Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 159

Archive 155

←

Archive 157

Archive 158

Archive 159

Archive 160

Archive 161

→

Archive 165

starting a wiki page,

Hi, I need to make a wiki page for my project for class and I am confused on how you start one. How do I start a page without posting it? I just want to write it in wiki format but not post it. Please help if possible. Also, if there is a template or layout I can use instead, I will gladly use that. Kaylakxoxo (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kaylakxoxo, welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to use the article wizard to create a page, or you could create the page as a subpage of your user page, for example User:Kaylakxoxo/(your title here). Hope this helps! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Kaylakxoxo and welcome to the Teahouse. I noticed that your user page wasn't set up so I took the liberty of setting one up for you. Each Wikipedia user has their own page and also a special page known as the wp:sandbox. If I set things up correctly when you log in now you should see a link at the top of all your wikipedia pages that says "sandbox" in the upper right corner. Click on that and it takes you to your sandbox page. You can pretty much do whatever you want on that page. The next step is to get familiar with the wiki wp:markup language. If you are familiar with HTML wiki markup will be a breeze, it's a lot easier. If you are like me and you hate editing HTML code don't worry, the Wiki markup is much simpler, that is why wikipedia uses it's own markup language rather than HTML, it's far simpler for people like me to learn and use. Here are some more pages I would recommend you check out: wp:How_to_edit_a_page, wp:Five_pillars, wp:article_development Hope that helps get you started. RedDog (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Userbox requests

I was wondering if there was anyone who could make me a special Userbox. I know that you can request them through WikiProject Userboxes, but I was wondering if there was someone else who made them upon request. Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 22:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Here2HelpWiki. I once asked Technical 13 for help with a special userbox. Just ask politely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hello and welcome to Wikipedia Here2HelpWiki. What would you like your userbox to look like and say? Colors, text, images, links, etc... Feel free to browse the collection of boxes I have made so far and leave a message on my talk page with details and I'll see what I can make you. I'm also a member of WikiProject Userboxes and would've seen your request there as well. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Posting date in references list

Hi, I used the cite web template to create the References list on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Klein_(writer). Originally, I believe I inserted both an access date and a publication date into the template, but on the page, I'm seeing only the access, or retrieved, date in the References list.

I want to figure out how to re-enter the publication date and make it appear in the References list (along with the retrieved date). But I'm not sure how to edit citations that have already been created and how to make this info appear.

I posted this same question a couple of weeks ago and got this response: For any references in which you used an access date, just insert "|date=Date of publication" before the listed access date, replacing "Date of publication" with the date you want.

When I do this, the date info appears, but it's in parentheses right after the author's name (before the period that separates the name from the next item). I want the published date to appear without parentheses and right before the access date. Any advice? Thanks in advance for your help! Lauren1970 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Lauren, the format of the {{cite web}} template dictates the layout with the date being parenthesised after the author's name and the retrival date at the end. The only way round this is to format the citation by hand in a layout you prefer. However the format for the citation templates has been developed over a long period by consensus and I suspect that if you hand format you will find that someone will come along and convert them to the citation template format. If you would like to join in the discussion about how the citation templates work the page to visit is Help talk:Citation Style 1. NtheP (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Good to know. I didn't realize that is the citation style -- I thought it was some kind of glitch! Thanks for the info. Lauren1970 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Article says it needs references - but it seems to have them already

My interest of the week includes six sister lighthouses all built around 1874. As I started to dig in and research them, I realized that improving, linking and cross referencing information in the individual articles may be a good project to get my feet wet as an editor.

So far I realize how much there is to learn and in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Island_Light, I cannot understand why it still says there are no citations to reliable sources, despite my best efforts. Obviously editor error on my part, but I could use some assistance in figuring it out, and perhaps some opinions on how to go about cross linking information on these six sister lighthouses or ? Fun for me to perhaps fill in the blanks for myself and also leave that trail for others to follow when reading about these particular historic structures. Scottsadventure (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Scottsadventure, and welcome to the Teahouse. It was the refimprove template that was the very first line of the wikicode that placed the tag on the article. I removed that wikicode and the tag went away. Good work! By the way, I live about five miles from Mare Island, and drive across the Mare Island Bridge frequently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Merging

Hello Teahouse! I came across two articles, Tauchu and Tauco. Judging by the Chinese names, they are the same or at least, very similar. Should I attempt to merge the two? If so, how would I go about doing it? Many thanks, Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Good spot! To merge, take the version you think is the worst name (how is it usually referred to in English-language texts?) and make that page a redirect to the better one. Then edit the remaining article with any information that was only in the article that was made into a redirect.

