Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 381

Archive 375

←

Archive 379

Archive 380

Archive 381

Archive 382

Archive 383

→

Archive 385

page: Craig Sheppard question: citations

How do I add citations to the above-mentioned page? I've never done this before.2601:602:8100:5FC1:98A8:3E4D:D8F6:D7E8 (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

for reference: Craig Sheppard

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, D8F6:D7E8.

For more details, read Referencing for Beginners. For full details, read WP:CITE and Help:Footnotes and pages linked there.

First, find a source the supports one or more statements in the article. Gather the bibliographic information from the source: title, work (newspaper, magazine, name of web site, etc), author (if known), date of publication (if known), url (if online), page(s) (if printed or PDF), publisher.

Second identify that fact (or facts) supported by the source. Directly after the clause or sentence containing the fact (and any closing punctuation) insert the following <ref>Citation details here</ref>. You may optionally use a citation template to format the "Citation details here" part, such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, or {{cite book}} (or any of several other specific ones), but this is not required.

That is all that is needed. Repeat for each source to be cited. There should be several. DES ^(talk) 00:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to add a picture over on the upper right. Can you tell me how to do that?2601:602:8100:5FC1:98A8:3E4D:D8F6:D7E8 (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you will need to find a picture that is in the public domain, or that has been released under a free license, such as CC BY-SA 3.0. A picture from a web site will not do, unless it very specifically is released under a free license. Permission "for use on Wikipedia" will not do, it must permit reuse by anyone in the world, for any purpose, including commercial use, and including making modified copies or derivative works. Wikipedia's fair use rules pretty much never permit use of a non-free image of a living person. Once you have found a free pic, upload it using the commons upload wizard. Thne see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for instructions on how to add the image to the article. But until you have a free image uploaded, the instructions are pointless. DES ^(talk) 04:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nationality

Do we include nationality in articles or is it not included anymore because of a dispute of whether to use [[United States|American]] and [[Americans|American]]. Thanks TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello TeaLover1996, and welcome to the Teahouse. I always include it, using the former form, unless it is unclear or complex enough that in needs an explanation in the article body. I'm not aware of any guideline or consensus which says to do otherwise, but I might have missed something. DES ^(talk) 00:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of biographies, according to MOS:BLPLEAD there are two key points you should consider when mentioning someone's nationality or current location. Which are,

• 1) In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
• 2) Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

But when it comes to movies WP:FILMLEAD states the the nationality should be mentioned if it's singular and defined by reliable sources. If, however, multiple nations are involved in the production, different national interests must be covered later in the lead section, not in the opening sentence. And avoid wikilinking (or piping, such as [[United States|American]]) when mentioning the nationality as it could be considered as overlinking. Best, -- Chamith (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

ChamithN, TeaLover1996, the advice not to link is not in WP:FILMLEAD, nor in MOS:BLPLEAD , and at least for biography articles, I strongly disagree with it. I don't think this is in any way overlinking. DES ^(talk) 04:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Actually I advised him not to link as per the guideline WP:OVERLINK which considers linking everyday words, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions as overlinking. -- Chamith (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Translating articles

I have an interest in translating existing (not my own) French articles into English. Is this acceptable? If so, does Wikipedia have articles requiring such translation, or, do,I,just chose my own? Is it necessary to ask permission of the original author? If so, should the translation be submitted to that individual? The references will, of course, be in French. Must I verify the references for accuracy or is it understood that they meet acceotwnce guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProulxMike (talk • contribs) 02:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey ProulxMike. It is not only acceptable but very, very welcome. See generally Wikipedia:Translation and note Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France and French-related. In order of your statements:

1. Yes you choose your own. I have done a number of French translations and often trawl their good articles (Bons contenus) and their featured articles (Articles de qualité), and the respective nominations pages for those two projects 1, 2. We have here Category:Articles needing translation from French Wikipedia.
2. No you need ask no one, but you must provide mandatory copyright attribution when you perform the translation. For an example, here is the copyright attribution edit summary I used upon a translation from a French article.
3. Well, you certainly should look at the references if you can, to at least get an idea that the original author was faithful. Also, our sourcing standards here are more robust than they are at the French Wikipedia and in my translation efforts I've often had to both look at the sources and find additional sources. I recommend choosing what to translate by how well it is sourced. I recently made the mistake of tackling a translation where the original was relatively poorly sourced and the result was not stellar.

