Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 530

Archive 525

←

Archive 528

Archive 529

Archive 530

Archive 531

Archive 532

→

Archive 535

WP:BURDEN, Can burden/onus shift?

My question is regarding, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

To simplify asking my question, I'm referring to the editor who wants to add/restore material as PRO and the editor who wants to remove it as ANTI.

The environment is an RfC.

In the instance where PRO has provided verifiable sources, can ANTI challenge based only with assertions and no sources (of any kind)?

Then, PRO provides more sources and ANTI responds solely with points to WP:BURDEN and statements like "you have not convinced me."

This goes around and around with no consensus/agreement on whether ANTI must also substantiate/prove assertions.

What I'm also trying to ask is whether the onus has shifted from PRO to ANTI to substantiate position?

If not, how does PRO proceed? How can PRO provide sufficient valid and verifiable sources to meet the burden of proof? What is the bar, when is preponderance met? Is the burden of proof strictly on PRO? Bubbecraft (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Bubbecraft, welcome to the Teahouse. It's difficult to answer this without really knowing the context, and I'm not going to enable a "THQ said it was ok" addition to an ongoing dispute (which might not be your motive, it's just very difficult to judge this in isolation, and I have deliberately chosen not to look at your edit history, so that I can remain uninvolved / unbiased in this reply). My gut feeling is that if facts are challenged, then supported with a good reliable source, then the challenge can't really directly continue without refuting the source as either not supporting the facts or not being reliable, or alternatively providing a different source which contradicts it. Normally, if the sources are good and support the facts, that should be the end of a simple WP:UNSOURCED challenge (but there may be other reasons to dispute the addition of the content, such as relevancy or excessive detail).

Overall, this really sounds like it's probably an issue for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, assuming that this has primarily become an issue around sources. I think that is where it should be taken if there's no sign of reaching agreement at your current venue. Or, for a wider or more general content dispute, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Certainly you should not be "going around and around", as that can cause increased tension and usually isn't constructive, so use the official processes available to seek an impartial ruling when you basically hit a deadlock. The Teahouse is not really a suitable venue to formally break a deadlocked dispute, we can only really give informal advice and point to the formal processes. If you have already escalated beyond simple discussion on the talk page, avoid the appearance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. You are welcome to ask more questions here, but I feel that this issue isn't really one for the Teahouse. See also: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Murph9000 (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Bubbecraft, some important points to add to that. If consensus exists to exclude the content, or this goes far beyond being a simple issue (such as a highly contentious topic or subject area, or one where existing formal rulings exist), simply providing sources may be insufficient to justify its inclusion, and change from the long standing state of the content probably should be based on consensus or new rulings. Murph9000 (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sufficiently clear. The sources provided aren't being challenged, only dismissed. The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard states it doesn't cover ongoing RfC's: cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. Where else should I look for clarification of the "Burden of Proof?" Or resolution? (I'm lost.) Bubbecraft (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Bubbecraft, ok, then maybe something else from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Possibly a third opinion (for a 1 vs. 1 dispute), or mediation. Certainly the Teahouse isn't a good venue to resolve an issue like this, it's primarily for friendly informal discussion and general advice about editing (with an emphasis on helping new and less experienced editors). I'm wondering if this is really about the sources, or more a (should it / shouldn't it) be included type issue (for some other reasons); if that's more what it is about then focussing on the sourcing may not be the best approach. There are various reasons to exclude something beyond sourcing. Could it be that one side is focussed on sources and the other is focussed on another good justification, so you are really both failing to properly address each other's issues? Murph9000 (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I also haven't looked at the edit history, in order to comment on the stated abstract hypothetical question. I agree with User:Murph9000 that posing this sort of hypothetical question at the Help Desk or the Teahouse is not helpful, and Murph9000 has been courteous and as helpful as they could be under the circumstances. I am deeply cynical when an editor poses a hypothetical question of this sort, because, first, the summary of the situation, while not inaccurate, is usually slightly biased, and, second, the purpose typically is to obtain an advisory opinion that will then be used to wikilawyer an argument. If there is an open RFC, the RFC outranks all other methods of dispute resolution, so that User:Bubbecraft is right that DR, for instance, is not available. The only advice that I have at this point is to provide the best argument that you can, without bludgeoning or being tendentious, and to let the RFC run its course. If another party to an RFC is disruptive, administrative attention can be requested at WP:ANI. Now, having said that, I will look at the edit history. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at Category talk:People of Jewish descent, I will comment that I was unfortunately right that User:Bubbecraft does appear to be asking for some sort of abstract argument. I have a few more comments. First, it's a bad RFC, because the RFC doesn't ask a question, and so it only encourages lengthy argument, which is in progress. The Original Poster's posts are too long, difficult to read, and have something of the nature of a filibuster. My own opinion, having read the RFC, is that the RFC should be withdrawn as poorly worded, and a new RFC formulated, or formal mediation requested. In any event, the Teahouse can't answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert McClenon, I didn't realize my own mistake and I appreciate your correction. I also appreciate your suggestion and have requested the RFC be withdrawn and reworded. (At least I hope that's what I did.)Bubbecraft (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Current Event Relevant for Wiki Page?