A problem here is that neither page has any references, it would be great if you could find some! Also Tauchu says "the name comes from the pronunciation in the Min Nan dialect", and Tauco says "The name comes from the pronunciation in the Hokkien dialect". As neither fact is referenced I would suggest just not including either of these in the merged article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that you must provide copyright attribution when you perform a merge. So, as Luke says, edit one to include edits you think belong in the other, but when you do so, place in the edit summary a note saying what you are doing and linking to the article. For example: Merging content from [[Source Page]] to here. Moreover, when you redirect the article that is the source of the merged content, you should likewise state where you merged it to, providing a link, e.g., Content merged to [[Destination Page]]. See Wikipedia:Merging and Help:Merging for more information.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I "fixed" an article from the Getting Started page but it is still listed as "broken"

I've made a few edits to Honda Sport 90 after coming across it through the Getting Started page. I removed some tags that were within the article that labeled it as needing citations, but it still has the gray bar across the top that says, "This article may be confusing or vague. Look for ways you can make it clearer." I've looked inside the article and cant find any tags that could be deleted. How does the gray bar get removed? It seems to be in some kind of category that has to be removed by an admin. Thanks RickyDix (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed this kind of tag from the article text:

Hello RickyDix. I have looked at the article twice today, and don't see any tags or "gray bars". Is it possible that you are looking at a cached version? Try another computer or mobile device to look at the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's very likely Cullen has targeted the issue. If you need information on how to clear your computer's cache memory, please see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

articles labeled as has having grammar, spelling, or clarity issues

Once these articles have been improved, is there a way to remove them from the list of articles that need improvement? For example, I improved these articles:

Professional-managerial class

Poor Little Rich Girl: The Barbara Hutton Story

Honda Sport 90

But when I go to them, they are still listed as needing to be fixed. Is there somewhere within the articles that can be deleted to take it off this list?RickyDix (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the list of articles that need improvement"? Could you give us a link please? And I've changed the URLs in your question to wikilinks. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Tha landing for new users of Special:GettingStarted something or other. KonveyorBelt 18:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the "getting Started" thing, I assumed there was a list or something of articles that needed improvements. I just wondering what or who decided whether an article no longer needs improvements, and how to get rid of the gray bar above a page saying that it can use editing. 19:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Any editor (including you, RickyDix), can remove the tags showing problems with an article, assuming that you have verified that the problems that led to the tagging have been resolved. Simply edit the article and delete the wikicode that created the tag. Once the tag is gone, the article will no longer appear on lists of articles containing that particular tag. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused, Cullen. Which tags are you talking about? I can't see any sign of the usual sort of maintenance tag on the current version of any of those 3 articles, which is why I was asking what the OP meant by "the list of articles that need improvement". - David Biddulph (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Honda Sport 90 article, for example, was tagged as needing references by Dennis Bratland in late October, David Biddulph. It now has four references and the tag is gone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The tag was removed weeks before the question was asked, hence my confusion. I see that in reply to a later question on this page you have suggested that it may be a caching problem, so hopefully that will resolve it. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

What to do about edits that are of poor quality

I am having an issue while editing a certain article. Another wikipedia member has been editing the article. The edits are mostly relevant and are well-sourced. However, the other editor is often 1) lifting material straight from the source (which has terrible grammar and formatting) and pasting it directly into the article, and/or 2) Paraphrasing the text in terrible English/grammar.

I have been reverting any of 1). When he does 2), I've been adjusting by simply cleaning up all his posts and posting on his talk page reminding while meeting the quality standards. However, he continues to post in broken English, leaving me or other future editors to clean his work up. I want to discourage him from doing that, but am not sure how as the things he posts, as long as they are not plagiarized, are usually relevant and sourced. Plus, even if I do simply undo his work, he just comes in and re-does it.Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse PinkFloyd11. (great band btw) Sorry you are having issues with another editor. To start with can you give more detail about which article you are referring to? Have you tried leaving comments on the Talk page of the article? Also, you can try contacting the editor directly on their User talk page. To provide more feedback though we really need to know which article you are referring to. RedDog (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is Karna. I haven't left a note on the talk page of the article well, because 1) it is not well-moderated, and 2) because I could not follow the talk page. The English on it is absolutely awful...I wasn't even sure where to begin. Frankly, from what I could gather from the talk page, the way the article has been moderated has not at all met the wikipedia standards. I have tried to contact the editor directly on his talk page. However, he merely says that "everything he has is sourced" and continues to post, often reverting my reverts and changing my sourced edits. He also hasn't really responded to my allegations that some of his material is not relevant to the article-in-question. The editor in question is Arjunkrishna90. I've also talked to him about the fact that the one source he uses is just that, one source, and definitely not a source of complete authority. He has not responded to this discussion yet. He hasn't really addressed the main issue of plagiarism and poor English. Even in his responses to me, his English is fractioned and broken.Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Talk page of Karna is a bit of a mess. For some reason a user named Yajna93 WITCH-KINGG keeps posting a long block of incoherent text. I deleted it once but since it's there several times I'm not sure if an admin should take more action to contact Yajna93 WITCH-KINGG so I left the other ones there for now. I don't have much experience or interest in politely telling people to stop adding junk to Wikipedia so I'm going to leave that for a more experienced editor. However, just because a Talk page has some crud doesn't mean we stop using it. The Talk page for that article seems fairly active to me (although I just took a quick look). Also, I noticed that Arjunkrishna90 has left a message to you PinkFloyd11 on your talk page which as far as I can tell you haven't responded to. I don't know anything about this subject so I can't judge at all on the content discussion but it looks like Arjunkrishna90 is following the proper procedure. I also noticed the two of you are reverting a lot of each other's changes. I suggest you try not to get into an wp:edit war RedDog (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have responded to Arjunkrishna90 on HIS talk page. You might have noticed that Arjunkrishna90 has been reprimanded in the past for vandalism and nonconstructive edits. I posted here specifically to avoid getting into an edit war.Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I missed that. I apologize if I seemed to imply you were in the wrong there. RedDog (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Allowed to post an article related to our historical house?