By the way, I am in the midst of a translation right now and if you wanted to work on it, I'd welcome help (each section has a machine translation below – some I've turned into passable English; some are untouched and quite garbled). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ProulxMike. It is always acceptable to translate articles, if you have the ability to render "near native" prose in the target language, namely English on this Wikipedia. You can choose your own articles to translate as you see fit, although responding to good faith requests by other editors is a wonderful and kind thing to do. All previous editors have already given explicit permission for derivitive works such as translations. Their review or approval is also not required, though I recommend paying attention to their opinion. You do need to furnish attribution, as explained at WP:TRANSLATE. If you have other questions, please return to the Teahouse at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As for the references being "of course" in French, I would question that assumption. Of course, there are many "highly French" topics that will have been discussed almost entirely in French sources. If do, that is fine. But it is always worth five minutes of effort searching for English-language sources, as they may exist on a very large percentage of French topics. This is the English language encyclopedia, and we encourage (but do not require) English language sources. They may add to the content, or they may provide more accessible referenced content for editors here (not all of whom speak French but all of whom should speak or read English in at least basic levels).Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

worth noting

I want to write about an organisation GOVINDALAYA (www.govindalaya.org). How do I know whether its worth writing?GOVINDALAYA (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, GOVINDALAYA. The answer is that you need to determine whether or not the organisation meets Wikipedia's criteria of notability. This is not about whether or not it is important, or influential, or popular: it is simply whether people who have no connection with the organisation have written at length about it. Since every article should be based nearly 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have written about it, it follows that if such writing does not exist, then there can be no article.

By the way, our username policy forbids usernames which appear to be editing on behalf of an organisation. Please either change it, or abandon that account and set up a new, personal, one. --ColinFine (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

How to give Barnstar? Why is Jainism Barnstar not in list. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 14:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You can give someone a Barnstar by writing on their talk page the appropriate "What to type" code from the table on Wikipedia:Barnstars.

A "Jainism Barnstar" does exist. You can find it at Template:Jainism_Barnstar. In theory this barnstar is "managed" by Wikipedia:WikiProject Jainism, but that Wikiproject appears to be mostly inactive apart from yourself. I think you'd be fine awarding Jainism Barnstars however you see fit. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :D, I have archive enabled on my talkpage. Is there anything by which I can disable barnstar from archiving and stay on it.

I see you have already copied the barnstar to your user page, which will not be archived, and is the right place for it long-term - not both. - Arjayay (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to keep it on userpage, that's y asked. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 16:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Per the documentation at User:MiszaBot/config, I've made the thread permanent through this edit, which is the output of {{subst:DNAU}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 12:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Get content of Article deleted

I created an article Vishuddhasagar which was speedy deleted. Is there someway in which I can get the last version of the article for recreation as special Mypage. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 05:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Capankajsmilyo. I assume when you say "special Mypage" you mean a user space page. Such pages can be used to prepare and draft articles for the main encyclopaedia, but a userspace page should not be used as a permanent alternative location for content removed from the main encyclopaedia. There are also types of content (such as copyright violations) which Wikipedia cannot have anywhere.

You can request a copy of the latest version of Vishuddhasagar by following the process at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks LukeSurl -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 12:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Are lists required?

What's the difference between categories and lists on Wikipedia? If they are same, why not delete all lists? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 13:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You might try reading Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

shameless self promotion

Hi there, i visited Polzeath.

There appeared to be two entries which I found to be spurious and I deleted them.

The first "There are Police reports of anti-social behavior, theft, burglary, violent and sexual offences.[5]" seems fairly self evident especially as the link does not work.

The second is the laughable

"Tristan Stephenson a mixologist and drinks industry expert became a director of Surfside Cafe on the beach of Polzeath in 2014.[8]"

This is surely blatant self promotion, and is of no interest to anyone other than himself and perhaps his girlfriend and mother.

Anyway, this chap has the Polzeath page on his watch list and has reverted the page to it's previous state.

His comment;

" Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Polzeath, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. "

seems reasonable enough, but I feel that he will hit me with a prepared arguement regarding his inclusion on the page.

What do we do when people shamelessly promote themselves on wikipedia when it is little use to anyone else? 176.144.102.139 (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the content on Tristan Stephenson which you removed without explanation, the section is entitled "Economy" and Stephenson is a notable part of that economy. I am not self promoting, I am not Stephenson, I have created a large number of articles on all sorts of people as you can see from my user page. I have however removed again the content about policing as this was not referenced. Theroadislong (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In that case can I please open the discussion a little further and suggest that you are displaying unwarranted "ownership" of any article that you have edited.

I honestly cannot see why directorship of a cafe is notable for inclusion, perhaps you think that drones of "mixologist" related tour buses will soon start rolling up to Polzeath beach. 176.144.102.139 (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephenson is the owner and director of a cafe on the beach which is part of the economy of the resort. I don't understand what the problem is? Perhaps you would like to continue the discussion on the Polzeath talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is probably a better place than anywhere to discuss this as I feel that a wider issue is in play.

