Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 400

Archive 395

←

Archive 398

Archive 399

Archive 400

Archive 401

Archive 402

→

Archive 405

Help ~ would like feedback on draft with a view towards submission

I have worked hard to create a article (in draft form at present) on the classical and flamenco guitar in general and on distinguished Canadian guitarist Michael Laucke in particular; you can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Laucke

I've tried my utmost to adhere to Wikipedia policies of no new research, verifiability, and a neutral point of view.

It would be wonderful at this point to get some feedback, with a view towards an eventual submission. Many thanks! Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Natalie.Desautels, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Peer review, which sounds like what you're looking for. I'll also go give your draft a less-intensive looking-over. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 06:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The main issue I see, Natalie.Desautels, is that there is too much detail in the lead section (the first part, before the table of contents and section headers), most of which should be moved into the body of the article, leaving just summaries and a few highlights at the top of the page. You also have some formatting issues going on, mostly with <ref> placement — such tags always follow punctuation, including commas, periods, quotation marks and parentheses. Also, a closing </ref> tag should be followed by a space except when it ends a paragraph, and you should never put a space between references:
</ref><ref> is correct, </ref> <ref> is wrong. There's too much ALL CAPS, but the good news there is that it's considered acceptable to change all caps in a quotation to Title Case or Sentence case as appropriate, so you're not stuck with your sources' yelling. I suggest you also read MOS:BOLD for guidance on when (and when not) to use boldface. There are some scattered grammar issues, e.g. "would performed together", but not too many; nice job there. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 06:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: I've completed implementing your suggestions mentioned above. I find that the Wikipedia interface makes for a very enjoyable work environment, especially with your kind instruction. If you have a moment, it would be great if you could quickly verify if your proposals were all properly effectuated. During this week, I will continue to fulfill your other recommendations mentioned below. With gratitude, best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Natalie.Desautels: I'm afraid I wasn't clear enough in my comment below. It is URGENT that you delete links to copyright-violating scans from the references in your draft. If you do not, the article could be nominated for deletion (and may even be eligible for speedy deletion, which means no grace period while other editors discuss the situation) and it would be a shame for you to lose all the work you have done. I removed some of them, being careful to preserve the article titles, newspaper names, author names, page numbers where present, and publication dates; I am trusting you to remove the rest, but if you have not at least begun to remove the remaining links within 24 hours, I may nominate the draft for deletion myself.

I made some other edits to the article as well, but I will address those (and the edits you made) in a separate comment, because I want you to see this and get to work removing the copyright violation links as soon as possible. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that we have that out of the way, Natalie.Desautels... You've done quite well at tidying up the formatting issues I mentioned; there was one space missing between a reference closing tag and the text following it, but I fixed that for you. Other issues:

• Be sure that any quotations you cite (especially from articles that are not properly available online) are the exact text of the quotation, except where [brackets] or ellipses ... indicate insertions or omissions. You can't rearrange the order of quotations, and if you replace "he" with "Laucke" you must use brackets around [Laucke] to indicate that.
• Be sure that what you put in the title= field is similarly the exact title at the top of the article. Otherwise it's very difficult for other editors to verify sources given. This is the same reason we don't give bare urls in references, but include as much "meta-data" as possible — often I've found articles whose links went dead, or that the article creator had supplied only a copyright-violating scan for, online by Googling the exact article title.
• You cannot cite a photograph as a source. I moved the photograph of Laucke with Julian Bream to the ==Early years== section (and inserted some dummy text) to show you the proper way to add photos outside the infobox. That particular photo has been tagged for deletion at Commons (along with everything uploaded by that user, I think) as a possible copyright violation. If it were a definite copyright violation like the newspaper scans, I would have just deleted all reference to the photo, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt for now.
• When the only author listed for a newspaper article is an agency like the Associated Press, we don't put "Associated Press" in the author= field. Instead we use the agency= parameter. One of the advantages of using the fill-in citation forms is that the field names are provided and you don't have to remember the syntax. To access the forms, click "Cite" at the far right of the blue bar at the top of the edit window, then "Templates" at the far left of the second blue bar that appears.
• To include a quotation from the source in a citation, use the quote= parameter. If you're using the fill-in form, you'll need to click "Show/hide extra fields" to access the quote= field.
• The letter from the U.S. Senate office is an edge case for usability on Wikipedia. An argument could be made that, because it's an official communication from the Senate and it's addressed "To Whom It May Concern", it has been published. It's a weak argument, but not wholly implausible. Wikipedia does not allow most primary source materials to be hosted due to copyright issues; that isn't an issue with the letter because works by the U.S. government are in the public domain. It's still a primary source, though, and a secondary source (such as an article that mentions the Senate endorsement) is always preferred if available.
• One of your references (the 1988 McLean article) was cited twice, as if it was two different sources. Remember to use <ref name="example"/> for a second citation to the same source.
• The photo of Laucke and Segovia has already been deleted from Commons, so I just deleted reference to it. As I said, photographs are not acceptable as sources on Wikipedia, though they can be used to illustrate articles.
• Nice work getting rid of most of the all-caps.
• I tidied up your categories, finding the proper category names where you had used syntex that yielded redlinks. However, in researching the correct Grammy Awards category for Laucke, I was not able to find any reference to his having won a Grammy. You don't mention the Grammys in the body of the article, so no source for his having won one is cited. Do you have an exact award and year, or should that category be removed?