We recently moved to a small town and purchased a historical landmark. We are living in the house and we are learning more and more about it and it's original owners all the time. Previous owners are giving us old photos of the original house, remodeling, repairs, etc.

My question is: Am I allowed to create an article about the history of this house? Just historical data that we are collecting from previous owners, local museums, etc. I would love to showcase photos of the original structure, repairs, previous owners, etc.

Please let me know if this is allowed. I think preserving the history of the people who have come before us is so important.

Thank you, Anna Campbell Women Business Owner (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia restricts its content to that which has been published in reliable sources. It's one of our main principles. The benefits of this are twofold; firstly, it makes sure content is verifiable, and secondly it ensures that we keep our focus on things which are of encyclopaedic importance, rather than being an indiscriminate collection of information.

The golden rule is that, for an independent article to exist, there needs to have been published significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The question is, does this exist for your house?

If there is information that exists, but has not been published, I'm afraid this could not form the basis of a Wikipedia article, as it counts as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

From the sound of things, all the data you have would probably be considered original research if published through Wikipedia.

However, has the house been covered by newspapers or other publications? These could be useful reliable sources for an article draft. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Luke's correct of course. Though if your house is listed as a historic building, on an official State/national historic register etc. (or been studied in a book) there may be official reports you can base an article on. Otherwise there may be a local museum or historical society who might be interested in your documents? Sionk (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anna, welcome to the Teahouse! If I'm not mistaken, your house and its original owner seem to be both mentioned and pictured in Wikipedia's article Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina, including a citation to an apparently reliable source. If you have more information from published reliable sources, you could add it there. Photographs and other images compatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements (for example because they are out of copyright or because the person who took the photo wishes to freely license it) can be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons. If you end up collating, in the existing article Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina, citations to a significant amount of coverage of the house in multiple independent reliable sources, you could then perhaps think of starting a separate article about the house itself. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability and military units

Hellllllooooo...

Is there a standardized unit size (Company, Battalion, Regiment) that meets the notability requirement for a unit history? I am researching the 460th PFAB (their article is a stub) and much of their history is covered under the 517th RCT, however they were also later attached to several other units and made a contribution to the war effort. After locating their war diaries and several other richly detailed histories, I'm wondering how much I should include in the article, or even if it should be expanded at all. Should the length of the article reflect the publicly perceived notability of the unit? Any guidance you can give would be welcome.

Thanks, Salad Spoon (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Salad Spoon, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a question which as arisen more than one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and in a nutshell there is no consensus on the minimum unit size as long as it meets the Wikipedia:General notability guidelines and there are reliable secondary sources that write about the unit. The unit's war diary and memories of former members are not secondary sources and shouldn't be relied on too much. It's for this reason that most articles are about larger units, unless they are very well documented, for example E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). If you would like other opinions, you might want to ask the question again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. NtheP (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, NtheP, The 'secondariness' of the sources is an important distinction that I had failed to consider. After taking a second look at what I have, and checking in at Wikipedia:General notability guidelines and WikiProject Military history, I think requesting a merge of the articles may be more appropriate. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salad Spoon (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Need to work with an editor to update corporate pages.

Hi there - I'm an employee of Sirius XM Canada and I'm hoping to work with an editor to update the information across some of the channel entries and the corporate entry. The editor that was most recently updating the SiriusXM Canada page doesn't have a talk page I can write on. If someone could give me so assistance/advice, that would be hugely appreciated. Andrewburnssxm (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew and welcome to The Teahouse. I looked to see who was editing the Sirius XM Canada page and most of them have talk pages. Even the ones that don't can be reached if you create the talk page; just click on the red "talk" link. The problem with IPs is that they may not always have the same IP every time they edit.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Citing resources

When citing my resources throughout my article it places them in the notes. I have used the same source in different areas of the article. Is there anyway I could combine these so my Notes section doesn't have repetitions of the same resource over and over again. Thank you!ToothFairyJenny (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jenny. Yes, you can: you do it by giving a name to the reference the first time you use it, and thereafter just referencing it by name. See WP:NAMEDREFS for the details. --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Are named mountains notable?

Hello! Recently, I've been going through the unknown-importance Korean articles and came across a lot of stub-class mountain articles with basic information. Examples include Akwibong, Amisan(Gangwon) and Amisan (South Chungcheong). Since I thought that the pages were not notable, I've nominated them for deletion but another editor advised me that named mountains are usually notable under WP:NGEO. Is there anything I can do for the articles? Thanks Kkj11210 (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kkj11210. Named mountains are not inherently notable, but there is a fairly strong presumption that they are notable. I recommend that you (and all editors) read the Five pillars of Wikipedia, which are the core principles of this encyclopedia. The first core principle is that Wikipedia incorporates features of a gazetteer, which is a directory including geographical features. Accordingly, Wikipedia should strive to have articles about every important geographical feature on Earth, including mountains. Clearly, though, every little bump on a mountainous ridge is not necessarily notable. But the official naming process is one way that nations decide whether or not a given peak is notable. In the United States, where I live, this is a rigorous process that can take many years, and input from geographers, preservationists, mountaineers and historians is considered. In the end, it is coverage in reliable sources that counts. But I would say, as a mountaineer and an experienced editor, that there is a strong presumption of notability of named mountains, and that an in-depth search for coverage will almost always be successful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I'll see if the articles can be improved Kkj11210 (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with writing a page..