Does anyone else believe that we should be able to read about tourist destinations without having someone's CV landing in our laps.176.144.102.139 (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It is true that Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for personal or business promotion. While individual items of content in an article need not meet any of the various notability guidelines, they should be relevant and significant. What should be included is always a judgement call. I don't see a systemic problem here, merely a question of a specific decision. i agree that the article talk page would be a good place for further discussion of the matter. DES ^(talk) 14:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

subject's notability

Hello TeaHouse,

My proposed article was declined because the subject lacked notability. In the article I included 4 links to newspaper articles about the subject. Why wouldn't that be enough to establish notability?

Thanks,

Hhabashi VAI H Habashi (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference: Draft:Joseph Wagenbach

Hello, H Habashi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Those links should be converted to proper inline citations, and it wouldn't hurt to have additional sources. There are also some other formatting details to clean up. But the subject looks at least probably notable to me. Happysailor, who posted the decline, could best say why he or she did so. I can help you clean up the formatting if you like. DES ^(talk) 20:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

hello DES,

thanks for you help. I'm not sure I see problems with the formatting of my proposed article but would appreciate your input. In the meantime I will see if I can find more sources. I know articles have been written about the Joseph Wagenbach character in the German press - would that be eligible in this context?

Thanks again, Hhabashi VAIH Habashi (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger

Can anyone help me with merge request on Naraka -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 16:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles of Subcategory in Main Category

Why are articles of subcategories not listed in Main Categories? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 16:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo because the subcategory itself is included in the parent category. However there are some exceptions when certain categories are non-diffusing. See WP:CATEGORY for further details. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about image copyrights

Hi, I am currently willing to edit some infos about my passed school . I have some images which I would include . The pictures will be from the Magazine of our school. So there is no issue of copyright because no one owns them and if these pictures are used in any place it will not breach my purpose , I am okay with it along with the institution . Please reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheikh Salman Nihal (talk • contribs) 15:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have moved this question under its own section header. CabbagePotato (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sheikh Salman Nihal. School magazines are copyrighted just like any other magazine unless the magazine has a printed notice saying that the contents are copyright free. When you say that "no one owns them", I am sorry but you are incorrect. The photographer owns the copyright to each photo unless that person has released or assigned the copyright, in writing, to someone else. Therefore, you cannot add these photos unless you can prove that they are free of copyright or freely made available under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you just mentioned . Well , even if the Magazine holds the copyright if I can make the official website of my school mentioning that the contents of can be usable or if the institution gives me the copyright to use it . Will that be okay ? yes I will make sure that it is proved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheikh Salman Nihal (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

why are my posts getting deleted?

Seems someone does not like my suggestions for changes so simply deletes before others can look at it and comment on itJohn.r.r (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You have had many explanations on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi, is Supurbia a right redirect for Grace Randolph? I doubt so thought of discussing first before tagging. Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Peppy Paneer, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks reasonable to me. I gather that Grace Randolph is the author of Supurbia. If a creative work is not independently notable, or does not yet have an article, redirecting it to the author's article is a common option. What else would you do instead? Do you think that Supurbia is notable enough for a separate article? Or is there somewhere else you would redirect it?DES ^(talk) 17:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel, at first I thought that its an ambiguous redirect but then changed my mind as its a work of an author and had a doubt. So thought of knowing about these cases of redirects. Well I did a little research on Supurbia, it has got coverage but from the same few sources many times, so would not comment on its notability. And the article Grace Randolph has been tagged for "general notability guideline". Anyways, Thank you for such a clear explanation. Peppy Paneer (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Article

How do I create an article? I cannot figure out where to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijesse27 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nicholas, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse: I have put some useful links on your User Talk page (and removed what was there - see below). Creating an article that will stick is difficult, and I would advise anybody to get some experience editing existing articles before they try to create one. But if you want to go ahead and create one, start by reading Your first article carefully, and then use the article wizard to create it. Note especially the points about notability: the subject of the article must have been written about, several times, by people unconnected with the subject and published in reliable places such as major newspapers. (If you are thinking about writing an article about Nicholas Jessen or Piper Boysen, please don't waste your time and ours).

One other point: the material you put on your User page is probably just acceptable, but the material you put on your user talk page is quite inappropriate. Your user page is a page for you to share some information about you as a Wikipedia editor. A little more information about your life outside is acceptable, but any more than you have written would not be. And your user talk page is a page for other Wikipedia editors to have discussions with you about what you or they do on Wikipedia. The paragraph you put there was not appropriate, and also contravenes our policy on biography of living persons, which is why I deleted it.

Finally, I strongly advise you to read our guidance for younger editors before you go any further. --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Done" writing new article. How do I take the next step?

I "finished" writing a new article. What is the next step?