I think this should have its own Wiki entry/page... This is happening now, and it's said to be the largest Prison Strike in USA history: Starting in September 2016, large, coordinated prison strikes are currently taking place place in 11 states, with inmates claiming they are subjected to poor sanitary conditions and jobs that amount to forced labor.[187][188][189] Organizers, which include the Industrial Workers of the World labor union, assert it is the largest prison strike in U.S. history.[187]

What do you think? Love, me Seamonkey (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Seamonkey, welcome to the Teahouse. I think it looks like you possibly copied that from another article, going by the reference numbers included in it. You did't actually copy the references, so we can't see them. If we knew where that was copied from and could see the references, that might help us give a more informed comment on it. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the last paragraph of Incarceration in the United States#Employment. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

accidentally MOVED an article

• Lourdes Espinola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Lourdes Espinola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i just created an article, but by mistake it was saved as a DRAFT. I tried to publish the article, and MOVED it to Wkipedia.

thanks Vincent CarlisleVcarlisle (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be a Draft. It isn't ready for article space because it doesn't have footnotes that are required for a biography of a living person. Also, you probably don't know this, but Wikipedia space is not article space. You moved it into Wikipedia space, but Wikipedia space is for pages about how to use Wikipedia, such as this Teahouse, or policies and guidelines, not for articles. Unfortunately, I can't move it back to draft space, because the draft page still exists, even though it was blanked (and it isn't necessary to blank a page following a move). I think that I will request that an administrator move it back to Draft space, so that you can work on references for it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware of the use/function of Wikipedia space. I intended to save it as a draft but I moved it to Wikipedia space (and the blanked it) completely unintentionally.

I was actually going to proceed to include foot notes, links and sources and then realized the mistake I made.

Thank you very much for your time and help!!!

Vincent Carlisle Vcarlisle (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Your page has been moved to draft space. Please add the references to it and then submit it to AFC for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Is there a tutorial, guide, procedural explanation, help or other area where I can find assistance with formulating a proper RFC? Bubbecraft (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bubbecraft: There's quite a bit of guidance at WP:RFC. If you're finding that insufficient, could you explain more fully what it is that you want to know? Deor (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

broken links

If a pages links to a dead website should i delete the link or link it to the archive.org page? Joeylockie (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Linking it to the archive site would be preferred. Also, I think there's a script you can run to retrieve or replace dead links. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Standards and fairness regarding competitive group homework

My Computer Graphics class at Rutgers University is having a semester-long homework of editing articles on many crowd simulation/navigation related topics. The homework is competitive, meaning we will be graded relatively compared to other classmates, and more/better contributions mean better grades. The problem is, some of us follow Wikipedia policies of making a draft and talking first, but others go ahead and edit/make the article, sometimes with un-Wiki-like titles. I admit that the topics I'm assigned may be broad and not that notable(I have talked to suggest splitting Crowd Analysis & Crowd Management and Optimization into 2 articles because Draft:Crowd Analysis(not my draft) and Draft:Crowd optimization(my draft) are quite different), but there are multiple students assigned to each topic and we have to edit them soon, and if there's no clear guidance, I suspect we'd have to edit whatever articles that exist to get credits. I'm not asking that our drafts should be accepted, but if they don't, something should be done about the existing article, maybe just split it as it is, otherwise people may feel that following Wikipedia standards is actually punished. -Qd33 cs (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If the original poster is saying that assigning competitive homework and asking to have it submitted to Wikipedia is a terrible idea, I think that it is a bad idea academically, but I know that it is very unfortunate for Wikipedia. I see that some of these articles are going through Articles for Creation but some are simply going into article space without adequate review. See WP:Student assignments, which the professor didn't do. Thank you for alerting Wikipedia to this problem. It isn't the first time that Wikipedia has had a problem with professors assigning assignments in a way that is contrary to how Wikipedia is intended to work. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Rutgers University is a respected institution. So it's sad to learn that one of its professors has required students to make improper use of Wikipedia, presumably without first reading (as the OP has done) how things work here. Maproom (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, the assignment requirements told us to follow Wikipedia guidelines, but did not make clear what are the guidelines, or how our grades depend on following the guidelines, and both the professor and students are generally pressed for time. I have posted on the class's internal forum as well, and will update when professor or others clarify things. -Qd33 cs (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If the professor has asked several groups of students to try simultaneously to create articles on the same subject, s/he deserves a Fail. But I commend your loyalty. Maproom (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Starting a new politician's profile

I am struggling to find the template

Any suggestion will be appreciated

AFabius7 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, AFabius7. There is no template in the sense that I think you mean it. Creating a new page is one of the harder tasks in editing Wikipedia, and it is unfortunate that so many new editors plunge straight into it. In addition, you have a misconception, very common to people who are not experienced in editing Wikipedia, that Wikipedia contains "profiles". It does not. It contains neutrally written articles, based almost entirely on what has been published about the subject by people unconnected with the subject. At present, your draft Sidney Cordle does not contain a single reference of any depth: they are all mere listings. In order for there to be an aryicle about Cordle in Wikipedia you require several sources where people who have no connection with him have written about him at some length, and been published in reliable sources (the Wikipedia jargon for this is that he be Notable). Your sources are reliable enough, but they are mere listings, and do nothing to establish notability. It may be that he is notable (though I don't think he meets the special criteria in WP:NPOLITICIAN) but at present the article does not establish this, and is liable to be deleted.

