Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 587

Archive 580

←

Archive 585

Archive 586

Archive 587

Archive 588

Archive 589

Archive 590

would like to add a photo from Wikimedia

can you assist in adding a photo (said to be Col Jacob Griffin 1730-1800 or of his son Jacob Griffin 1764-1799)?Col Jacob Griffin (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Col Jacob Griffin. I am wondering if you happened to see my replies to your questions at WP:THQ#how do I add a photo from Wikimedia to my Wikipedia article?, Talk:Jacob Griffin#lost in Wiki and WP:AFCHD#22:43:16, 27 February 2017 review of submission by Col Jacob Griffin. It will be easier for someone to help you if you can provide more information about the image you want to use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I have seen your suggestions, sorry as a newbie, I'm still figuring out this whole communication aspect with all you editors!!! Thanks for your patience with me!! I've successfully added the photo in question to Wikimedia Commons....Col Jacob Griffin 1730-1800 and I guess the article we all have been working on has moved to the next level?? Anyway, What more information about this photo do you need? Can you find it on Wikimedia Commons searching: Col Jacob Griffin portrait.jpg73.198.144.222 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The image to the right is indeed now available at Commons, with filename File:Col Jacob Griffin portrait.jpg. Maproom (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Something that concerns me about the image, though I am far from an expert on this, is its copyright status. Its source is given as "Frick Art Reference Library", and the page [1] states 'the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research."' It seems to me that that statement forbids its being uploaded to Commons. Maproom (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Maproom is entirely right to be concerned about copyright. In this case, though, you don't need to worry about the institute's blanket claim for copyrighted images in their collection because the image is in the public domain, even if unpublished, since it was created prior to 1897 (i.e. more than 120 years ago). Col Jacob Griffin, can you please correct your upload of the image to the Commons? You purported to license it under CC BY-SA 4.0, thus claiming you own the copyright, and to license it. You can't do either since, even if this image was not in the public domain, you never owned it, and because it is in the public domain, you are advertising a copyright restriction that imposes obligations that people may attempt to follow in good faith, when they don't exist. You can use the template instead {{PD-1923}} and in place of "unknown" for the date, you might use "Unknown but more than 120 years ago". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Heavy start with wiki

I just joined wiki and I've had multiple problems editing, I've heard you guys have a bunch of experience and I wanted to explain my issues. First off, I love video games, my two favorites being Skyrim and Fallout 4. So I've made some recent edits that dont have reliable resources. I have a feeling this is why. My problem now is that I am on my last draw. If I mess up one more time im done for. I dont know what to do... Should I wing it and do what I know so far. Or explore other opportunities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editors God (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, The Editors God, and welcome to the Teahouse. You already seem to know what the problem is: all content on Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources and you said you cannot provide them for your edits. For works of fiction, such as video games, it's sometimes acceptable to rely on the work itself for details of plot etc. Descriptions like this from an "in-universe" perspective should be kept at minimum though; Wikipedia is much more interested in real-world aspects of the game (how was it developed, when was it released and how was it received etc.). Both Skyrim and Fallout 4 are hugely popular games. One would expect that these articles have the sufficient level of detail about the game universe by now and that the articles are relatively free of errors. No article is truly ever complete; Wikipedia is a work in process. But articles tend to stabilize to an accepted level of detail. This is consensus of editors, and we should all respect it.

There is a great resource for video games on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. You could visit that page for editing tips and open tasks. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

How to refence

Hey, I was wondering how to the referencing on Wikibooks? Do you have to include in text references including the chapter and page number from the source that you got the information from or is it as simple as adding a hyperlink to your referencing section?

Thanks SuzanneClark22 (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, SuzanneClark22, you should. Apart from a source which is only on-line, the URL is one of the least important parts of a reference, being nothing more than a courtesy to a reader to make it easy for them to find. The important part of the reference is the bibliographic information which will let a reader in principle find the original hard copy: author, title, publisher, date etc. --ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello @SuzanneClark22: please see WP:Referencing for beginners for how to reference. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Why my they keep taking down my page INBOX ANIME even if its a STUB article?