Sorry to take up someone's time here. I spent over an hour searching for what the next step is, but I cannot quite seem to lay my fingers on it, though I think I remember seeing something about 5 days ago about "submitting it to editors". Do I try to move it out of my User space?

Hotornotquestionmarknot (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! It's our pleasure to help. To submit your article for review, just write {{subst:submit}} at the top. An Articles for Creation reviewer will review it and accept it or give some suggestions for improvement. Best of luck! Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Registered editor, but not logged in

I recently created an account at Wikipedia and just made my first edit to an existing article. However, I forgot to log in before making the edit. Is there any way I can get my IP address taken off the article's "view history" page (and replaced with my user name)? Thank you for any help you can provide.NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi NewYorkActuary, welcome to the Teahouse. You can ask Wikipedia Oversight team to suppress the edits you made from your IP address. Just send a detailed E-mail including diffs (hyperlinks to specific "difference between revisions") that you want them to suppress. I don't think they can replace IP edits with your username though. Cheers! -- Chamith (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice on finding published sources that list factual school information

I attempted to update a high school page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordova_High_School_(Rancho_Cordova,_California)) with the information below and was told that it is non-factual, promotional and not useful information for anyone. I was also told that I cannot cite a school letter from the Principal because it is not published, but I haven't been able to locate other published resources to cite. The other two high schools in the school district (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folsom_High_School & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vista_del_Lago_High_School_(Folsom,_California)) have both un-referenced information and promotional language, but somehow their pages have not been challenged.

Any thoughts on whether or not the content below is o.k. to use? If not, how can I find pertinent published data for the school and update the content on the page without it being removed?

draft article content

Content to attempt update of the page: Cordova High School (CHS) is a public high school serving grades 9 to 12. It is in the Folsom-Cordova Unified School District and located in Rancho Cordova, California - east of Downtown Sacramento on US 50. Academics and Student Life Cordova High School is the home of the Lancers. The schools’ mantra is 'College and Career Readiness for All CHS Students.' CHS earned a clear accreditation through June 2017 following a midterm review from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). CHS builds units and develops teaching methodologies for California Common Core School Standards and received the International Baccalaureate (IB) World Schools authorization for the Diploma Programme (DP) in the 11th & 12th grades. All CHS 9th & 10th grade students participate in the IB Middle Years Programme (MYP) coursework. The DP curriculum is made up of six subject groups and the DP core, comprising theory of knowledge (TOK), creativity, activity, service (CAS) and the extended essay. Through the DP core, students reflect on the nature of knowledge, complete independent research and undertake a project that often involves community service. CHS has programs for Engineering, Visual & Performing Arts (VAPA), core subjects and California Partnership Academies. The campus has a new Performing Arts Center/Theatre. An auxiliary gym and stadium improvements are in development. New access roads, landscaping, fences and benches will be completed by 2018. Athletics Cordova High’s recent extra-curricular activity record is as follows: Boys basketball tied for the league championship, wrestling won the league championship and the girls basketball team made the playoffs. Football 2014 had a winning season. In the spring of 2015, seven out of eight of CHS's sports teams went to the playoffs. The Color Guard and Winter Guard brought trophies back to CHS and the ACE team received accolades at their annual spring competition. References

JLRFLAZEDA (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello @JLRFLAZEDA:.

As something to keep in mind, Wikipedia has over 4 million articles and a great many of them fail spectacularly to meet the content sourcing and presentation expectations. However, no matter how frequently the "Look! That article is terrible, too. I want to make / keep the one I am working on terrible - just like that one!" argument is made, it is never convincing. Nor is the corollary "You must clean up all 4 million of the other articles first before the one I am working on should be fixed." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, JLRFLAZEDA. Some things to keep in mind about school articles. We never use anyone's name, other than people who are notable and the head of the school (in the US, that's usually the principal), current and historic. As I mentioned to you on your talk page, it has to be of importance (and understandable) to all readers, not just people from the school you are writing about. In the particular case we have here, your edit was loaded with acronyms that are meaningless to the vast majority of the readers. If it is something that is in just about every school (prom, student council), leave it out. As far as accomplishments go, the school article guidelines tell us that we should only discuss "ultimate" achievements. In athletics, that would be state championship. In other areas, it would be a similar achievement. Note that a band or chorus getting "First division" does not equate to a state championship, as in theory, every school could make First division. In all cases, achievements need to be referenced to independent sources. The school itself is not a reliable source for anything other than mundane things like address and principal's name. It is better to have 2 year old attendance figures from the state DOE or NCES than current figures from the school. Hope this helps. John from Idegon (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Amália Rodrigues - first name or surname?