I know I've been somewhat harsh, but it's only because I respect the amount of effort you have put into this draft article, and I don't want to see that effort wasted. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: I really appreciate your concern; not harsh at all, just to the point. First and foremost, I must attend to the the issue of deleting links to copyright-violating scans from the references in my draft. I don't have time right this moment, but am eager to attack this issue in about 3 hours; I will be happy to work through the night, if need be. I can't thank you enough for your guidance. It certainly is not in my nature to neglect, well, anything for that matter. Nevertheless, considering you did write this very important recommendation in bold, I should have moved it up on my to-do list of priorities; kindly excuse. I advanced today in other areas of the article and got carried away with, well, delving deeper into the fascination of what Wikipedia is. Of course, the idea of the "sum of all human knowledge" has a certain power of attraction, and then some.

I would be amiss not to thank you again for your immense help and further wonderfully constructive work on my article; hopefully one of many to come. I am especially grateful for your recent edits which provide a very clear example of how to delete the url (to potentially illegal scans) and leave the rest of the Cite intact. I was very pleased to study the way you demonstrated, by example, keeping the Quote and yet deleting the url to the scanned newspaper article. I did look through perhaps 80 fields in the Cite dialogue, but somehow could not find that Quote field! From what I read, you picked out more interesting newspaper quotes than I had originally planned myself, I think.

I understand that the photos that I've referenced have a OTRS pending and that the owner has received approval and just has to somehow make the OTRS logo visible on each photo's page, or something to that effect. So I imagine I can safely leave the photos from Wikimedia Commons for now, but not use them as a source, as you say.

I have to sign off for now, but rest assured that by morning, all urls to any potential copyright-violating scans shall be deleted, or most at least. Very best wishes, with renewed thanks, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding promptly, Natalie.Desautels. There is no need for you to work through the night, so long as you make a good start on removing the offending URLs. Rushing and losing metadata needed for the citations would be counterproductive. I can't promise no other editor will, but I won't nominate the draft for deletion so long as it's clear you're working on removing the inappropriate links. I don't know how many of the remaining sources include links to copyright-violating scans, but if the density is anything like it was in the first dozen sources, you have your work cut out for you. I'm glad you found the example removals I made helpful. I do recommend using the fill-in forms I mentioned for citations; I use them for more than 90% of the citations I do. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 04:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: I'm quite pleased to have gone through the entire article; as you said, indeed, there was lots to do, about 35 links or so. I reorganized the sections a bit more as well. I beleive the copyright issue is largely behind us, so I can move ahead to bring to fruition your other recommendations. Meanwhile, I have 3 questions, if you please:

• What is the protocol for Wikipedia internal links the second time a name appears. That is, the first time we read Andrés Segovia, it is linked. Should the subsequent appearances of this name be without the link?

• What to do with the pdf articles written by Michael Laucke? I have left them for now, hoping that the proper permission will be given, as seems likely. I dont mind deleting the 3 articles on the Guitar in Canada, but it would be nice to have them immediately linked and available. Do you know if the upload permissions are more relaxed with upload file, let's say, than at Commons?

• I also left the letters from distinguished Canadian composers; I beleive they are of historical value, but of course the question is that of copyright. So I left them for now. Good? ...more later, best wishes, zzz, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding wikilinks (internal links), Natalie.Desautels, it is acceptable to link them once in the lead, if mentioned there, in addition to linking them the first time they appear in the body of the article. (If the first time they're mentioned in the article is just a paragraph or two after the lead, however, either the lead mention or the body first mention should be linked, not both.) Generally they should not be linked more often than that, one exception being if the same entity is cited as a source, in which case the first reference cited to that entity can be wikilinked, but subsequent mentions should not be. I hope this is clear.
• I am not certain of the copyright status of the articles written by Laucke that are on his website in PDF form. This is an area I am not well-versed in. Perhaps some of the Teahouse's more experienced volunteers can offer their opinions. The copyright of the interview with him, however, would reside with either the interviewer, the publication that printed the interview, or both; there is no question of Laucke having the right to republish that, so the link to it should be removed as well.
• The letter from the Senate office, as I said, was a clear case of public domain and an edge case for having been published. Wikipedia generally does not allow unpublished documents to be cited as sources; I know that doctoral dissertations may be cited if they are held in a university library, making them usable as a source by anyone who goes to that library, and I suspect that letters held in a university collection would similarly be acceptable sources (though I'm not 100% sure). A letter published in a biography could also be cited. If these letters were simply sent directly to Laucke by the writers and subsequently made publicly viewable (but not published) by him, though, they would not be acceptable sources on Wikipedia no matter what historical value they might have.
• I do know that there is only one way in which upload permissions are more "relaxed" at English Wikipedia than on Commons, and that is in the area of Fair Use. However, I don't believe that a Fair Use rationale would apply to any of the documents in question for the draft article about Michael Laucke.