Can someone help me write my article on this fantastic hotel in france where all the racing drivers used to stay?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Hotel_de_France_%28Le_Mans_/_La_Chartre_Sur_la_Louire%29

Derek Fulk (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If there are any le Mans racing nuts out there that write stuff for Wikipedia they would love to get involved as its so well known...

Derek Fulk (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

How do we decide what to include for the ideology of a political party?

Hi! I've searched but can't find an answer. In the Ideology section of the Infobox for a political party, should we put all aspects of ideology we can reasonably prove to match that party? or should we only include ideologies which the party itself claims? To me, it seems clear that the former makes for a better article but I've had some disagreements with other editors and would like to be sure.

Thanks! Tomclarke (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom. That's a great question. What we wish to do is reflect what is said about the party in reliable sources, which in this case would primarily be news media and political commentators, with priority given to those that are neutral in their perspective. When political parties discuss their ideology, they may not be great reliable sources, as they're trying to maximise their appeal. For example, a party may describe itself as "centre-right", but all foreign media describe it as "far-right"; in that case we would go with the more reliable source.

It may be prudent to use fairly broad categories in the infobox, and then have more detailed discussions within the text.

Hope that is useful. If you can point us to a specific article we can give our 2 cents on the issue. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The article in question is Union, Progress and Democracy. In short, this is a party which describes itself as 'anti-nationalist' because it opposes nationalist movements in the Basque Country and Catalonia. In newspaper articles, Rosa Diez, party leader, has described her party as defending the unity of the Spanish nation, and called it 'unequivocally national'. The party calls for the removal of powers from Spain's autonomous regions, again in order to 'protect the nation'. In other words, the party self defines as 'anti-nationalist' but is in reality 'anti-regionalist' or more precisely, 'anti-Catalan nationalist' and 'anti-Basque nationalist', while also being 'Spanish nationalist'.

I know this is all a bit of a headache: it's an argument that has been rumbling along for about 4 years. I have tried to convince my fellow editors that if they tried to view Nationalism as a neutral term rather than intrinsically negative, they would be able to judge this more fairly. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be interested in discussing this. I tried to ask for resolution of the dispute but was advised to ask here instead. Thanks a lot for your answer: I believe it could help. Tomclarke (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think "anti-separatist" might be a useful term. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Query Regarding an article Iemlabs

Hello,

I had posted an article in Wikipedia regarding Iemlabs. It was just an Informational article. We are a Vancouver based company having branches in Kolkata and USA. All the information provided were correct. But we have tried to post it through various other ids. But whenever We tried to post, the article got rejected and the id got banned also. So please approve my article this time considering the information provided was correct and also there were no promotional statement.Ranjan ray11 (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ranjan. It appears, after looking, that Iemlabs has not been written about substantively in reliable sources that are entirely independent of Iemlabs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, only properly having articles on subject that the world has already taken note of by writing about them substantively (it should never be used to announce new things). In order to determine whether a tertiary source article can be sustained, we look to the concepts of notability and verifiability. Since it appears the sources we look for do not exist, it does not look like Iemlabs is notable as a topic, nor that an article could be written based on verifiable information. Note also that since you are the chairman/manager of the company, you have a conflict of interest in writing about the subject. There may be are other places where you could properly write about the business. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this ready to submit for review?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Craig.chamberlain11/sandbox

Is an artist biography, would like some support to see if it is ready to publish. Craig.chamberlain11 (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be notable can you find some reliable third party sources that mention him? Theroadislong (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There are several in the third party list. 4 magazine publications.

4 television programmes. an entry on BBC your artists with two paintings in public collection. A catalogued exhibition with artists also on Wikipedia. Craig.chamberlain11 (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

New page, could you help me, please

Hi all, could you help me with this page? i try to improve it but it seems very hard for me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Palazzo_Margherita_(Bernalda) Thanks Dishv80 (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The article has some reliable sources, but is still on the short side. As Freebirdthemonk pointed out, a few more references should get this accepted via AFC. Might I suggest adding this one? [1] Jinkinson talk to me 03:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed and accepted, the article is now at Palazzo Margherita (Bernalda). Please feel free to expand and improve the article further. There is another Palazzo Margherita in Rome, so perhaps hatnotes are required? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Empty citation help

I just started trying to edit in wikipedia and got an empty citation message in the footnotes. I heard about a wikilink creator that helps you put a footnote in the right format. How do I find that and fix #28 and #29 in an article I am editing on Rafael Lopez artist and illustrator. Thanks. Alaniso (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Alansiso. I think what you are referring to is the citation tool in the default editing widgets. Go to edit the page in question. Position your cursor at the spot in the text where you want to place the citation. Look up at the top of your edit window. You should see graphics: a Big bold B, an Italic I, a Pencil, etc. at the far end of that line you should see "Cite". Click on that. You will see another line of widgets appear below. Click on "Templates" then select "Cite Web" or whatever the appropriate option is for the reference, I took a quick look at the article and I think you want "Cite Web". A window will appear with fields to fill in, the title of the page you are citing, date, author, etc. BTW, there are a lot of fields but most of them are optional, just fill in what you know. When you finish the tool will insert the appropriate Wiki code in the place where your cursor was in the text. RedDog (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

can't edit a post

I want to edit the piece names section of the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece. I want to insert a new language in the table. But the table is not showing up in the editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chess_piece&action=edit&section=8

