered reliable? I am feeling my way, and most grateful for guidance! Best wishes. 

On looking at the author’s page history, I see that the author actually is not a single-purpose account and has made various contributions to Wikipedia. (I wish I didn’t have to express that as surprise about most submitters of drafts.) Do other experienced editors have advice about how the author should proceed? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

In my view the draft should have been declined because there was insufficient proof of notability. It will mislead them if they think they only need to replace the IMDb sources. The subject seems to be someone who has done a variety of jobs in the theatre, but none of them of great significance. Sionk (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Sionk - Do you or another experienced editor have any specific advice for User:Rogersansom? As I noted, the author is trying to improve Wikipedia. Are you saying that you don't think that this person can be made to pass notability? (If so, it is a case of thank you but no thank you, and your continued miscellaneous contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated.) I would like to help editors who actually are trying to improve Wikipedia. I don't see very many of them at AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help would be a better place for this conversation. I've only just come back to AfC after a long time away, but the Reviewers' Talk page used to be where advice could be sought. As for Gordon Griffin, well, he's clearly been round the block, being now in his 70s. I'd hesitate to dismiss him as a nobody, because the author may know of something that gets him past WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. As far as I can see, his only two 'lead' roles in anything are in unidentified TV programmes/films. Overall it suggests whoever wrote this has copied most things from Gordon Griffin's website (e.g. the PUFF audiomagazine quote). The date of birth is not on the website, which suggests the author may be relying on personal knowledge. Either way, the author would need to provide some sort of convincing argument that Griffin passes WP:NACTOR. Sionk (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have found that I get very little help at Reviewer Help, which seems to be either poorly watched or poorly participated in, but which is primarily for reviewers to confer with other reviewers, and not for reviewers and new authors. The Articles for Creation Help Desk, which is intended for new authors to ask reviewers, is somewhat better participated, but, in my thought, doesn't get as many comments as this Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I see what you mean. Ah well, keep up the good work! Sionk (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Sterling, International Justice Mission's digital marketing manager. I am still new to Wikipedia, having joined in July in hopes of helping update IJM's article. I know I have a conflict of interest and I'm here to play by the book. Specifically, I have an outstanding edit request to update the article with details on IJM's organization and budget. I posted the edit request on the International Justice Mission Talk page and reached out to editors on WikiProjects Human rights, Organizations and Christianity. I would appreciate any guidance from Teahouse hosts: Is there another way I can get attention to this edit request? The suggested edits are not controversial and would be an improvement to the article, in my opinion. Best. SE at Int'l Justice Mission (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

In the talk page, you posted ten paragraphs of text that you want substituted for existing content. I doubt you will find an impartial editor who will accept such a request. If you have a specific request about an erroneous statement in the article, that is more likely to receive attention. Maproom (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but I suggest you change {{edit request}} to {{edit request|R}}. This will let other know that it's a significant change to the page and not just some minor change. — Gestrid (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello peeps. For some reason I've got involved in this page Artificial rice. It's a messy yet unimportant topic. As I see it, there's been persistent rumors since 2011 that rice made with plastic has been manufactured in China and distributed in several countries. Despite repeated debunking, including from Snopes (which points out and criticises that very Wiki page), the rumour keeps resurfacing. I did one clean-up, and proposal to merge into the main Rice page, but the original author is maintaining his original claims, and suspect he will do forever. I don't care enough to get into an edit war. I know it's not a democracy, but I could do with some more voices please. Loxlie (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Read the dispute resolution policy. It will tell you to discuss on the article talk page (which has been done, but only briefly), and, if that is inconclusive, will suggest any of various dispute resolution procedures, including requesting a third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse, I looked for how to update my article for submission to "Biography of a living person," and I didn't find what I was looking for. Can anyone help?

Thanks in advance.