Thank you for attending to the removal of the violating links so promptly. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You should also add a section headed (for instance) ==References== containing {{Reflist}} before the "Further reading" section, in order to place the references in the correct position according to WP:Layout. --Boson (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made some edits to the infobox and the first few paragraphs of your draft, Natalie.Desautels, to get you started. I recommend viewing the changes I made in "diff" view (here ) to compare the before and after. A few of the more important edits I want to go over:

• You should not use the syntax [http://www.example.com Title] to insert external links into the body of an article. I moved one external link (Intermede Music) to the External links section. You also shouldn't use that syntax between <ref> tags, as opposed to using a citation template and putting the url in the url= field.
• Don't pipe people's names to present an alternate spelling without good reason (e.g. Paco de Lucía|Paco de Lucia). Also, generally the first time someone is mentioned, their full name should be given, and only after that should they be referred to by last name alone.
• The Cite journal citation template is intended mostly for academic journals, though it's not inappropriate for regular magazines. For newspapers, however, you should use Cite news. And the first time (and only the first time) a magazine or newspaper is cited as a reference in an article, it's a good idea to [[wikilink]] it if the periodical has its own article.
• DO NOT link to scans or photos of copyrighted works instead of the copyright holder's online publication of the work. This is copyright violation and could cause your draft to be deleted. Works do not have to be available online to be cited, however, which is why I left the rest of that citation alone. If there are any other scans linked to as references, delete those URLs too.
• I left some "cleanup templates" on the draft, some where you make a factual claim that needs proof cited, and one where you cited a primary source — secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia.

You still have a fair amount of work to do before the draft is ready to become an article, but you've already put in most of the work that needs to be done, so don't lose heart. You've chosen an interesting subject and in large part done well at citing appropriate sources. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any more specific questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist:Thank you so much for this immensely useful information; this is greatly appreciated, to be sure. Within the next week, I will take the pleasure to study your comments very carefully. It is my intention to fully absorb their purport, gain good understanding and then properly implement your recommended changes; the latter will be of great help for my own corrections as well.

Once again, I am very grateful, and then some, for your kind input and wonderfully constructive suggestions, and for advancing my knowledge of proper Wikipedia protocol in general and some very good grammar points in particular! Merci et à bientôt! very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, Wow! You've done a lot of research and typing for a new article. Do you use Visual Editor? It has a new feature since mid 2015 for building book references for you.

I changed some stuff on the page and I hope you like it. You can view the page history to quickly see my brief edit notes.

The lead should try to adhere to MOS:LEAD. A paragraph or two is enough for a lead, and if subjects are mentioned and referenced later in the article you don't have to reference them in the lead.

The article needs more MOS:HEADINGS. Right now the lead is a massive wall of text . Lightly salt the article with some cogent sectioning.

You can use WP:HOTCAT at the bottom of the page and click on the "+" sign to populate with live (blue linked) categories (some of yours are red). Be sure to rem them out with a colon until the page goes live. Great job! Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 19:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax:Thanks so much for your interest in my article and your careful attention to it; ...much appreciated, to be sure. Indeed, I did considerable research, as I am wont to do. I do use Visual Editor; even though I possess some programming skills, I find Visual Editor a great time-saver. I will look into the book references feature you suggested.

Thank you for your changes; I appreciated all of them.

Initially I just wanted to get familiar with Wikipedia policies and methods, and to draft up the information I gathered, put it in my own words and get it onto a draft page. In other words, I didn't pay much attention to MOS:LEAD and MOS:HEADINGS. I will definitely attend to this in short order; I have studied other Wikipedia articles in my fields of interest, and now have several good ideas for an appropriate lead and headings.

Thank you as well for the great tip on WP:HOTCAT; it seems an excellent tool indeed! I see there are many other interesting tools under Preferences/Gadjets, well worth studying it would appear; I have already chosen a few more special gadgets. Thank you once again for pointing me in this direction. With renewed appreciation, un gros merci! Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

how respond to error messages

I have found the follow error messages about my references in the Instrumentalism article and don't know how to respond. Thanks for help.

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Pop_35" defined multiple times with different content

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Hirs" defined multiple times with different content.~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBR-qed (talk • contribs) 14:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added nowiki tags to your question, because the unterminated ref tags were preventing the proper display of your message & subsequent data. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The idea of named references is that you define each such reference once (and only once), and can then use it on multiple occasions. See Wikipedia:REFB#Same reference used more than once. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

An earnest request for the Error correction

Hello I’m highschool student in Korea. I love Wikipedia for search about what I want to know whenever. These days, China has insisted that the history of Koguryo is their history. Koguryo was a country in the period of Three Kingdoms of Korea. Amnok River is related to Koguryo’s history and that river is historical site which is deeply concerned with the history of Koguryo. I want to search about Amnok River related to study about the history of Koguryowhich is our valuable assets of history. So when I saw the articles about the China's distortion of history, I tried to find about the Chinese transcription of the Amnok River and then, I found that Amnok river is writen into "Yalu River" which is the Chinese transcription in Wikipedia .Then, May I give you some suggestion?