The draft is reasonably crafted, but most of the information in it is unreferenced, and this is not acceptable, particularly for an article about a living person.

Please read Your first article. If you cna find suitable sources that will establish notability, then I recommend you Move it to Draft:Sidney Cordle so that you can work on improving the sourcing without worrying about it being deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Sidney Cordle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) already exists. Notability? Very, very questionable. I think the OP is asking about another member of the same party, which is slightly less significant, electorally, than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I make a shortcut key for a block of text (e.g., reference used as RS in many aricles)?

Resolved

I am adding content to many different articles, using the same reference (a standard law-school textbook). I will be doing this over the next few weeks or more. I want to be able to add this reference in a single key stroke (or single combination). I had been opening some article in which I previously used it, or opening a Word doc where I had it stored, copying it to clipboard, then going back to the article line and inserting it. I found it easier to retype the entire reference, than to perform all these steps. The reference is (without the first "<" and last ">") "ref name=CL>Criminal Law Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder<ref/". Is there a way to program some single shortcut key (or single combination of keys) so that this ref is inserted in one stroke?

(Also, could you please ping me if you have a suggestion or answer, so I don't have to watchlist this teahouse page?) MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MBUSHIstory. I don't believe that the Wikipedia editor has a facility to define shortcut keys. Adding the same material repeatedly is not something that often happens, and I don't understand why you think it might be useful here. References in Wikipedia are not just generalised "Further reading": they are adduced to support a specific claim in an article, and if they are to a book, they nearly always point to a specific page or passage. Often, when somebody starts adding links to a particular book to a number of articles, that is regarded as spam. Given that, I strongly urge you to discuss the question before adding your multiple references, either at the talk page of one of the articles, or perhaps at WT:WikiProject Law. --ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, {{U}ColinFine}}. I am taking standard legal textbooks, one at a time, and using them to add sources to existing content in law articles, and to use as RS when I correct that existing content. I know how to add page refs to a single source, once I type it up, but I don't know add the single source in a single stroke. The suggestion below by Cordless Larry is helpful, but I think I will look outside Wiki for how to create shortcut keys. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

One option, MBUSHIstory, which isn't quite as simple as having a shortcut key but does make things a bit easier, is to create a template for the reference and then to copy and paste it into articles as required. I did this with Template:2011CensusEngWalCoB, and there are more examples in Category:Specific-source templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, {U|Cordless Larry}}. That's an improvement, but is still a lot of typing. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In fact, MBUSHIstory, I recommend you stop your editing until you have had some discussion in that WikiProject. It appears to me that you are creating a number of very short articles, some of which probably do not meet the criteria of Notability. One well written article is a benefit to Wikipedia. Ten short inadequate articles are a detriment to it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine. I will go back and fill out any short articles I create. I am familiar with WP:N. Notability is established by the standard legal text books I am pulling them from, where they are described as "notable", "venerable", "famous", "important", "seminal", etc. In fact, the preface of the above cited text book says, "Of course, this book participates in the classic pedagogic tradition of relying on appellate decisions in actual cases to explicate the doctrines and policy dilemmas of the criminal law... We continue to include some of the most venerable of the illustrative cases..." (That text book is itself venerable.) MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you read the definition of notability used on Wikipedia, outlined at WP:GNG, MBUSHIstory? It likely differs in meaning from the use of the term in that textbook (though inclusion in the book will likely contribute to establishing notability per Wikipedia's definition). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cordless Larry. Yes, notability as used in the text book is not the same as WP:Notability. And yes, inclusion in a standard textbook establishes WP:notability, or is at least strong evidence for it. MBUSHIstory (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, MBUSHIstory. A case discussed in several legal textbooks would certainly qualify; but for notability to depend on a single secondary source (remember, primary sources do not contribute), that source would need to be pretty substantial. --ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. MBUSHIstory (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MBUSHIstory. If you are using Windows, I suggest that you try AutoHotkey. It is a free program for creating and using macros. I use it for a variety of things that I found myself typing frequently in my work on Wikipedia. (I have no affiliation with the producers of AutoHotkey. I just read about it, tried it, and liked it.) Eddie Blick (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• ANSWERED - Thanks, Eddie Blick. MBUSHIstory (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@MBUSHIstory: Hello. I would like to raise another concern. I believe that you should include more bibliographic information in your book references. The title should be italicized, per our Manual of Style. The publisher, the ISBN number and the relevant page numbers should be provided. I suggest wikilinking the publisher and the authors, if they have Wikipedia biographies. I link the book title to its Google Books page, which provides more information about the book. Using Template: Cite book standardizes all of this, and reminds you to furnish complete bibliographic information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Cullen328. Now that I know about AutoHotkey suggested by Eddie Blick, I can take your suggestion and make a better version of the single reference per your suggestions. MBUSHIstory (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, How does this look for more bibliographic information? - ref name=CL>Criminal Law - Cases and Matierials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1</ref