Laurendennisla (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Laurendennisla: Welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry, but Draft:Lyrica Garrett is nowhere near ready for submission to the encyclopedia. The draft has only two sentences. The first sentence about her is short and sketchy. The second sentence is slightly longer, but is about her daughter, not her. The references are weak. When I search Google for reliable sources that devote significant biographical coverage to Lyrica Garrett, I find very little. In my opinion, this person does not meet our notability guideline for musical performers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Trying to get my mobile app list to my account on the full website. Not really wanting to edit, but research. Other than a web browser favorite sub-directory list. Thanks! JeffJeff Yee 02:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphodnt (talk • contribs)

@Zaphodnt: Welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure what you mean by "my list". Can you clarify? Perhaps you are referring to your watchlist? If so, you will find a link to your watchlist at the top of any page when you are logged into Wikipedia on the desktop site. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

About a month ago I put a lot of effort into writing most of a draft article: "List of night buses in the UK" (I'm not sure if that was the exact capitalisation etc.) I have come back now, and it seems to have disappeared. I have checked the deletion log as thoroughly as I could and can't find it. It seems to have completely disappeared. Please can someone help me find it and what happened to it. Also if it has been deleted, why? 192.76.8.1 (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Your list of contributions shows nothing relating to buses, at least this year. Maybe you wrote the draft while using a different IP address? While we know neither the title of the draft nor the identity of the account used to create it, it will be hard for anyone here to help. We recommend creating and using a WIkipedia account, both to protect your privacy, and to allow our database and other editors to identify your contributions. Maproom (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you are looking for Draft:List of Night Buses in the UK? Its most recent contributor has an IP address close to yours, both belong to Oxford University. Maproom (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

To avoid confusion about which article you create, I suggest that you create an account. WikiPancake 🥞 12:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Maproom, that is it. Yes, I probably should use an account to edit in future, I will do that. By the way, how did you find it? It didn't seem to be appearing when I searched and clicked 'Everything.' Is there a reason why?192.76.8.1 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't remember quite what I did, only that it wasn't easy. Maproom (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A way that I can find it easily is to guess the draft is in draft space and start to type draft:list of ni in the search box in the upper right corner. By the time I get that far, it suggests the full draft title. —teb728 t c 12:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I add "Copy to Commons|human=JWilz12345" (my username) tag to several image files of Philippine roads that are tagged by bots such as Fbot, Svenbot, etc.? (e.g. File:EDSA07.jpg I have no question to this and several other files' informations, copyright infos/statuses, and licensing. Does I have the permission to do this? Does I also have a permission to add "Copy to Commons|human=JWilz12345" to some images of Philippine roads that have no Copy to Commons tags?

I am an autoconfirmed user. Thanks for the answer! :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello JWilz12345, and welcome to The Teahouse! Yes, you could add {{Copy to Commons}} to a bot-reviewed or unreviewed file. Adding Copy to Commons to a file says that the file is ready to be moved to Commons, but you can't or won't do it yourself. The page at WP:Moving files to Commons before you tag or move images. If it doesn't meet those criteria, don't tag for Commons. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 13:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I want to reference something for a Supreme Court decision, in the infobox for them, but I am unsure whether I should put the reference on "ArgueDateA" or "ArgueDateB". Does it even matter?RileyBugz (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: Welcome to the Teahouse. The documentation for the infobox for U.S. Supreme Court decisions is located at Template:Infobox SCOTUS case. "ArgueDateA" and "ArgueDateB" are date fields. These fields do not need references if the main reference for the case includes the date(s) that the case was argued. Not every infobox field requires a reference, but rather only those that are contentious or otherwise unreferenced in the bidy of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you!RileyBugz (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to make an edit. At the bottom of articles such as Appropriation (art), Found object, and other articles, is found what I think is called a WP:NAVBOX. Correct me if I am wrong about that. Under "General concepts", "Other concepts", I want to change "Found art" to "Found object". Can someone tell me how to make this edit? Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: I think I figured it out. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Good for you! - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, can anyone out there walk me through on how I can create a new article? Livewirelewis (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Try reading WP:Your first article, and there are further useful links in the welcome message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Livewirelewis: I agree completely with David Biddulph. Read and study Your first article, which is an excellent essay. In addition, here are my three suggestions for writing an acceptable Wikipedia article:

1. Summarize what the highest quality reliable independent sources say about the topic.

2. Summarize what the highest quality reliable independent sources say about the topic.

3. Summarize what the highest quality reliable independent sources say about the topic.

In conclusion, the importance of citing high quality reliable sources cannot be overstated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I always check if the subject meets all the requirements before even writing a draft. Then when it's done, I'll create the page, add right sections then gather the info. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

How to nominated Ahimsa in Jainism to WP:FA status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capankajsmilyo (talk • contribs) 12:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)‎

Hello, Capankajsmilyo. The nomination procedure is explained at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. If you have any further questions about the featured article process, please don't hesitate to ask here. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that parts of Ahimsa in Jainism are tagged as unsourced, and so it would fail a FA assessment in its current state. See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, it's a good idea to begin with the good article process before attempting to go FA. GA is tough the first time but gets easier, but for FA you have to have multiple reviewers, and it's a lot harder. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I am new here. I wanted to help and was wondering, if there is a list, like this

• 1961–62: 9th in the Tweede Divisie
• 1962–63: 3rd in the Tweede Divisie
• 1963–64: 1st in the Tweede Divisie, promotion to the Eerste Divisie
• 1964–65: 10th in the Eerste Divisie

Should I put [xxx] around every Tweede Divisie? TwistedByFate (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

TwistedByFate, No--we generally link the first time a word or term appears in the lead of the article, and then ditto in the main body. Linking to the same page over and over won't do much good. However, there's a list of articles with no links that you could work on. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Usually there should be only one wikilink to a page. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 19:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

That's one wikilink per thing we have an article for per page in which that thing is named. If a page had only one wikilink, it'd be tagged as underlinked. As I said above, it's considered correct to link once in the lead or infobox and then once in the body of the article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello TwistedByFate and welcome to the teahouse. The relevant policy is WP:OVERLINK which helps to explain why we don't link the same term over and over again. MarnetteD|Talk 19:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you all for helping me try to figure everything out :) TwistedByFate (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I go by the "there should be only one wikilink to a page" rule, but occasionally someone has edited a page that I created by adding one or more links to items in an infobox when I already had the items linked in the text of the article. Are infoboxes an exception to the one-wikilink-per-item rule? Eddie Blick (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK says: "a link may be repeated in infoboxes, ..." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know that. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I have done a Google search filtered for free images, and discovered this Youtube video thumbnail. I was wondering whether Youtube video thumbnails like this would be allowed under some form of Creative Commons license, and if so, which one? Thank you. S Khemadhammo (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I mean allowed as images in a Wikipedia article.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are many things to make sure before an image gets added to Wikipedia, such as the licenses, copyright and more. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

If the video is in the public domain, it could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If it's not but is relevant to the article, it could be added in the external links section. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. White Arabian Filly, I was referring to a thumbnail of the video, not the video itself.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@S Khemadhammo: YouTube allows uploading videos under the CC-BY 3.0 license. If a video is uploaded under that license, thumbnails (or any other frames of it) are licensed under it as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Finnusertop:, thank you.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

? It says

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time

65.94.217.134 (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The draft in question is Draft:Touching there now. What do you mean when you ask how to get rid of this? Do you mean how do you get the draft to stop being declined? Stop submitting it. Or do you mean how do you make the draft go away? You can tag it for deletion if you want to make the draft go away. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

They had a previous draft that someone had declined that's been deleted. See Draft:Before adding section. — Gestrid (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I attempted to archive some of Talk:Russell Peters, but it seems that nothing has happened since. What am I doing wrong? Verified Cactus (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: It had some strange archive parameters which may have prevented archiving. I have changed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Verified Cactus (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