I think that this mark should be changed. Amnok river is Korea's historical sites and the title must be come as an Korean mark, "Amnok River"and the add introduction is should be come as "following the Chinese mark, "Amnok River" is also called "Yalu River" If it possible, I want to change the title name into the contents that you saw above. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Na youg- Cho (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
moved to top of page by GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are recommending that Wikipedia should use the name "Amnok river" rather than the name "Yalu river". But here in English Wikipedia, we prefer the name that is most widely used in published English-language sources. This is, I believe, "Yalu river". For the same reason, we call the capital of Ukraine "Kiev", though Ukrainians would prefer us to call it "Kyiv". Maproom (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

MacLachlan and McLaglen and McLaughlin and all versions

I know that certain surnames are spelt different ways but I have proof that my Oscar Winning Uncle Victor McLaglen's Scots Dutch family from which his father came spelt their name "MacLachlan". Sometimes it is spelt "McLachlann" and their are very many other spelling of this same clan. People in Ireland and Scotland and elsewhere in the world make a big thing about the spelling, but the fact is that 200 years ago hardly anyone could read or write and so the spelling was askew. I know that Victor and my father who were brothers, had a grandfather whose name was originally Jacobus Petrus MacLachlan born in Cape Town, South Africa had his name spelt one way, right up until he was kept as a patient at Robben Island where he died.My grandfather decided to keep the Dutch spelling even thought it was originally "MacLachlan". I can prove this with recorded certificates. Cynthia14 (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cynthia14, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several issues here.

• Are the different spellings of your uncle's name really germane to an encyclopedia article?
• Are the proofs you have what Wikipedia considers reliable sources (please read that, the Wikipedia definition is quite specific)?
• As a person with a conflict of interest, should you edit the article yourself, or just ask other editors to make your suggested edits if they agree?

I'm afraid we can't help you further without the answers to these questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, Cynthia14, and it is great to see you 'in' the Teahouse to ask your question. You appear to be a little frustrated. This is because you used all caps as part of your question. There is certainly not a problem with using all caps here in a message in the Teahouse, but in other places in or on Wikipedia, there are some other editors who are sensitive to the use of all caps and they see it as 'shouting'. If there seems to be controversy with the spelling of the name, please leave a message on the talk page(s) of the articles and see if other editors can help with this problem. Also, if you possess the death and birth certificates and would like to upload these documents to be used in articles on Wikipedia, this is also an option. Please come back to the Teahouse if you have any other questions. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bfpage and Cynthia14: Uploading birth or death certificates to Wikipedia, or in general relying on such certificates or similar public records as a source in a Wikipedia article is most definitely not an option. Any such upload would be promptly deleted. Note that WP:PRIMARY says "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." However, birth and death certificates are not normally published, nor would scanning them and posting them make them "reliably published". Basically, unless a reliable secondary source reproduces or refers to such certificates, they are of no use at all as sources in Wikipedia articles. For one thing, scans are very easy to alter, and so cannot be depended upon; for another, there are normally many different people with the same name, and readers have no way to verify that a particular certificate indeed refers to the same person as the subject of an article here. Please read the linked pages, as well as our verifiablity policy to better understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on this and related issues. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 20:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is about Victor McLaglen and his father, grandfather and great-grandfather (an undooted McLcahlan). There is this (probably reliable) source that covers the issue. Victor's father was (Andries Carel Albertus) Andrew Charles Albert McClaglen, his father Jacobus Petrus McLaglen (alias James Philip McLachlan), and his parents Philip McLachlan and Catherina Petronella Neyhoff. Andrew was a Presbyterian bishop and may well be notable - certainly worth mentioning in Victor's article. The fact Victor McLaglen's grandfather changed his name, does not seem to me to be worthy of mention in Victor's article.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

Talk page comments - not in English

Greetings, While doing article assessments for WP Catholicism, I found Talk:Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting talk page where the sections & comments are not in english. Does Wikipedia have any kind of translation tool? I'm curious as to what the remarks are saying. Before asking here I did search through existing questions & unable to find the answer. Thanks, JoeHebda (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It's Hindi. And it appears to be a copy-and-paste of this page on the Hindi wiki. No idea what the intention is, I suspect it's not relevant to this English Wikipedia page. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Also extremely stale. That comment has been there since December 2014. If the comment were recent, I would template the contributor, saying that comments should be in English. As it is, I agree that it should be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Searching for the use of a word, rather than an article about the word

How to I search the WP to find only the use-of a word, or phrase?

When I come across vandalism in the form of the insertion of a random word or phrase I would like to search for other articles that might be defaced in the same way so as to do some clean-up. These are usually from single use IP addresses so looking for the user's other contributions doesn't help me.