SHUBHANKAN DAS (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The 'Chess names' table is contained in a template..... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Chess_names Please read about editing templates before attempting to edit this as changing the template will affect everywhere it is called in the encyclopedia. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

How can I find someone to review my article edits to maintain neutral point of view

I work for Beacon College, which has a very short article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beacon_College Since it is incomplete and inaccurate, a few of us on campus worked on creating a new article, which is in my Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grmdre/sandbox We were careful to avoid bias and just present the facts, but I would like to have it reviewed before editing the already existing article. It has been rejected for submission since an article does already exist. How can I find someone to review the edits? And once it is reviewed, is it acceptable for me to edit myself, or should I have someone else decide on the final version and submission of it? Grmdre (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Grmdre and welcome to the Teahouse. In my opinion, your draft article is filled with promotional language more appropriate for a college brochure or its website than for a neutral encyclopedia. Another shortcoming is that your references are scrambled up. Please read Referencing for beginners and follow its advice.

The more fundamental problem is that you should not be drafting a new article when we already have an existing article on the college. Our general approach is to improve and expand existing articles, not to somehow delete them and replace them with all new material. Another problem is that you have an admitted conflict of interest as an employee of the college. Accordingly, I recommend that you refrain from editing the article directly. Instead, you should post a critique of the claimed inaccuracies on the article's talk page. Please furnish citations to reliable sources backing your claims of inaccuracy. Make suggestions for improvements, expansion or corrections there, and allow experienced, disinterested editors to make the actual changes to the article.

In addition, you state that several people are involved in editing this draft. Please be aware that Wikipedia accounts are for one person only, and we do not allow group accounts, or accounts representing an institution instead of an individual. Each person who wants to have input should contribute as a discrete individual. I hope this helps you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have placed the article on my watch list, and note that there is as yet no discussion of any shortcomings on its talk page. That is the primary place for a conversation about improving that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

changing an article subject/title

Hi All,

I'm part-way through creating my 1st article and I want to change the subject/title but, unlike with the article body, this does not seem possible.

Is there a way to do this?

Thank you,

Tamim. 195.157.55.212 (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A page title is changed by moving the page to a new title, thus preserving the edit history. Moves can only be performed by registered users who are autoconfirmed, meaning they have made at least ten edits under the account name and the account is more than four days old. Here, you asked this question editing by your IP address. I assume you have an account since you say you created the article, but in the event you do not, or your account is not yet autoconfirmed, you can request an uncontroversial move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Visual Artist: Mimi Smith (article for creation)

I would love some advice/help editing my article and submitting it for review. Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mimi_Smith_(artist) Archiveassistant (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've aken a look and it seems quite impressive. There are several areas that need improving but, looking at the list of authoritative sources about her, she easily meets Wikipedia's general notability criteria. It could do with some additional inline citations, particularly for personal information and any significant claims (for example several of the links to her work in public collections simply go to the museum homepage, rather than something that confirms the fact). There are some basic formatting issues to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. But if this article was submitted to Articles for Creation I would have no problem accepting it. Sionk (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! This is my first wikipedia article and I am a bit lost. I will work on the improvements you have suggested. Many thanks! Archiveassistant (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this real or a scam - Donations to Wikipedia

Hi everyone :)

Firstly thank you for your work. I LOVE WIKIPEDIA! :) I've recently seen an advertisement to donate to Wikipedia and would like to verify this is real. I'd like to donate a small amount to help, but need to know money will go directly to Wikipedia.

Message reads "DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: We are the small non-profit that runs the #5 website in the world. We have only 175 staff but serve 500 million users, and have costs like any other top site: servers, power, programs, and staff. Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind, a place we can all go to think and learn. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We take no government funds. We survive on donations averaging about $15. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this gave $3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online and ad-free another year. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to Wikipedia. Thank you.

One-time Monthly* $3 $10 $15 $20 $30 $50 $100 $ Credit Card PayPal Amazon

Problems donating? | Other ways to give | Frequently asked questions | By donating, you are agreeing to our donor privacy policy. The Wikimedia Foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization. *Monthly payments will be debited by the Wikimedia Foundation until you notify us to stop. We'll send you an email receipt for each payment, which will include a link to easy cancellation instructions. "

Is this real - please advise.

All the best,

Kelly :) 2601:8:9C80:8B8:BD1D:6CA0:266A:5F31 (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, it's super cool that you want to help financially!

That sounds like the wording the Wikipedia donation drive uses. Of course, that would also be the wording a phising site would use as well!

I guess it depends where you saw that message. Anyhow, the legitimate pages are https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage and https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give/en .

Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe those messages are legitimate; I remember getting one last year, and I wondered exactly the same thing, whether it was real or a scam, but they turned out to be real. However, the easiest way to be sure of your donation is to go through the link on this website; there should be a link on the left that says "Donate to Wikipedia". That way you're sure. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much LukeSurl and Writ Keeper :) I'm going there now :)donation is small... will also post on my facebook page :) Have a WONDERFUL day! :) 2601:8:9C80:8B8:8C5:2242:36E7:4A1C (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

While I do not question the legitimacy of the note, I will only say that one should never send money to any entity you do not trust. Please see: [2]. Only send donations to the address indicated there.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi All

I just saw this too - went to correct a typo I adopted (on a page entitled 'Lalian' and the same message appeared. I didn't think WikiMedia allowed this so wondered if it was a bug or virus...? Thanks for the clarification! :)

Ngg3 (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

under review?

I just created my first Wikipedia page. I could not tell by the message at the top of the screen if I properly submitted the page for review.

The message at the top said, "Article not currently submitted for review." But the message at the bottom said, "Review waiting." Thank you for any insight!

The page is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marvin Megee

Stewarmd11 (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The message at the bottom of your draft is correct so your draft is awaiting review; it's a bug in the system that the message at the top remains after submission. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I appreciate your response a lot.Stewarmd11 (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Stewarmd11: I fixed that for you. Thanks, Matty.007 20:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Trying to fulfill article reference issues

Hi - I'm now in my third month trying to the best of my ability to get my Article published and have again just added many more reference links to try to achieve this. As LukeSurl explained in my second rejection it can be difficult to get verification of broadcast material unless it has been digitised and put on the internet. I have successfully managed to track down some of my stories that the BBC has put on one of its websites and have added these to the references. I've also been in touch with BBC News archives in London and they tell me I can access all the stories that I have listed in the Article but since they date back to between 1975-1988 when I was a BBC TV News correspondent the record of these stories is not published on the internet but can be viewed at their headquarters in London either on the BBC computer system or on the original card index. Frustratingly, I have my own personal VHS/DVD video library of all the stories mentioned. I have read and re-read my Article for Creation and I can honestly say there is nothing that cannot be proved if challenged in the content. I'm just hoping after all the efforts I have made in submitting this Article that it can finally pass the Review test? I'd appreciate your help, comments and advice to achieve this,because with this long, drawn-out saga , and at my age of 75, I could run out of time!Sirromhc (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sirromhc. We usually try to assume good faith when some or many sources about a topic are offline and cannot be immediately accessed to verify their relation to the article's content. That said, this is an unusual case, where BBC broadcasts are used primarily as the source. It sounds as though they can be accessed at their archives in London, but it's not clear if these can be accessed publicly or because of your status as a prior BBC TV News correspondent. We generally want to use sources that the public can access, even if it would be somewhat difficult as they can only be accessed in London. However, given that you have your own library of this coverage, and that finding solid coverage of news reporters is generally difficult, I think it might be worth considering passing the article. I'm going to invite LukeSurl to comment here on this matter given his decline given my views. There are sources that appear to provide a lot of coverage on Morris that I've just added to the article, such as this one, which may help substantiate some claims. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, actually it seems that Luke is on a wikibreak for the remainder of the year. I'll look a bit more closely at this tonight or tomorrow. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your two messages User:IJethroBT I have already sent a reply on the Talk page that hopefully you can pick up? I'll wait to hear back from you. Sirromhc (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Nativity Scene

Hi! as I got professionally interested in paper cut crèches from Czech lands (Czech Rep. + Bohemia + Czechoslovakia) I came to the WP article on Nativity Scenes and found it sorely incomplete, despite having 20K+ visits per month. I am trying to figure out what to do, because to make it any good it will need /lots/ of work. I guess some could be done in the background, maybe in a "parallel" article, but I seem to recall that is not encouraged in WP. So far I got hit with unhelpful revert as I was getting started, and feel a bit confused on how to go about things - I would want to open doors for others to collaborate on building an article together, rather than going somewhere, doing the work and coming back. Please advice.

Nativity scene

Talk:Nativity scene

I have started two threads in the talk page, and trying to add a bit to the article itself every day. The article needs heaps of citations, cleanup, etc. I do not want to deface it too much with "citation needed", but might. Opinions appreciates Thanks!

YamaPlos talk 20:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Yamaplos and welcome to The Teahouse. I've moved the question to the top of the page where it belongs. It looks to me as if you have done what needs to be done. Maybe others can advise you further.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

thank you, and we'll see. So far I have to spend a lot of unproductive time dealing with matters unrelated to the article, maybe only 20% actually being able to do some useful work. I am suffering the punishment :-) given to lesser editors... Thanks for the Teahouse, seems to be a way to deal with that decline in wikipedia editors YamaPlos talk 01:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I got a task to create a wiki page of my class

I got a tack to create a wiki page of my class, and I did adding the names of every pupil in the class and the head teacher but the article I wrote was too short and got taken down. what should I do and add to make it better and not get taken down again? thank you Patrikr1 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is absolutely not to be used to list all of the names of all of the pupils in your class or school. If your teacher gave you this task please ask your teacher to look at the potential enormous harm exposing these details on the internet could do to each of them. Your task breached their right to privacy. In addition it is not congruent with what Wikipedia is.