Creating a draft revision for review

I am trying to do a major revision of a page in Wikipedia and the revision I made was deleted by a Wiki-editor. So I would like build a draft of the page and work with an Teahouse editor to review. Where/how do I create the page - in my sandbox OR? And how do I invite feedback? Roadcat8Roadcat8 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Roadcat8: Welcome to the Teahouse. Does your question have to do with Bastyr University? I see that you tried to make major changes there a few months ago and were reverted. You should discuss any proposed changes at Talk: Bastyr University, and gain consensus there. Your edits must comply with the neutral point of view and must summarize what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. Because of the extensive criticism of this school for being pseudoscientific, I also suggest that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsure about reverting material with self-promoting link

• 105.225.61.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi all, an anon user has just inserted his/her company products with external links to their website into the Prestressed concrete, Precast concrete, Hollow-core slab and Concrete slab articles.

As a recent significant contributor to some of those pages I was unsure about reverting, as I don't want to appear biased against their contribution. I do see there is some (pretty minor) relevance of their product, but they have put it up-front of all other more significant applications, plus there's their use of inline refs to their website.

Being pretty new here I haven't reverted anything before, so maybe someone else should take a look & decide if their edits are OK? Thanks ❮❮ GEEKSTREET ^{Talk Lane ❯❯} 03:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

p.s. their IP = 105.225.61.162 ❮❮ GEEKSTREET ^{Talk Lane ❯❯} 03:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ❮❮ GEEKSTREET, welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for raising your concern about those edits. On the balance of probabilities, I decided that it was primarily promotional link spam and reverted them. The other changes in their edits didn't seem to be substantial, and had the appearance of attempting to disguise the spam. Murph9000 (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation artcile

• Draft:Phil Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I received the following message for the article Phil Day I have submitted:

'Disambiguation will be required when this draft is accepted. Robert McClenon'

I realise now that I should have titled the article: Phil Day (artist)

How do I correct this?March1310 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, March1310, welcome to the Teahouse. Don't worry about fixing that right now. Robert (or another reviewer) should deal with that for you if the draft is accepted. It's not a problem, and should be nothing to worry about. Murph9000 (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Murph. March1310 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Draft:Phil Day (artist). In looking it over again, I am inclined to accept it, because it looks adequately sourced about a notable artist, but, as long as we are here, I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Social media as sources

Hi. Can I ask social media sites like instagram, facebook or twitter be used as reliable sources? For example, can I use the official instagram post by idols to use as a reliable source? Also, can twitter or facebook accounts manned by official entertainment agencies be used as a reliable source as well? And by the way, these social media accounts are also verified by the respective sites, i.e., with a blue verified icon. PSY111 (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! The answer is mostly no, see WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

And pinging PSY111 so he/she might see this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a common-sense exception to the rule that social media should not be used because they are unreliable sources. Social media that can be verified to be those of the subject of an article may be used as sources for what the subject says about themselves (in most cases). They may not be used as sources about second parties or third parties because they are not fact-checked. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon It´s a minor thing, but I disagree with your choice of words here. I would rather say that in most cases, what the subject of an article says about themselves on their social media, is not relevant for the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Citing the subject's (proven) social media may be useful in cases such as "Subject was arrested/accused of some misdeed{cite a news source} but subject posted a denial on his social media page the day after the alleged incident.{cite social media}". Such use is of course subject to the usual rules such as WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS and others. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

A person's social media account is also considered reliable for things like their birthday, which can be very hard to find elsewhere. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Really? It shouldn't be. Many people lie about the year of their birth. Maproom (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

People seldom lie about the date of their birth. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Everybody lies about their age. In LA, at least. Mduvekot (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I said that people seldom lie about their birthday, the date of their birth. Lying about the year of one's birth is the same as lying about one's age, and is common. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

California Enacts Law Preventing IMDb Pro From Listing Actors’ AgesGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The bill was narrowly crafted to apply only to “commercial online entertainment employment providers” that charge a “subscribers” fee, as does IMDb Pro. Online publications such as Deadline Hollywood, The Wrap and Variety – which can be viewed for free – are not subject to the law.

According to that article, it should not apply to Wikipedia (but I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and we can't take legal advice from that article). Realistically, I believe the only way any requests to WP (which cite that law) can be handled is the same way as WP:LIBEL (email to info-en-q) or via the WMF legal counsel, assuming the content in question is properly sourced. We, as volunteers, shouldn't be making legal decisions, other than to remove obvious cases which fall under WP:BLPREMOVE (or similar). If it becomes a frequent thing, we can get advice from the WMF legal counsel.

Murph9000 (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

References

How do I edit the title of an article?