WP policies state that "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only..." The article on Amália Rodrigues uses first (given name), Amália, instead, according to Portugeuse tradition per talk page: "... to use the first name for females when just one name is used..". Is this OK country-specific use or should we stick to the standard surname only? Erik den yngre (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Erik den yngre, use the surname, this is the English Wikipedia, not Portuguese, so the rules and conventions of English apply. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This great artist deserves a better article, I am struggling to improve it, to conform to WP standards. Erik den yngre (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft editing advice

Hi, I would like some advice on how I can edit my article, 'Draft: SMU School of Accountancy' to better address the reviewer's comments. Would appreciate help on identifying lines that have peacock terms or do not have a neutral tone and any advice you can give on how to change these. I have looked at other pages linked to SMU such as the page on 'Lee Kong Chian School of Business' and I feel like the tone and sources I've used are similar so I'm not sure why my draft has been rejected. I'm really new at this so any help would be appreciated.RachR310 (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@RachR310: Welcome to Wikipedia! The draft article was Draft:SMU School of Accountancy (edit this page to see how I made that a link). Your draft has been rejected as "Looks more like a brochure for the school than an encyclopedic article". I thunk that's harsh, and I am sorry that you have experienced such a response, but it's not untypical, sadly. Accordingly, I have now published it, at SMU School of Accountancy. You can continue to make improvements - it needs links both to other articles, and to it from other articles. Some of the paragraphs still lack a citation, and we don't really need a list of student events or societies. You should add an Infobox, in this case {{Infobox university}} is appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@RachR310: Wikipedia is not a directory of services/courses, and this school appears both non-notable, and your writing style is so promotional. I believe that this articles should be deleted as spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, RachR310, but in my view the article SMU School of Accountancy should be deleted for lack of notability. As far as I can see, it does not have one single reference that is both substantial, and independent of the school. Several are published by the school itself (Wikipedia has almost no interest in what an organisation chooses to say about itsef), and most of the rest are mere listings. The couple which are from newspapers are clearly written from press releases, and so not independent. What you need to find is places where people who have no connection with the school have written articles about it, and had them published in reliable places such as major newspapers. Then write the article entirely based on what these sources say.

If you cannot find such sources, then I'm afraid it is impossible to write an acceptable article on the school at present. If you can, then take your draft and cross out every single statement than is not cited to an independent reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Unfortunately @Pigsonthewing: has rather hastily moved this to article space, IMO it should be moved back to draftspace, as it has 0 chance of being kept, unless it can demonstrate some notability and encyclopedic value. I'm AfDing it, since Pigsonthewing declined the speedy. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

correction of entry for Sqdn Ldr the Rev Herbert Cecil Pugh, GC

There are several inaccuracies in this entry about my father - for instance, his mother's name, and how my mother received his posthumous George Cross. How can I correct these? 86.168.132.162 (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. That is tricky one, I'm afraid. The problem is that Wikipedia requires everything to be cited to a reliable published source, and those details of Cecil Pugh are cited to a source - though it is evidently somebody's memory and may well be inaccurate.

The other problem is that, as his child, you have a conflict of interest, and so are discouraged from editing the article.

If you have a published source for the correct information, it is easy: add a section to the talk page Talk:Cecil Pugh, with a citation to your source, and somebody will make the change for you (there may not be many people looking at that page, so if you put {{request edit}} in - with the curly brackets - it will draw somebody's attention to it.

Alternatively, if you have not got evidence for the accurate information, you may be able to get the information in the article removed, on the basis that The Memory Project is not a reliable source.(I thought of removing it myself, but it needs careful editing, because that source is cited for a number of facts, many of which are probably correct). Again, I would suggest the changes on the article's talk page, remembering that we cannot insert information which does not have a published source. --ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Uploading vedios

Sir i want to upload a vedio with is in ".MP4"format.how can I do it? Aryan hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan 08:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan hindustan (talk • contribs)

Hi @Aryan hindustan: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia only takes videos in the WebM and Ogg formats. This is because these formats or more free, open, and unencumbered by patents than other video formats. You can find info on converting video here.

Note that videos typically need to be freely licensed for anyone to use. What video are you hoping to upload? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks

Aryan hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan 10:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan hindustan (talk • contribs)

Deleting a comments subpage of a talk page

Where can i ask to delete the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hyperbolic_geometry/Comments

A lot of links! This is an important topic, and the article should be expanded, so that these links can be incorporated into the text. Geometry guy 22:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I only want o delete the page above, (the comments sub page of the talk page ) not the article or the talk page. But I don't know where where I can propose it. WillemienH (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I just tagged it for deletion so you dont hve to do anything now. Read WP:How to delete a page for the future. If you need anymore help, please comment on my talk page. Nice meeting you. Tortle (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks , but I am not the creator of that page so the reason is incorrect WillemienH (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the erroneous tag. If you read the link that Tortle gave you I think you'll find that WP:MFD is the process in this case. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

user:TheRedPenOfDoom added another speedy deletion template, (with better reason, although again not completely correct) . The WP:MFD procedure seems to complicated for this I think not contested request, it is no more than just a bit of cleanup . WillemienH (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