Using the built in search puts me on the page for the word, rather than a list of where the word is used. An external search engine results are not useful either, but in a different way. Arbalest Mike (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

When you put the word in the search box, it will generate a list of articles beginning with that word, but at the bottom of the drop-down list is "containing" click that and you will generate a list of all the articles containing the word, with a short piece of text either side of the word, which is often enough to spot vandalism. - Arjayay (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In some cases rather than getting a list of result it just loads the page corresponding to that word. Arbalest Mike (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's why you need to click on the "containing" link at the bottom of the list. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, that's not helpful if you're not getting the list. Is it just taking a while to load? Could you give us an example word for which the list doesn't load? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never not had a "containing" link, but this may depend on your OS, browser and skin. If you click the magnifying glass at the end of a blank search box, you should go to a blank search page, allowing you to enter whatever word you want. - Arjayay (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of Help:Searching mentions three methods: "choose Search, or choose "Search for pages containing" from the drop down list, or prefix the query with the tilde character (~)". The default Vector skin doesn't have a "Search" button but the tilde should work in all cases. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Clicking the magnifier on the empty box, then searching, or using "~" returns a list of results that I can work with. Thanks. That results page doesn't have a "containing" link but I guess I don't need it. Arbalest Mike (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I spoke too soon. I get a list of where the word occurs in the title rather than contained in the article. Arbalest Mike (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"containing..." isn't on the results page. For users with JavaScript in their browser it should be at the bottom of a drop-down list below the search box after you start typing but before the search is performed. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see that now. But searching containing "arm" (for example purposes only) I see the first 100 results have arm in the title, or related to some redirect or project, etc. I think this info is helpful anyway and getting a list of results only where the word is used in the body of the article is not that important considering all the other editing work that I can do. Arbalest Mike (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"containing..." includes hits in both page name and body. The only difference made by "containing..." is that it doesn't jump directly to a page which matches the whole search string exactly. intitle:arm will find pages with arm in the title. -intitle:arm will find pages without arm in the title (including pages without arm anywhere). arm -intitle:arm will find pages with arm but not in the title. Note that the two parts are independent search criteria and just happen to both include "arm" here. x -intitle:y also works when x and y are different. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I find this same particular type of vandalism on talk pages so rather than post a separate question I want to ask here - can do a search on talk pages? I will then look for talk pages "containing" various words. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Arbalest Mike. You can do that by going to Special:Search and clicking "Advanced", where you'll get options about different parts of Wikipedia to search. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking for vandalism is fine, but please do not correct standard spelling errors on talk pages - as it states at WP:TPO:- "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It may irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." - Arjayay (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"Advanced" allows any combination of namespaces. To seach a single namespace you can also just write it in the search, for example typing talk:arm and selecting "containing..." to avoid going directly to Talk:Arm. If there is no exactly matching page name then "containing..." is always superfluous. For example, talk:"I love pie" gives the same search results page with and without selecting "containing..." PrimeHunter (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Arjayay, maybe you are looking at some comments on my user talk page but right, I am not interested in general editing of talk pages. But from my edit history you can see that in about the last 24h I reverted two cases of the same petty vandalism. I wasn't looking for those problems, but when I see them I would like to check to see if it is a more widespread trend. PrimeHunter thanks for that tip. I can now see that the WP is just too big for this sort of problem-searching. Cordless Larry thanks for your input as well. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Need help on figuring out which sources are valid or not valid

I have an important entry called "Draft:Matt O'Ree" that seems to have a minor issue related to sources according to the comments provided by the reviewer.

The comment indicated that some sources did not look good. However, the sources all seem to be valid and verifiable as per Wikipedia requirements.

I am requesting please for some assistance on how this minor issue can be rectified. Once this is resolved, viewers may read about this trending upcoming artist that has just recently joined Bon JoviRappazzo04 (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rappazzo04. I'd say it's borderline. First of all, notice that blogs and facebook are almost never regarded as reliable sources, and should be removed. All the matoree.com references are to non-independent sources, and so can be cited only in a limited way, and do not contribute to notability. The allmusic is a mere listing, and doesn't contribute to notability. This leaves us with the Billboard, Gibson, and Ultimate Classic Rock references. (I'm discounting Beato's Blog because it is a blog: if it can be shown that Biedzynski is recognised as an authority, then it might be taken as reliable). This shows that three different publications have thought it worth writing about O'Ree and Bon Jovi, which might be enough to establish notability. The trouble is that they all reference Noise11, and/or WRAT's Facebook page, so they're not independent of each other, and should really be replaced by referenced to Noise11 - facebook pages are not usually regarded as reliable. So this reduces it to one source. You really need to find places where other people with no connection to O'Ree or Bon Jovi have written about him and been published in reliable places - and exactly because he is an "upcoming artist", these probably do not exist yet - see WP:UPANDCOMING.