• Bryan Balser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

How do I edit the title of an article? Need to change lower case letter to capital of nounDerick Balser (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Derick Balser. You do this by moving the page. This is outlined at Wikipedia:Moving a page, but the simple answer is that there is a move option on the "Page" drop-down menu at the top-right of the screen. However, in order to move a page, your account must be autoconfirmed, which happens once it is four days old and you've made at least 10 edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

A more serious issue is that the article you created, Bryan balser, is completely unsourced. New, unsourced articles about living people are deleted as a matter of policy. You should also consult Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, as your username suggests some relationship with the article subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I have renamed the page for you. The issues with sourcing and possible COI remain. Murph9000 (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

As to the sourcing issue, the article has been tagged to be deleted in seven days as an unsourced biography of a living person. You need to provide at least one reliable source within seven days. See Proposed deletion of unsourced BLPs. There is also the question about conflict of interest involving a family member. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there another means to contact a user

instead of just the talk page? The message I want to send is a gentle reminder not to be uncivil, even if only in the edit summary description. I don't want to make my comment public on the user's talk page because the person has a lot of nice comments/messages and I think the person would be embarrassed by my comment. Which, unfortunately, might possibly result in anger and maybe even retaliation/escalation of some sort. I couldn't find a link to send an email (which I have seen on other user talk pages) or any other means to send a message. Is there another option? I really would like to be as tactful as possible because I think this person's actions aren't a common occurrence. I do not want to make any formal complaint, either. Bubbecraft (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bubbecraft. More information about the e-mail feature is available at Wikipedia:Emailing users. It sounds like the user you want to contact hasn't activated that feature. As far as I know, there's no other way to contact a user than using their talk page, unless they give contact details on their user page. Is there a way that you could word a public comment in such a way to minimise the potential for embarrassment? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the user has an email account registered with Wikipedia, then there'll be a way on their user page of sending a message to it. But I'd advise against that. Like many active users, I receive various mild rebukes and suggestions for improvement on my talk page, they don't make me angry, and I try to learn from them. But if I received one instead by email, I might wonder about the motives of the sender. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's a one time moment of poor choice of words from an experienced editor, just ignoring it is a valid approach. Murph9000 (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bubbecraft: Hello. There is a very strong cultural norm among active Wikipedia editors in favor of transparency and communication visible to everyone. Yes, there are clearly defined exceptions to that general principle, related to legal issues, threats, "outing", harassment and the like. But I do my best to keep about 99% of my Wikipedia discussions openly visible right here on Wikipedia. Yes, I shoot the breeze with other editors on Facebook sometimes, but even my Facebook page is public, and my comments there are general and not article-specific. I recommend that you adopt the same attitude. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for your prompt replies. I did ignore the first time it happened. I'll contact you, @Cullen328. Bubbecraft (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

How to create a page

how to create page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akdk bkek (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. We would recommend that you get plenty of experience in editing Wikipedia before you try to create an article. When you do want to create an article, read WP:Your first article, and use the article for creation process to get your draft reviewed before publication. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding a new page

• Un-convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I set up a page for a new phenomenon called the un-convention, and I'm starting to add to it. But it has already been marked for deletion. Is there a way to start it off as a draft so that it is not public and I have some time to flesh it out.

Chris Leone

Chrisb01 (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Chrisb01, welcome to the Teahouse. At the moment, your article has the appearance of essentially just being an advert and link for the organisation. Most importantly, there's no indication of notability. Unless you can prove notability through references to good independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage, your article is unlikely to be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you do have good widespread, independent, in-depth (not just brief or passing mentions) media coverage that talks about the organisation, it may qualify. Basically, Wikipedia only has neutral point of view encyclopaedia articles about the most significant organisations in the world, and the remaining 80–90% (or more) are excluded until they achieve demonstrable notability. So, address the notability question first, and read Wikipedia:Your first article, then create it as an Articles for Creation draft only if the notability is there and verifiable. There is an official review process as part of AfC, to ensure that articles are ready for publication and do not face deletion. New drafts should demonstrate their notability at an early stage, so that we know it's more than just an advert. Note also the Conflict of interest policy, if you have a direct connection to the organisation; any COI must be declared up front, and we can work with people who openly declare their COI. Murph9000 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Murph9000 for the feedback, much appreciated. I'm not affiliated with the website but I saw this as my big chance to create my first Wikipedia page. Will think on it a bit harder before I bust out another page. Best Regards

Chrisb01Chrisb01 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

My edit is being deleted unfairly and ruthlessly by an adminstrator

• Benham's top (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have made an edit to an article -Benham's Top- that was so full of "Big words" that my Grandson aged 14 couldn't understand it. I can only imagine that as "big words" were omitted from my edit, that marianna251 decided it was not constructive or highbrow enough, yet my Grandson and his friend gleaned the only bit of information from the entire article by reading my paragraph. marianna251 has no interest in what I have to say and is just being destructive. My edit was constructive and a legitimate attempt to make the content easier to understand.