And I have asked the deleting admin to undelete this. Failing that, I will either undelete it myself, or take the matter to deletion review. This was not "patent nonsense" and indeed did not fit any speedy deletion criterion. In fact, I see no valid reason to delete it at all. If it is to beb delted, it is my view that an MFD is required. @TheRedPenOfDoom, WillemienH, Biddulph, and Tortle: DES ^(talk) 13:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is not patent nonsense, please explain what it non-nonsensically means? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, It means that the person making the comment thought that the article should be expanded using information from the links, presumably external links, and that fewer links should be included. "patent nonsense" needs to be really incomprehensible, not just poorly worded, to be deletable. This seems like a reasonable comment to me, although it should have been made on the regular article talk page. DES ^(talk) 14:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

it has now been undeleted (thank you). I copied the content into the regular talk page, using the template {{copied}} to indicate the source, and converted the "comments" page into a redir to preserve the history for attribution. DES ^(talk) 14:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Inline Citation

I am using sfn|last|year|p=# on Bharata Chakravarti for inline citation. On being clicked, it leads us to ref, but when we click any ref it does not lead us to bibliography. What is it I am doing wrong? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 15:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Capankajsmilyo. All fixed, with this edit. See Template:Sfn#How to use and Help:Shortened footnotes#References list. In short, unless you're using {{citation}}, you have to provide the parameter |ref=harv in the citation templates when using these types of shortened footnotes. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 15:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability Check

Greetings. I just completed my first article and was curious if someone could perform a notability check. I am fully aware of what the standards entail, but some of them seem a bit on the arbitrary side.

Article is here: John Ruffo

There are some other aspects of the article I would like to hash out in more detail, but I just want a little piece of mind that I am on the right track first. Cheers. Supaflyrobby (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I checked it out, and he seems easily notable enough for an article, per WP:BASIC. He's received significant coverage in a number of different major news outlets. That makes him inherently notable.

The issue about only being notable for a single event gave me pause for a moment, but he has been in the news for at least two events: the loan scandal itself, and his escape from custody. I don't think this is even borderline. Nice article, thank you for making it! --Ashenai (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree on notability, hosever, per WP:BLP and especailly WP:BLPCRIME sourcing needs to be particularly careful here. I removed the See Also link to Frank Abagnale, as three was no real connection. DES ^(talk) 16:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

non zero code: 1

What's a "non zero code: 1", please? - my render keeps failingSueNightingale (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, SueNightingale: without more context, I can't even tell whether this is a question about Wikipedia or something else. It's like ringing up a garage and saying "The red light keeps coming on" and then hanging up.

Please specify what system you are using, what you were trying to do, what you did to get it, and and (precisely) what result you got. --ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@SueNightingale and ColinFine: Assuming that this question is related to Wikipedia, and seeing that SueNightingale's contributions are mostly book creations, I think this question has something to do with a rendering issue with Wikipedia's book creator. From what I've read in this discussion (as well as this one), it appears to be an old issue that hasn't been addressed yet. CabbagePotato (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Four tildes. I can't seem to get the hang of it.

Sorry this is such a minor issue, but even though I put in the four tildes, I keep getting the unsigned message. See my discussion with myself right under the next question.6thgeneration 04:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

See what I mean? ARggggh!6thgeneration 04:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

@EricJWoodward: See User:SineBot#What it looks for. SineBot only recognizes signatures that have links in them, like mine (and many other users). Assuming you had changed your signature in your preferences page in the "Signature" section, you may have checked the box that says Treat the above as wiki markup. but forgotten to format your signature using brackets, like this: [[User talk:EricJWoodward|6thgeneration]]. (This example would link to your talk page). CabbagePotato (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful answer CabbagePotato! I will try to take it from there.6thgeneration 04:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

So, now I will try it again. Right here:6thgeneration 19:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Newbie: How do I flag a dubious comment in an article?

Hello, In the article "Entheogen", in the second paragraph, this statement appears: "Entheogens have been used in a ritualized context for millions of years;" There is no reference cited for this, and in fact, I think it is probably not true. Humans have only existed for, at most, 2 or 3 million years. There is no evidence that I know of to put the use of entheogens back more that several thousand years. Indeed, the article itself refers to the archaeological record dating back several thousand years. I don't see anything that would justify the word "millions". So, as a newbie editor, and to make a long story short, what should I do about this? Thanks 6thgeneration 04:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, EricJWoodward. In order to flag (or tag) a dubious assertion, you place a template into the wikicode right after the sentence in question. Templates are always surrounded by double curly brackets. The easiest way is to add {{Cn}} which produces a tag saying "citation needed".