One last point: you do not get to decide which Wikipedia articles are "important". Nor do I: it is determined by Wikipedia consensus. But telling everybody that the article you have been writing is "important" is a sure way to get people's backs up, and suggests that you are here for the purpose of promotion, which is strictly forbidden. On a related note, your draft says, in Wikipedia's voice, that he established a "good foundation", that he "hon[ed] his skills through time and pure dedication", and that he found the "right blend" of people. These are all evaluative terms (not to say, promotional ones) and don't belong in any Wikipedia article unless they are directly quoting a cite independent source. The text must be a neutral summary of what independent sources say about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all this informative information. This is the first time I am using Wikipedia so I am still trying to get familiar. I will be sure to read this several times over and follow your suggestions. Again, thanks so muchRappazzo04 (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Academic Notability and a web of pages referring to each other authored by same user

Last week, I stumbled upon a page under creation Cheryl Lehman and noted to the creator on the talk page that, at the time, it did not seem to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability (academic). I checked back now, and the creator did add material, but: 1) the additions don't strike me as notable; 2) the additions cite other Wikipedia pages created by the same user. What gives me pause to start an RFD for this page is: 1) I'm a newbie (although I have used RFD once already); 2] I'm not an accounting professional - maybe she really is notable in her field, but the page creator's writing didn't convince me.

So, my guess is that I should turn to a Wikipedian familiar with the academic field of accounting. If that guess is correct, how would I do that?

—Boruch Baum (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Boruch Baum. I agree with you that there are major problems with Cheryl Lehman, and I have tagged it accordingly. However, which editor edited an article is rarely of any consequence, and the fact that Wikilinks in an article may point to other articles created by the same editor is no grounds for concern. What is a ground for concern is that the article does not appear to contain more than one reference to an independent source: every one of them is connected to Lehman, with the possible exception of Roslender. I can't look at that one because it is given as a Google Books link, rather than a proper bibliographic reference, but the note says it is in the Acknowledgments, so it is probably not a substantial mention. Dreadarthur, I am pinging you here because you wrote the whole article as it currently exists: you need to understand that Wikipedia has almost no interest in what the subject, her employer, her publishers, her associates, have said about her. Articles must be based almost 100% on what people with no connection to the subject have published about them. As it stands, that article does not contain a single citation to a substantial piece about Lehman by somebody unconnected with her, and therefore does not establish that she is notable in Wikipedia's special sense of the word. I have tagged it as such, and it is very likely that somebody will nominate it for deletion unless some substantial independent sources are added. --ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thanks for the input and response. In a more general sense, in a case like this, should I turn to a Wikipedian familiar with the academic field? If so, how would I do that?

—Boruch Baum (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Boruch Baum. It is not required that you do so, because the issue is a Wikipedia one of notability, rather than anything to do with the subject, and if the article is nominated for deletion it will be the responsibility of those arguing to keep it to provide the required sources. But if you want to be more collaborative, I would suggest putting a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business/Accounting task force (which I found by looking for WP:WikiProject Accounting, by the way) --ColinFine (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thanks. I'm recording the search term for future reference of similar projects.

—Boruch Baum (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of my contributions here, and the integrity of such contributions, are referenced to the fact that I teach Accounting Theory, and found to my surprise that many of the published accounting academics discussed in the course and the respective leading journals in the domain did not have Wikipedia pages. Hence I have started a few, hoping to see others add to them. Hope this is OK.

Dreadarthur (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, Dreadarthur. You just need to make sure that the people that you're writing about meet the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If you're unsure, you can use Wikipedia:Articles for creation and get feedback on your work before it is published as an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, is not editorial leadership associated with scholarly journals at least one dimension of notability? It is usually viewed as a significant academic honour and sign of peer recognition. In contrast, you won't find my name on any academic editorial board anywhere. Therefore, compared to Cheryl Lehman... Dreadarthur (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In a word, Dreadarthur, no. Wikipedia is very different from academia, and the word "notability" is used in a very particular way (unfortunately, in my opinion, because people so often assume that it has the same meaning as in the world in general). Wikipedia articles should be based almost 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have published about the subject, in reliable places. If there is an independent article which says that she has published in many places, the Wikipedia article may say that, citing the source. If Lehman is notable (in the Wikipedia sense) for other reasons, then it would be acceptable to add a selected bibliography of her publications, referencing the publications themselves as primary sources, but these do not contribute to notability because they are not independent of her. Neither honour nor peer recognition is relevant here: we need there to be sufficient independent published material to ground an encyclopaedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Honour and peer recognition are relevant in as much as they help establish notability per WP:NACADEMICS, but I agree with ColinFine that reliable sources for these sorts of thing matter. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Updating a page about a music festival and need to change out music festival info box for one that won't be deleted (pre-emptive strike).