It is a crusade of mine to persuade people with a want to exclude those without a Phd in the subject of their article to make the content accessible to less highly educated individuals. Is this so wrong? Cephlopoid (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a primary school chat. Perhaps you would be happier at Simple English Wikipedia here >>> which is more aligned to your philosophy and where your work will be appreciated. I do agree with you that unnecessary "big words" are not always helpful in an article, but we do maintain an encyclopaedic tone here on Wikipedia, and I'm sure your grandson can understand most articles. There are some technical ones that I struggle to understand, but I stick at it! Dbfirs 11:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit clash) Hello, Cephlopoid, and welcome to the Teahouse. Clear readability is a very important goal for Wikipedia, no doubt. And so are other considerations like verifieability and encyclopedic tone. It is a pity that Marianna251 (who is not an administrator, by the way) reverted your changes without commenting why. From my reading, there were a couple of things about your change that need to be fixed. Firstly, there is no reference for any of it - it was just one person's opinion, which is not what Wikipedia is about. Secondly, the tone was anything but encyclopedic: it was not even English. Comments like "they are really super cool" or "There are like proper amazing flashy bits of colours" are not just a matter of avoiding technical jargon - they avoid proper writing. So write in clear, well constructed sentences, supported by references and see if that sticks. If not, the next step is to discuss the matter on the article's Talk page (here) to get agreement between editors about how to best improve the article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

... and apologies if my comments appear as a bit harsh and discouraging. I do see what you mean about technical language, but your language went much too far the other way. If you still feel the same about the article, then suggest a simple first sentence that your grandson would understand, on the article's talk page, and perhaps we can agree on a change. Dbfirs 11:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

There is an additional and significant factor which likely contributed towards the decision to summarily revert your change. It lacked an edit summary, meaning that it was completely unexplained. Regardless of the true intent behind the change, an unexplained addition of unencyclopaedic content is generally going to be viewed as probable vandalism. From what you have said above, your intent was not to cause harm, but the response to unexplained changes is based on the perceived intent. We do generally try to assume good faith, but we also see a large volume of deliberate vandalism which needs to be dealt with swiftly and ruthlessly. I would likely have made the same decision as the editor who reverted the change. The reverting editor's decision was explained by a polite message left on your talk page, including an invitation to have a civilised disccussion or ask questions. Unfortunately, you did not respond correctly or reasonably to that before just adding your change again, which resulted in the situation escalating to more formal warnings. Murph9000 (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Murph9000:, if you're going to refer to someones talk page, can you please use the format User Talk:username, not Special:MyTalk? The latter creates a link to the talk page of whichever user clicks on it. Thanks, Rojomoke (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rojomoke: Yeah, fair comment, I changed it. Murph9000 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

My photos continued to be deleted

• Aaron Resnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I uploaded them again, I think I did it correctly. Can someone review my article (Aaron Resnick architect) to make sure they won't be deleted again? ) Thank you, michaelphmccartyMichaelphmccarty (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Michaelphmccarty With regard to File:Resnick wright and henken.jpg, you say that you took the photo yourself within the last six months, but the article says Resnick died in 1986: how is this possible. —teb728 t c 04:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Likewise File:Resnick and wright.jpg and File:Aaron Resnick.jpg. —teb728 t c 04:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Taking a picture or a scan of an existing picture does not allow you to claim it as your own work. Meters (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll note that Frank Lloyd Wright died in 1959, so the picture is even older then 1985. I've also found the picture in an online publication, so it clearly is no thte editor's own work as claimed. Meters (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Placing external links

• Draft:Cynthia Barnett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I'm writing a Wikipedia article about a journalist/author. My article submission was recently declined due to external links in the text of paragraphs, which I have just removed. However, I also listed her recent publications and articles, using external links to the works themselves and Wikipedia links to the publication centers/newspapers/etc. This is a format I've seen on multiple articles, but should I remove the external links anyway before I submit for a second review? Just wanted to be sure--thank you!

Gulfcoaster67 (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Guidance is at WP:external links. As for other articles, see WP:other stuff exists. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If you find external links in other articles, you may tag them with {{external links}} to indicate that they have improper external links, or you are welcome to improve the articles by changing the external links to properly formed references or moving them to the External Links section. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Is UsaNews and Netflix considered reliable sources?

• Kiff VandenHeuvel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I need to know how to find reliable sources to my idol Biography... I inserted USANews and Netflix, which is certainly the best source to say that he worked in a TV Show... Can anyone help me with that? 00:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniorbeluzzo (talk • contribs)

Netflix is not itself a source. It is merely a service that provides content. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for information on what a reliable source is: a known author, independence, editorial control, and a reputation for reliability are all usually required. But seriously, read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. It will help you. --Jayron32 01:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Juniorbeluzzo: Welcome to the Teahouse. When you describe this person as your "idol", that raises questions about your ability to edit from the neutral point of view. Please read that link because it is one of our core content policies. You should be very careful about editing biographies of people you idolize. The basic principle is that a Wikipedia article should neutrally summarize what reliable, independent sources say about the topic, and references to those sources should be provided. If you cannot find reliable sources to summarize, then the content does not belong in Wikipedia. It is up to you to find the sources if you want to add new content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Need your help with the disambiguation part of the article