While checking the citations on Shoot-and-scoot, I noticed that the links provided in the citations section did not work (an error message on the site). What tag should I add to the page? Auvon (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Auvon: You're saying the links are giving you "Page not found" errors? You should follow the instructions at WP:DEADREF. — Gestrid (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I want to be become better at publishing articles for wikipedia to talk about as a experience. However, as my question above says, I am not sure how many certain times I can "submit" the permission for an article to be certified by Wikipedia. I appreciate if you could help me out. Thanks!Edreinoso (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Edreinoso. You can submit as many times as it takes. However, you must attempt to rectify any problems the reviewer mentions in any previous reviews before you resubmit it or it will be declined again. Also, your draft is on the wrong page. Do you mind if I move it to the correct page quickly? — Gestrid (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone accused me of sockpuppetry and the header of that investigation page said something like "Accusing without evidence is personal attack". So how do I report this personal attack? I'm clearly not a sockpuppet master. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have worked this out for yourself. Nthep (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I went to the personal attack page to see how to report it but it said the section was closed and will not be used anymore so users with complaints will have to go to the admins incident noticeboard. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that the original poster has been confirmed as a sockpuppet by a CU. — Gestrid (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There may be a lesson here, and that is that being loudly defensive of one's edits on Wikipedia is not usually constructive. If one is editing collaboratively, one doesn't need to be loud and defensive, and if one is being disruptive, being loud and defensive will not avoid scrutiny. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"It's such a fine line between stupid, and uh....clever" - David St. Hubbins and Nigel Tufnel from This Is Spinal Tap (1984) -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What to do if someone keeps removing my edits by saying no sources to back up my claims. I am the owner of a product which has a Wikipedia page which is backed up by an ecommerce site and a review from a restaurant regarding the product? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdgould (talk • contribs)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability all information must be backed up by reliable sources. So, that editor is right. Ruslik_Zero 19:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, @Pdgould: please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest because you clearly have a conflict of interest on Wikipedia with respect to your product. You should not try to make substantive changes to an article with which you have a conflict of interest. Propose your changes on the talk page instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I just added references to my article, as the editor requested. How do I re-submit? Thank you. I love Wikipedia!Dorotheainmiddle (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dorotheainmiddle: You appear to have three different draft:

• Draft:Jim Jennings, which hasn't had any edits since it was declined.
• Draft:Jim Jennings (filmmaker)
• User:Dorotheainmiddle/sandbox

Which one were you wanting to submit?

— Gestrid (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Dorotheainmiddle - The three drafts that Gestrid has identified are all versions of drafts about the same person. Why are you creating multiple drafts about the same person? Sometimes editors create confusion for the reviewers by creating multiple copies of drafts, but I am concerned that you are likely to cause confusion for yourself by creating multiple copies. My suggestion is that you decide which version you want to work with, and work on it, and request deletion of the other two simply so that you don't split your edits between drafts and waste your time. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Dorotheainmiddle - You indicated on my talk page that you want to resubmit the sandbox version. If that is what you want, I can resubmit it for you. Do you want the other copies tagged for deletion? I am concerned that if you keep the extra copies, you may make some of your edits to them by mistake. Making multiple copies of drafts seems to be a common problem, normally due to innocent confusion but occasionally in order to try to game the system. Do you want the sandbox version submitted and the other versions tagged for deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I just want to use the sandbox version and delta the others. Sorry for the confusion!Dorotheainmiddle (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I just want to use the sandbox version and delete the others. Sorry for creating a mess. I don't know how to get around Wikipedia yet!!!!Dorotheainmiddle (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The draft that was in the sandbox has been moved to Draft:Jim Jennings. The other two drafts have been deleted at her request. However, when the draft is ready for acceptance, it will need to be disambiguated to Jim Jennings (filmmaker) because there are other people with the same name. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello and Namaste Everyone, Due to unknown about wiki policies i have created more than 20 accounts in wikipedia and all my accounts are blocked due to sockpuppetry. Now i am well-known about wiki-policies and i want to use only one accounts. So Can i get help from getting rid of Sockpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.253.254.5 (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If your accounts are blocked, using an IP address to edit is sockpuppetry, so you can help to get rid of sockpuppetry by stopping doing it. The block notices on the user talk pages of your accounts tell you how to appeal against a block. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What was the reason for all the dark series and the end of the show so abruptly2602:306:C578:D8C0:5141:F5C0:9953:EE8 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Typing the words "burn notice cancelled" into Google turns up plenty of leads to help you research the answer to your question. In the future, Wikipedia:Reference desk is a better venue than this one to get leads for your research. --Jayron32 19:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I recognise that autobiography is not allowed on wikipedia, and understand the concept of COI. Would it be appropriate and fruitful to request an article on my own past career as a performing artist (now finished)? I have created a draft with facts and citations. Can that be part of the 'argument' to request an article? Thanks by the way for the incredibly useful work done by teahouse contributors.JGeoffreyStevenson (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@JGeoffreyStevenson: You can submit it through the articles for creation process where it will be reviewed to ensure it complies with all of our policies. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians, please i have an interesting question here. How do i upload songs on Wikipedia or Wikimedia? Actually most songs i want to upload are MP3 format. Please ping me here --Music Boy ^(talk) 21:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You may be able to upload songs, but there are three questions that you need to consider first:

1. Copyright. You can only upload material to commons if it is free for anybody to reuse - that means it is either in the public domain, or has been explicitly released by the copyright owner under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA. If you own the copyright in the song, you have the power to licence and upload it; otherwise probably not. (Under certain circumstances non-free material may be uploaded to Wikipedia, but I doubt that recording of a song is ever going to meet the criteria in non-free content criteria).
2. Format. commons:Commons:File Types says: "Patent-encumbered file formats are not accepted at Wikimedia Commons. ... Examples of patent-encumbered file formats are MP3, ...". You would need to convert them to an acceptable format
3. Whether they are in the scope of Wikimedia commons: commons:commons:Scope says that every file "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.". --ColinFine (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Music Boy50: You cannot upload mp3 files on Wikipedia but you can upload other file formats through the File Upload Wizard (which you can find on the left-hand navigation bar). For more information, read Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Audio NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, nice explanation @ColinFine: and @Nikolaiho: thanks very much.--Music Boy ^(talk) 21:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

How in the world does Lea Luboshutz appear on 16,253 watchlists when ANI has less than half of that? Pyrusca (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

More people are interested in violinists than in the admin overhead of Wikipedia? RudolfRed (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

This is almost certainly a bug of some sort. TimothyJosephWood 01:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

In the last 90 days, Lea Luboshutz hasn't had more than 12 views/day, so seems like a bug that it has 16k watchers. Joseph2302 08:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pyrusca: If a page is moved then all watchers of the old name at the time will automatically get the new name added to their watchlist in addition to the old name. Wikipedia:Sandbox was accidentally moved to Draft:Lea Luboshutz 10 February 2015.[1] It was quickly moved back but it stayed on the watchlists and Draft:Lea Luboshutz was later moved to Lea Luboshutz.[2] Wikipedia:Sandbox currently has 17,061 watchers. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

nice one @MatthewVanitas:. Pyrusca (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Excellent detective work. I guess that 17,000 people are having lots of fun watching the sandbox, for what it's worth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

How can I see how many people have seen a watchlist? What other features that I've not known yet? - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@ReZawler: Click "Page information" under "Tools" in the left pane to see how many users are watching the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone here write in Bulgarian? We have a new editor who is contributing in Bulgarian, User:Igivenofforyou. Can someone advise them that they can better support the Wikipedia project by contributing to the Bulgarian Wikipedia? I just declined two drafts (apparently the same article), and another, which was apparently a translation from English into Bulgarian, was just speedy-deleted. I think that this editor may not understand in English. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the Meta:Embassy page, and it looks like both of the Bulgarian ambassadors haven't edited recently. I'll ping Kroum (talk · contribs) just in case, as they did edit in May of this year. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 22:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)