Hi! I am new to Wikipedia, but not quite as new to editing and working on web pages. I finished updating and correcting the information on the page I am editing, but now I need to change out an old infobox for a new one and add pictures. What is the easiest way to go about that?PhoenixGregg (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey there PhoenixGregg, welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you're liking it here! ☺ Great question, you can search pictures here, and you can find all the infobox templates here. If you were looking for an article-specific answer, please provide the article. If this wasn't the answer you were looking for, just {{ping}} me back. Thanks for your time, and don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page if you have any more questions! —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 20:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PhoenixGregg. If the music festival infobox is deleted, then use Template:Infobox recurring event instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, PhoenixGregg, and welcome to Wikipedia! You don't need to worry about the infobox. It doesn't at the moment seem very likely that it'll be deleted (the discussion is here), but even if it is you can be sure that the people who do that stuff will make sure it is replaced with something similar or better – you may not even notice the difference. There are plenty of more important things to think about at Abbey Road on the River:

• You should remove all the inline weblinks from the article text – we don't do that here; weblinks are fine in references, but not in running text
• You should wikilink important topics in the text instead; to link to our article on The Beach Boys, for example, type [[The Beach Boys]]
• You should improve the references: it isn't actually an obligation to provide a reference for every statement you make (the obligation is that it must be possible to verify every point), but in practice anything that isn't cited is very likely to be removed. The article would be improved by pre-emptively doing some of that – if you can't cite it, lose it!
• You will need to show that the festival is notable, i.e., that it has been discussed in depth in a good number of independent sources (books, newspapers, magazines are good, blogs, press releases and so on are not)
• If you have some connection with the festival (and I see on your talk page that someone thinks you may have), then you shouldn't edit the article at all, but make requests on the talk-page instead.

Good luck with it! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

BBC page Controversies section. Spamming

I have editor/s constantly deleting my factual contributions on the BBC page. They are clearly articulating a political agenda. Please issue them with warnings because my editing of the page is simply trying to introduce a balaanced view of the BBC rather than a one-way pro-establishent view Greengauge121 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Greengauge121: and welcome to the Teahouse!

Given that "criticism/controversy" sections shouldn't exist in the first place, they are probably correct in removing content that exists purely to push a view, even if the content does have a source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

More generally, Greengauge121, if your edits to an article are reverted then the best thing to do is to set out your rationale for them on the article's talk page. Other editors can then comment on them and together you can build consensus. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for more on this. If you keep reinstating the same edits, you will eventually be blocked from editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Then the whole section should be deleted. The individuals who are deleting my factually correct contributions started the edit war. They clearly object to any balanced view of the BBC which does not detract from mere factuality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengauge121 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 October 2015‎ (UTC)

No, not necessarily deleted, but weighed according to its place in the overall history of the BBC and incorporated as appropriate with appropriate depth of detail - which may be none. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Red Pen, you have just written "Given that "criticism/controversy" sections shouldn't exist in the first place". Then edits are being made on illegitimate ground. "Should not exist" means?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengauge121 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think TheRedPenOfDoom means that there shouldn't be a section with a heading called that, rather than that there shouldn't be any coverage of criticism in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is my contribution from the bottom of the BBC page which is being deleted : "Accusations of a bias against her government and the Conservative Party were often made against the Corporation by members of Margaret Thatcher's 1980s Conservative government. BBC presenter Andrew Marr has said that "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."[143][144] Conversely, the BBC has been criticised by Guardian columnist, Owen Jones, who has said that "the truth is the BBC is stacked full of rightwingers."[145] Paul Mason (former Newsnight Journalist) has also criticised the BBC as "unionist" and "neo-liberal" [146] The BBC has also been characterised as a Monarchist institution contrary to the fact that many licence fee payers are Republicans [147]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengauge121 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The following appear to be involved in cancelling my edits : Ghmyrtle, DVdm, McSly Greengauge121 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Greengauge121, you should post that text with an explanation of why you want to add it to the article at Talk:BBC. In fact, you'll see that a discussion has already been started at Talk:BBC#Criticism and controversies and it seems to be informed by a genuine concern with improving the article, rather than a political agenda as you had assumed. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, the heading is precisely what I am referring to Greengauge121 (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case, you should make that point at Talk:BBC. This page is somewhere to learn about editing Wikipedia, and while we can give you advice, it's not the place for thrashing out content disputes. Discussing this matter on the article talk page will be more productive. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

School District page vs. Page per School

On the Nebo School District talk page, I've read that it was agreed that the pages for the individual schools should be merged into the District page, as the pages alone did not have enough content. However, surely it's better to have a collection of stubs, per institution, than one amalgamation of 5 or more schools??? If it is better to have the single page, how would I go about implementing infoboxes? I've read that you aren't supposed to use more than 3 per page, however here it seems justified, as currently the data which was in each infobox on the unique pages has been dumped on the merger, without any real formatting structure. Also, how would I go about formatting the infoboxes, as their locations on the page will need adjusting. Thanks MrCrazyDude (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MrCrazyDude, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whether to mrege smaller articles into a larger one is an editorial judgement call, there is no clear rule favoring or disapproving of such merges. many editors think that a single larger more comprehensive article is better than a series of stub articles, others disagree. It is common, when an article about a school does not have enough sources to establish notability for a separate article, to merge it into the article about the municipality or school district involved.