I'm new to Wikipedia. I need your help with the disambiguation part of the article. I drafted my first article. However, I did not know how to handle Disambiguation part of the article. It was highlighted in red so I wrote "Urmila is a major character in the Sanskrit epic poem Ramayana." to help the users identify that this article is about Urmila in Ramayana. Venu (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Venu.mojo: Welcome to the Teahouse. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers navigate to the proper content page when there are many articles that share the same or similar names. Consider Washington. That was the surname is the first president of the United States. It is also the name of the US capital city and a US state a long way away from the city. There are many lesser known cities and counties, as well as universities and schools that share that name. And so on. This is a perfect example of a disambiguation page.

On the other hand, we have only one Wikipedia page about "Urmila" as a topic. Accordingly there is no need at this time for a separate disambiguation page, which would only serve to slow down a reader trying to find out more about Urmila. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Pending changed?

Hello, I'm not sure if I have pending changes reviewer permission. Can someone please check? Thanks! NikolaiHo^Talk 03:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nikolaiho: You appear to be in that group.[1] Murph9000 (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Article Reviews

Hello. Who is allowed to review submitted articles at Wikipedia? And what does it take for a new member to become a reviewer?

Diversey1 (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The qualifications for reviewers are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#How_to_get_involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Travelers United

I reviewed Draft:Travelers United and declined it as reading like an advertisement. I then received a post on my talk page from User:Embby identifying the draft. I assume it was either a request to explain my decline or a request to reconsider my decline. Will other experienced editors please look at the draft and see if they agree with my criticism of its tone? It appears to me that it is long on statements of what Travelers United favors and advocates and provides very little independent coverage of why the organization is notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense. A draft that is mostly about an organization’s advocacy reads to me like advocacy in itself. Some reviewers say that Wikipedia does not care what an organization says about itself, only what others say about the organization. This reads to me like what Travelers United says about itself and for its members. Do other editors have other advice for me or for the author? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The tone of the writing seems acceptable. But the draft is written to push the subject's agenda, not to inform the reader about the subject. The references (or such of them as are not dead links) either don't mention the subject, or tell us what it has said rather than what others have said about it. It's a clear decline as it stands. Any attempt to save it should start with a search for references that show what others have said about the subject. Maproom (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it clearly fails to meet the WP:CORP standard. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Unduly negative and mispleading post to Diply page

• Diply (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, someone added this statement to the DIply page - their source is not reliable, he claim is inaccurate and negatively misleading, and they did not note who they are -- so I plan to remove the statement below for the reasons just stated - is this fine? thanks

this method has been criticised though, as often they use pages totally unrelated to their own to promote themselves. For example "Frank Sinatra best images"[5] among others. Although there is no solid evidence, a number of internet personalities have claimed they use like bots and other nefarious methods to spread their website.

Jillyjab (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jillyjab. I agree that you were justified in removing that material from Diply (it would have been helpful if you linked to the page in your comment, as I have now done). The point is not so much that it is negative, but that it is unsourced. If it were negative and well-sourced, you would probably not be justified in removing it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Referring multiple times

Hi there! We are writing an article to submit to Wikipedia and had a question. If multiple paragraphs all use information from the same source (and only this source), how do you refer to this? Do you recommend citing after each factual statement, after each sentence or every paragraph? We're planning on referring with parenthesis ([1], [2]) but might switch if another way works better. Thanks in advance for your advice! EmRaSaBa (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, EmRaSaBa. Your user page identifies your account as one shared by two users. Shared accounts aren't allowed on Wikipedia - please see WP:NOSHARE about this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi persons editing as EmRaSaBa. Please see my message to you at your talk page regarding sharing accounts and what needs to be done. In answer to your question, please see Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. But please don't change any citations (or make any further edits) until you've untangled the shared accounts issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I need help sorting out inacuracies on a page, possible merging one page into another

• Harvest Moon (Natsume series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the above page, there are several inaccuracies. The first game in the series, by the named developer, is incorrect. The highlights are off by several years, and mistakenly quotes the Nintendo DS handheld instead of the Super Nintendo (SNES) as the first hardware platform for the series.

Harvest Moon (video game) <-- This is the SNES title from 1996, and is the first actual title in the series, not the DS version mentioned on the problem page.

List of Story of Seasons video games is a secondary reference source that appears correct, and matches my own knowledge of the series.

I'm new to editing. Can someone help me sort out, or merge these pages, without losing details? Thank you Ccffantasy (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ccffantasy: If there are indisputable errors in either of the articles, then go ahead and make corrections. Be sure that your changes are either supported by the reliable sources already referenced in the article, or that you add references backing your changes. See Referencing for beginners for details on proper referencing. If your changes are reverted, discuss the issues on the article talk pages.