You article has not yet been deleted, but I have nominated it for deletion. It is a gross error by the person who gave you this task. You should show them this reply. Fiddle Faddle 19:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Patrick1 1), I want to congratulate you and your teacher in trying to do something for Wikipedia 2) As Fiddle Faddle says, the list of all pupils in a class has no place in Wikipedia. Of course, there is always an exception possible, say, if it is of historical interest, like, for example, the West Point class of G. Patton as "the class where stars rained". For that, you would have to refer to a book (better, several) that mention that list, and, more importantly, that mention why it is relevant (important). Maybe there is some confusion in what the teacher wanted. If you want ideas of better subjects for an article, ask here, I'm sure people will point you in a direction that is both useful and legal and safe. YamaPlos talk 01:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

How to get list of editors who change their user names?

Hi all,I'm doing research on Wikipedia. However, I found that there are no records of contribution for those editors who change their user name to a new user name. Is there any one here knows how to get the list of editors who change their user name and their previous user names? I tried to google such information in Wikipedia, and only know that Wikipedia provides a page for editor to request rename (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username). Of course, I can parse revision in this page to get the list of editor rename, which will take me certain time. I wonder is there an easier way to do this? Many thanks for you help. Xiangju (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Xiangju! You may be looking for the user rename log. benzband (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Benzband, this's exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks a lot for the usefull link. Xiangju (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! :-) benzband (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to bear in mind Xiangju that prolific editors (those with more than about 40,000 edits) can't have their accounts renamed, so they're forced to start a new account if they decide to change usernames. Eric Corbett 19:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Uploading

I'm not really sure how to upload images, I wanna upload Playhouse Disney's logo from before 2003, but I am having trouble on how to. Toon Disney HD (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Question moved from the Teahouse talk page by ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Toon Disney HD. First, I've moved your question here from the page where you posted it, which says in huge letters "Greetings: This page is for discussing the Teahouse, please direct questions about Wikipedia to the Teahouse Q&A forum. Thank you."

Secondly, you can use the File Upload Wizard; but since it will certainly be proprietary, please read Non-free content criteria first, to make sure the way you treat it meets the legal requirements for such use. --ColinFine (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. =) Toon Disney HD (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I please have feedback on draft article in user space before submitting article?

Hello there! I have enjoyed making edits and corrections on Wikipedia since I started just a short while ago. I REALLY wish I had more time as I find it difficult NOT being able to do more!

I've got a draft of my first article ready to go and I have posted it in my user space: User:Leifeinarson/draft article on Sunnybrook School (Toronto). I have a recent photo and a couple historical photos dating back to 1960 to add to the article once it is submitted. Any feedback would be great!

I'm a bit confused how to create a talking space for the article while it is still in my user space...

Thanks!Leif 17:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Leif! It is the general consensus that schools below high school level do not get articles here unless there is something especially notable about them. John from Idegon (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Leifeinarson: Welcome to the Teahouse! While John from Idegon's comment generally applies, a quick look at the sources seems to indicate that there is fairly broad coverage of the school. This allows it to meet this site's general notability guideline, meaning that it may be approved. I'd recommend that you go ahead and submit it. Also, well done writing the article! You wouldn't believe how few people have perfect formatting the first time they write an article. Good luck, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks user:John from Idegon and user:King jakob c 2! I appreciate the feedback a lot. I still have some work to do revising the article so it is more appropriate for the encyclopedia. Then I'll try submitting it. I guess there is no way to submit it WITH two or three historical photos, since this is my first article?

Thanks again! Leif 03:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifeinarson (talk • contribs)

This sounds like an excellent school, but there is a pretty well established consensus that we don't keep articles about the vast majority of primary schools unless they are of indisputable historical or architectural significance. Although I respect the effort here, I don't see the notability here. This is just my opinion as an experienced deletion reviewer. Other opinions may vary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I am totally impressed. However, it is hard to argue for notability as the weight of all the references is heavy for primary ones, i.e., those coming from Sunnybrook itself, rather than secondary sources, i.e. people outside of Sunnybrook, commenting on it. For example, a book that would talk, in length, about how special Sunnybrook is. Maybe because it was one of the first preschools in Toronto it did house some major study on early education? Maybe some very famous people have said that they owe what they are to Sunnybrook?

I mean, great work, great work. Leif, may I with all respect suggest that you use your very obvious talent towards something with clearer notability, that has not been covered in Wikipedia yet? Maybe some famous building near where you live, maybe some famous person... "Famous" is hard to define, but you got it made if you find something or someone about whom a lot has been written by other people who are not directly connected i.e., mostly not employees or relatives (though that is OK as long as there is a lot of secondary, independent sources) YamaPlos talk 01:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I have just posted some fairly substantial revisions and additions based on your comments here. Any further thoughts? I greatly appreciate your responses and attention to this. When I started working on this article I did not realize there was general consensus that elementary schools did not get articles unless they were notable in some ways. I have finally got access to some newspaper archives (patience is a virtue) and I believe that does help improve the notability of this article. I am fascinated in particular with the historical context in which the school first developed - the beginnings of malls, 21st century consumer culture, Sunnybrook Hospital, more women having their own careers, etc. All that seems fairly notable to me, and I do appreciate how difficult it is to evaluate an article that does not have as many secondary sources as would be ideal. I just don't think the secondary sources exist for an article like this, and that in itself has become a motivating factor for me to create this article. It seems notable to me, all the more so because of the lack of solid secondary sources and research. Yama - yes, I do plan to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways! I'll be looking for opportunities that suit my expertise as I am able to make time!Leif 01:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifeinarson (talk • contribs)

Ah ah! And I just noticed how to add a "Talk" page for this draft in my user space, so that is active now too, should you wish to comment/discuss there! Why is it that my posts here show up as "unsigned" even though I am adding the four tildes? Thanks again - I really appreciate all your constructive and critical feedback!Leif 01:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifeinarson (talk • contribs)

New article in line for editor review, but may not need it?