Another approach is to boldly remove a dubious assertion, explaining why in your edit summary. In this particular case, you could also change "millions" to "thousands". That's what I would do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen!

Now here's a minor follow-up question: I did use the four tildes, and yet the question says my comment was "unsigned". I will now see if it does the same thing if I put in four tildes right here:6thgeneration 04:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

All right - it worked that time. Thanks Cullen!6thgeneration 04:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it didn't work. Am I doing the tilde thing wrong?6thgeneration 04:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJWoodward (talk • contribs)

@EricJWoodward: Try leaving a space before the tildes ("here: ~~~~", not "here:~~~~"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Andi. Got it now, I think.6thgeneration 19:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, when I use the tag {{Cn}} the tag-maintenace-bot changes it to {{cn|date=August}} (notice the casing and date parameter) and if I use the tag {{cn|Date=August 2015}} it changes it to {{cn|date=August 2015}} (note the casing). IMHO, this is very pedantic. Checkingfax (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, that is normal. The form {{cn}} is the main name of the template, other capitalizations are aliases. The bot will add a date in the form of Month YYYY in a date= parameter. the "d" in date should be lower case (as it is a parameter name seen only in the edit window, not shown to readers) while the month name should start with a capital, as it is displayed in the article and should be in a proper date format (as per our manual of style). The bot is programmed to change all cn tags without a date or with non-standard dates to {{cn|date=Month YYYY}}, no matter what non-standard format they may be in. Any non-standard parameter name is simply ignored so "Date=August 2015" will have the same effect as "QXYZ=August 2015", that is, none. Computer programs can be very picky about formats. But since the CN tag is only for maintenance, and should be removed by replacing with a proper citation as soon as possible, this doesn't much matter in this case. DES ^(talk) 21:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Help

I read at Wikipedia's help page that I can get help here. Sociable Computer (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Sociable Computer: That's correct! The Teahouse is a friendly place for new editors to get help from experienced editors about Wikipedia. Feel free to post any questions you might have. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sociable Computer. Many people who hang out here are willing to help but you need to meet us part way by telling us what sort of help you need.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a P&G search box?

Is there a quick and simple way to search through WIkipedia’s myriad policy and guideline pages, like the search box at WP:MOS that enables us to quickly search through the myriad style-related pages? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Although I am not aware of a specific search function limited only to policies and guidelines, I do recommend Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines which is structured in a pretty logical fashion. Another suggestion is to use the "WP:" prefix in the search box, followed by a relevant key word. So, for example, entering WP:NOTABILITY into the search box takes you to our "General notability guideline". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The MOS pages are all subpages of WP:MOS, so it is easy to implement a search button. The policy pages are not so conveniently organized. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Is that a thing that is possible? Feasible? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist? @Cullen328? Or anyone else? Is a better (and more searchable) organization of policies and guidelines something we could do? (Something that wouldn’t include every random essay and AFD page.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) might be a good place to discuss this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What, just propose some half-baked idea of my own? I was hoping there was already something floating around, if not already implemented. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

So could someone suggest something to propose? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Lacking an actual thing to propose, I submitted basically the original request to WP:VPR#Efficient search for policies and guidelines as suggested. So this discussion can probably be considered closed now. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

After various editors improved my article, the methods they used are not clear in the edits...

My method of learning can most easily be described as learning-by-doing. I am pushy, irreverent, demanding and self-reliant. It's a high wire act. That being said, when my (embarrassingly childish) program works it's wonderful -- otherwise it's crash and burn. A number of people helped to craft Alberto Gómez Gómez to the point that it is now -- a point which may not be "B" level as yet, but that still is certainly a much finer piece of work than it would have been based on my guess work. I'd like to thank every last one of those who contributed, but don't know how. Are there ways to express my gratitude in an individual way for each of those who improved this article? Thanks Rmark1030 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rmark1030, and welcome back. You can look at the article history and see the user name of every person who edited the article, and what changes were made in each edit. Each edit has a "thank" link which you can use to thank the editor for that particular edit. Also, each edit has a link to the talk page of the editor who made the edit, where you can leave any message you might wish, including an individualized thank you. You could even award a barnstar if you think it appropriate.

You can also use the history to click through the diffs of the various edits, which may help in understanding the various editing techniques used (or it may not, it depends on what helps you).

I hope that helped. DES ^(talk) 04:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

article needs revision does need annotation?

The talk page for the article Buck_converter has a couple of old suggestions. Should there be some kind of notation in the article itself ?