As for merging the articles, I am not enough of an expert on video games to be sure (I know little), but my preliminary opinion after looking at the articles is that two articles are probably justified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

References inconsistently formatted and need more footnotes

• Draft:R. Rangan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I got the following feedback. "Portions of this draft still have no footnotes. The references are inconsistently formatted.". Can anyone help me check my sandbox and see what the inconsistency is about? Also, the portions that I have no footnotes are the person's visit to various places and the audio/video/book materials that he had published. Can the below be used as valid citations?

- For the places he visited, we have a blogspot that documents the date, place, and provides a gist on what the discourse was about. There may be additional pictures, audio/video links related to that visit. Can this used used as a citation? - For the books/audio/video publishes, how can I cite them? Can ISBN number work as a reference to these.

Thanks a lot for your prompt help. Dr. R. Rangan (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sriramjairamjaijairm. Currently, most of the references in Draft:R. Rangan are broken, but that is a consequence of David.moreno72 removing a lot of material without noticing that this broke the references in what's left. However, the draft appears to be an autobiography. This is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia: please read Autobiography.

As to your questions, blogs are hardly ever regarded as reliable sources. If the only source for a visit is a blog, it probably shouldn't be in the article. You can cite books and videos with proper bibliographic information: templates such as {{cite book}} and {{cite AV media}} are not mandatory, but help direct you to provide the right information. But note that your own publications are of very limited value in an article about you: Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody says about themselves, or what their relatives, friends, employees, or associates, say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with them have published in reliable places; and all Wikipedia articles should be based almost entirely on such sources. Plese see Verifiability and WP:REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine. I had provided 2 newspaper references about Dr. Rangan (which is not me) that discusses his work in the community as well as the network he runs. Other than that, I don't have any third party references. But the review came back and said that 2 citations are not enough. This is more a of a biography. I can provide bibliographical information for this works (where available). Do you think the 2 newspaper articles and bibliographical references will do?

Dr. R. Rangan (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If you are not Dr Rangan you shouldn't be signing as him. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought the account need to be opened in the name of the person whose information is being given. I didn't know this. I will change the information to reflect the same. But, please help me with my above questions. I want to get this page online as accurately as possible.

Dr. R. Rangan (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the signin name. Please help with my above issues so that I can resolve them. Again, I have 2 newspaper references on Dr. Rangan. Will that be sufficient? These references details about this work, his current activities etc.

Suryanarayanan Ramamurthy (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for Wikipedia main page about Konnekt Videophone.

I would like a page to be created about the Konnekt Videophone https://www.konnekt.com.au .

I have a conflict of interest so I can't write it myself. However, I collected references and draft text in my sandbox here (please note that I am a beginner at Wikipedia, so there are bound to be many areas in which the guidelines would be broken): User:John at KonnektVideophone/sandbox

I also placed a request for article creation here: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences#Communications John at KonnektVideophone (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I can Write for you 46.250.214.3 (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

May I create a page to tell the history of 50 years traditional company representative for a community?

I have noticed that some Companies do have an article telling about them in Wikipedia. However in Your policies you say is not possible to create a page about one Company. But what if this Company is a 50 years Company and very representative for the community. Is still not possible to make a page/article only telling the story of the Company? Please advise 46.250.214.3 (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say that it is not possible to create a page about one company? You may have misread many comments, to the effect that Wikipedia does not have "company pages" in the sense that companies cannot create profiles in the social media or directory sense, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has articles about notable companies. If a company has been the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources, an article about it may be appropriate. My immediate concern is that the above post is not in very good English. If English is not your first language, you might help Wikipedia more by editing in another Wikipedia in another language. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest that you use the Articles for Creation process and create a draft and submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Help adding pronunciation of "Optic chiasm"

On the following page... Optic chiasm, I would like to add a pronunciation page of the term but don't really know exactly how to do it and have the question that, would the listing of the pronunciation page violated any copyright terms? Here is the pronunciation page https://www.howtopronounce.com/optic-chiasm/.

Thank in advance for your help! Kujisha (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. You may list the proper pronunciation of 'chiasm' using the International Phonetic Alphabet. That won't violate any copyrights. You don't need to do a copy. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Kujisha! Rather than linking to an external pronunciation page, Wikipedia has templates to aid pronunciation. Pronunciation guides for articles typically use Template:IPAc-en. There are instructions on its use on that page. Taking pronunciation from Wiktionary (a sister project of Wikipedia), I believe what you want is {{IPAc-en|pron|Q|p|t|I|k|_|k|aI|ae|z|əm}} which produces /ɒptɪk kaɪæzəm/. Note the mouse-over text to indicate pronunciation of each phoneme. (I've gone ahead and added this to the article lead.)

The template is capable of linking to an audio file, though I didn't find one for this term. If you'd like to record your own, you can try Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Sound for advice. - Reidgreg (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Citing & Referencing

• Bryan Balser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

How i cite or add references to my article? A lot of the news articles i have which provide information are in paper form and not able to hyperlink them to external pages. Derick Balser (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Derick Balser: Welcome to the Teahouse. It is OK to reference reliable sources which are offline. Please read Referencing for beginners. Provide full bibliographic information such as author, title, publication, date, city of publication, page number and so on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)