Hello Teahouse! What a great place. Thanks for your help.

I created an article this evening regarding a notable Canadian jockey. I created the article in Wikipedia's Article Wizard, and was taken to the draft submission page. After writing the article, I submitted for editor review, but received notice that the system is severely backlogged. My article is nothing of significant importance unless a person is interested in the particular topic, so I wondered if the editing process is necessary. Maybe I am taking up space for more important articles? I have additional information to add in the coming days, including a fantastic 100 year old image, but otherwise the article is short and complete. My formatting is probably weak because I'm a newbie, but it doesn't require complex formatting. Thanks in advance! InfoKlepto (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey InfoKlepto. The article is a great start. Thanks for contributing. I have reformatted the existing references you provided for better attribution, but the article is missing any inline citations. For a simple guide to place them, see Help:Referencing for beginners#Manual referencing. This missing element – inline citations – is the main issue anyone reviewing the article will likely note. What you would do is place each existing citation inside of <ref>...</ref> tags, then move them into the body of the article next to the text it verifies, and then place in the references section the template {{reflist}}, which will tell the software to display the references there. In the text, each place you pasted a citation inside of the ref tags, would show as a footnote (e.g.^[1][2]). To the extent you might consider that "complex formatting", it is nevertheless necessary for a verifiable article. You are not taking up space for "more important articles" and some dishearteningly high percentage of the other articles in the backlog will be properly rejected, unlike yours, as promotional write ups about business or products without any reliable sources cited or as on non-notable topics. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit. I will work on the citations. I have a question about images, but can repost if necessary. I have an image for the article of Watts and his horse. The original painting is archived at Woodbine Entertainment. The provided our family with a print. They have given me permission to use the image, but I do not have the original. In terms of credit and permission for the image, could you help clarify what I should write? I am thinking the image is public domain by now, but am unsure. I would appreciate any guidance. Thanks! InfoKlepto (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Info on Yamaha DX 1980 100cc motorbike

I have checked the list of all bikes manufactured by Yamaha, but there is no such bike listed. I need to set the timeing on this bike. Any help would be grateful. Thanks, Kelvin58.168.138.209 (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kelvin. The Teahouse is for answering questions about editing Wikipedia, not for answering questions about repairing motorcycles. Try the Reference desk, or online Yamaha help groups. By the way, I have a motorcycle that needs repairs myself. It is an ongoing challenge. Good luck! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Help editing page

I am currently editing the Maternal Health page. Any input on what I have done so far or advice for further editing would be great. I expanded the page greatly to include more than just information on maternal morbidity, which was what the original article was comprised of mostly. I aimed to give a more holistic explanation of maternal health and its implications. Thanks!! Kiarasanchez12 (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kiarasanchez12, and welcome to the Teahouse. I did a quick review, but did not study each of your edits in detail. I noticed that you nearly doubled the length of the article, and I really want to thank you for expanding such an important article. Take my critical comments as secondary to my overall praise of your efforts.

Please be careful of using superlative language such as "astounding scale" in Wikipedia's voice. As encyclopedists, we need to write from the neutral point of view, even when we are justifiably passionate about the topic. In general, we don't mention the researchers by name in the body of the article, but instead in the citation. An exception would be landmark work by a highly notable researcher, who has a biographical article here on Wikipedia. Please be sure to wikilink to other helpful articles that provide useful supportive information to readers. The article currently seems to over-emphasize maternal oral health. I would expect a similar emphasis on diet, hygiene, blood pressure, mental health including postpartum depression. Although STDs are mentioned, that section could be expanded. Please be sure to identify country-specific research clearly, or the cases where experiences can be generalized worldwide. I encourage you to keep working on the article. You have the interest and motivation to continue improving it. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Social media

While editing, I am increasingly coming across user handles for instagram, Twitter and links to Facebook. Is there a WP policy that tells us whether and how these can be added to WP articles (not talking about User Pages here) Greenmaven (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jack. Such links are hardly ever appropriate, and should usually be removed. The relevant policy is External links. --ColinFine (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --Greenmaven (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Jack Greenmaven, the usual practice is to include one external link to the "official link" for a person or organization. Traditionally (in Wikipedia history), that would be to the official website, as that was assumed to be the place where the most complete expression of the online identity could be found. As social networking has evolved, though, there may be cases where the best official link might be something other than a traditional website. If a notable person presents them self to the online world primarily through an official, verified Twitter feed, then that should be the external link presented. What we don't want is a big long list of website, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Quora, Pinterest, LinkedIn and whatever is the very latest social networking site. MySpace, anyone? No, link to the most relevant one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)