Thanks for your support

DGerman (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DGerman. I reviewed the talk page, and mostly what I see are minor criticisms and a variety of suggestions for improvement. Since I have no expertise in electrical engineering, I am unable to verify whether those various issues have been resolved adequately in the current version of the article. If you have that expertise, and your user page indicates that you may, then I encourage you to do one of two things: Either improve the article in response to the talk page comments, or respond to the talk page comments there. If, in your judgement, the article has major problems, then it can be tagged for improvement. Actually, improving an article is always preferable to tagging an article, if an editor has the ability and the motivation to do so competently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Using Images in Wikipedia

Can I just use any image (found over the internet) as long as I mention author and source? PranjalSingh IITDelhi (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi PranjalSingh IITDelhi. The situation is near the opposite. You cannot use any image you find unless 1) you can affirmatively demonstrate it to be in the public domain or under a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's free licenses, or 2) you use it under a valid claim of fair use. The rules are a bit complicated but to meet fair use, a (low resolution) image's use in a specific location and for a specific purpose must meet all ten of the criteria set forth at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. To translate all this a bit, if you find an image on the Internet and don't know what copyright license it bears or that it's in the public domain, it is assumed to be non-free copyrighted and cannot be used unless it meets the strict fair use requirements I linked. You have to positively show it is free and, if you can't, only the fair use exemption would allow its use. Common places where fair use comes into play are for books and albums covers, film posters, organization logos and things of that nature – and almost always only in articles directly about the work being depicted. If you tell us a specific image, and where you would like to use it, we can provide a tailored answer. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

So it seems easier to take a photo myself and upload rather than use one uploaded somewhere on the internet. I'll try to see if I can take an image by myself. Thank you very much for the detailed response. It will help me on occasions when I don't have chance to take a photo myself.

PranjalSingh IITDelhi (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear PranjalSingh IITDelhi, Yes you can donate the image to the Wikimedia Commons and then you give up your exclusive copyrights. When you're in Desktop view of Wikipedia there is an Upload File link and if you click on the link an upload wizard will launch that will ask you several ownership and copyright questions. Follow the yellow brick road. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Feedback on Article

Hi, I have attempted to submit my first article and would like some feedback on my submission. The article is available here and refers to a not for profit organisation in Australia. Code the Future

Beater1989 (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beater1989: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contribution. The article is properly structured and reads well. The first consideration for a new article is notability. Your article is borderline in that regard, and additional sources, independent of it, would help. Please note how I have added some categories, and tagged its talk page, to bring it to the attention of relevant WikiProjects. You might also add an Infobox to the article; in this case, {{Infobox organisation}} would be the one to use; take a look at Association for Computing Machinery to see how it's done. I've also created a corresponding item on Wikidata, but that's not something you need to worry about at this stage, and I only mention it as it may be of interest if your background is in computing. Finally, I've changed the link to the article in your comment, above, to be an internal link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Andy Mabbett, thank you for your feedback. I have included a page from the Victorian State Government's that references the organisations work. I have also added the infobox, but could only repeat key facts from the body of the article. I have also addressed the issues around inward out and outward links. Do you think these changes are adequate? Beater1989 (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beater1989: Those are good improvements; thank you. The infobox is meant to repeat key points from the article, so that people an easily find them, and to make them machine-readable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

How many sources neeeded?

Hello. I want to start writing articles on up and coming companies. There is one I am thinking of writing but they only have one article posted on them from last year. Will my article be deleted if I only have one source?

Thank you! E

Elenisf0510 (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Very likely yes, unless it is a truly in depth write-up from a highly reliable, secondary source completely unconnected with the company (and not printing a press release from it or anything like that). For example, an in depth profile of the company from the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post or similar – but that is mostly an ideal world pipe dream scenario – if such a highly reliable treatment was given it by a first class source, there would be others. The tenor of your post — that it is an "up and coming" company makes me think it is almost a lock that no article is warranted, and the sources we need to exist and be cited to show notability and from which verifiable content with no original research could be written are lacking. Forgive me if this is misplaced, but it also sounds like you are here to promote a company you have a stake in; an aim entirely incompatible with Wikipedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Elenisf0510, and welcome to the Teahouse. Usually an article needs citations to multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. See the golden rule, our guideline on notability of companies, and Your First Article. Note that Wikipedia is not a place to promote something that is up an coming. It must have arrived sufficiently for independent third parties to have published writing about it, or we cannot have an article. So I suspect that the company you have in mind is not ready for a Wikipedia article yet, and an attempt at one might well be deleted. If you do try to start such an article, please use the Article Wizard. DES ^(talk) 02:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Article deletion chances are high in case of adding only one source for notability. it's good to add at least 2-3 third party sources mainly from any news, coverage or interview covered.Rwadhaawa (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)