As to Infoboxes, an infobox is intended to summarize the basic facts of an article, not to contain every possible fact. Personally, I oppose having more than one infobox in an article, and an infobox is never required at all. If there is not enough information to have a separate article for a school, then there is surely not enough to have a separate infobox in the larger article, in my view. DES ^(talk) 17:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there another way to display the information then? I had initially considered a table however was looking for something a little more uniform as most of the schools have different data available.MrCrazyDude (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MrCrazyDude. There is widespread agreement among experienced editors working on articles about schools that we do not, in general, have freestanding articles about ordinary elementary schools. Exceptions would include schools listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the U.S., or similar official list in other countries, or schools of exceptional architectural significance. We do have articles about accredited, degree awarding high schools, colleges and universities. This is not a formal policy but rather a working consensus established through thousands of discussions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that seems fairly understandable, do you have any advice on how the data should be arranged? Currently the infobox content for each page has been pasted under a heading for each school, and then left. It seems somewhat sloppy compared to other structures I've seen, and I'm wondering if there is a way it would 'usually' be expressed? Thanks again, MrCrazyDude (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

MrCrazyDude, I for one, would suggest putting the information into ordinary prose, not in any sort of tabular format. Note that even in an article with an infobox, there should not be anything in the infobox that is not also in the main article. DES ^(talk) 18:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all for your assistance, MrCrazyDude (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

MrCrazyDude, You can put a lot of it under the hood with hCards which is a Microformat. I don't know how the hCard data is harvested. Otherwise you might try four bullet points starting off each school heading. ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 19:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Checkingfax, I quite like the idea, but I have already resolved the issue. I took the data and returned it to a prosaic format, as advised above.MrCrazyDude (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, MrCrazyDude. One thing further on this. I don't know if you misunderstood, or it was misstated, but the high schools should all have their own articles. Only the middle and elementary schools should be covered in the district article. Per longstanding practice, detailed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, high schools are virtually an automatic notable. The converse is true (with some exceptions) for lower schools. John from Idegon (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah John from Idegon, I thought that made sense, however there is a group consensus on the article's talk page which had agreed to the merger of ALL schools in the district, long before I had seen it. Because the consensus is so great, I didn't want to undo all of this. Thanks, MrCrazyDude (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Not to be disagreeable, but what does the consensus on one page have to do with the creation of another? High schools should have articles. John from Idegon (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

MrCrazyDude, I agree with John from Idegon on this matter. Consensus on the talk page of one article about one school district cannot override the general consensus that, as a long term goal, this encyclopedia ought to have articles about every accredited, degree awarding high school in the world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional input sought on Draft:Michael Laucke copyright issues

Hello Teahouse colleagues, Natalie.Desautels's question about her draft, below, could use some additional attention from volunteers better-versed in the nuances of author copyright in their own works than I am. The usability of the sources currently listed as references 28 and 29 in the draft is what's at issue. Thanks in advance, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist and Natalie.Desautels. The links should be removed from the references. It is tricky to say whether the author or publisher owns the copyright to the text in these cases without knowing exactly what the publication agreements were at the time. See What do "first serial rights," "all rights," "one-time rights," "electronic rights" and "work for hire" mean and why should I care? here. But these are scans of published material, and the publisher certainly owns the copyright to that. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, StarryGrandma. If I understand what you've said and linked to correctly, it might be permissible (depending on what rights he had sold) to link to a transcript of a article by Laucke that he hypothetically re-published on his website, but linking to a scan of an article exactly as published is definitely not okay? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Remember that sources don't need to be available online for them to be cited in articles. While it's nice for readers to be able to access the source online if possible, I wouldn't get too worked up about making the sources available. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: @StarryGrandma: @Cordless Larry: Thanks very much for your kind input! I have deleted the linked PDF scans of these 2 articles written by Michael Laucke. As Cordless Larry said, "I wouldn't get too worked up about making the sources available". Knowing the title, users can find these articles in many places on the web, such as on the Michael Laucke website ( ) or a commercial site.

My understanding is that these articles were written by Michael Laucke, but published by Guitar and Lute Magazine (Hawaii) and Soundboard Magazine (California). So even though someone uploaded the PDF scan and the writer considers his article to be "open-source", the fact is that the publisher is the one who actually owns the copyright. Thus, the two links have been deleted.

Question: Would it be considered proper Wikipedia protocol to place links to these articles in the External links section? I wouldn't think so, but somehow felt the urge to inquire all the same. very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Natalie.Desautels: No, lots of things can't be linked to from Wikipedia for this reason. See Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma:@GrammarFascist: @Cordless Larry:

Thank you, StarryGrandma. I have read and understood the link you sent; ...much appreciated. May I ask you to share your own opinion. In the article on Michael Laucke , can I (legally) include links to The Guitar In Canada and Growth Of the Guitar In Canada in the External links section. They are presently simply referenced (without external links) here and here. Many thanks once again. Kind regards, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)