Why my they keep taking down my page INBOX ANIME even if its a STUB article? Lotachi onuora (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You got explanations on your talk page → User talk:Lotachi onuora:

The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person (...)
• It appears to be about a person, organization (...), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant (...)

And it was explained twice. If you are sure the subject is notable enough to be described in encyclopedia (see guidelines at and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and more general at Wikipedia:Notability), start your page in a draft space (e.g. Draft:Inbox Anime) and ask more experienced Wikipedians for help in improving the article so it fits Wikipedia standards. --CiaPan (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lotachi onuora: Forgot to ping. CiaPan (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok thank you Lotachi onuora (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Can an open padlock symbol be added manually?

Hi again. When a primary source research paper is referenced with a PMCID number, an open padlock magically appears with the reference. The magic is in the {{ }} , not in the text that is present in the code. That's fine. BUT there are many journals these days that after 6 or 12 months have open archives that can be accessed through the same DOI number that was originally closed, but the casual reader who doesn't know that wouldn't think that they could read a paper in Cell and thus wouldn't try to follow the link. So, 2 questions. Is there some way to manually add an open padlock image in a journal citation? Secondly, it seems like this sort of task is something that a bot could be designed to do easily, not that I know how to do that design. It would be something like "If Cell reference is more that 12 months old, then add open padlock after DOI number." Is there some collective of bot designers that I could contact to make that suggestion? If I haven't made myself clear, see reference 15 in Transcription factor. As always, thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras:, yes there is. Assuming that you use {{cite journal}}:

{{cite journal|title=The Science of Open Access|journal=Journal of Freebies|doi=10.1234/1234|doi-access=free}}

produces:

"The Science of Open Access". Journal of Freebies. doi:10.1234/1234.

See {{cite journal}} for more options. As for bots, there are always people planning how to improve reference access. Help talk:Citation Style Help talk:Citation Style 1 would be a great place to ask, since it's a really good suggestion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

COOL! Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

(except for the red link, but I'll probable be able to find it!)

(Fixed for the record – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC))

Can I make an article private so that only I can see it?

This is to avoid getting it deleted due to being incomplete.Pickdenis (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Pickdenis, and welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot make it "private" in the sense that only you can see it; Wikipedia is all about the principles of transparency and everyone can edit.

What you can do is to place your article in a "draft" space where it doesn't need to meet all policies and guidelines while you're still working on it. For instance, you can create it here: User:Pickdenis/sandbox

You can read more about that at Help:Userspace draft. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pickdenis. In addition to what Finnusertop posted above, almost all Wikipedia articles are considered to be incomplete in some way. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project in which any editor is free to try and improve any article. Mistakes are occasionally made, but as long as they are made in good faith they usually can be fixed without too much problem. Making article private might be seen as an attempt to exert some ownership over an article, which is something Wikipedia does not allow. As long as other editors follow relevant Wikipedia policies and guideline, there's no reason to try and prevent them from editing. If you worried about whether the subject you want to write about is Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article, then I suggest you carefully read through Wikipedia:Notability. There are various guidelines for various types of articles, but basically you need to somehow that the subject has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. if you are to do that, the article is unlikely to be deleted no matter how poorly it may be written; if you are not able to do that, the article is likely to be deleted no matter how well it may written.

If the article you're talking about is Robert Niebuhr, then you need to show how the subject satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If you want to contest the speedy deletion of the article, just click on the blue button in the middle of the template which says "Contest this speedy deletion" and explain why you feel the subject does not qualify for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Pickdenis. I don't think the article would have been speedy deleted, but I have no doubt it would have been if it were sent to WP:AFD. Accordingly, to avoid that, I moved it to Draft:Robert Niebuhr. You can now work on it at your leisure without worry. When you think it's ready, I would suggest submitting it via Articles for Creation so someone can review it to make sure you don't have this headache again. John from Idegon (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Making a Family name page

How do I make a family name page that automatically lists individuals of that family name alongside places named after them? I discovered that the two pages I created, Balkrishna "Raosaheb" Gogte and Raghunath "Bhausaheb" Chitale are both members of prominent Gogte/Gogate and Chitale families respectively, that have several notable members and places named after them which have articles here on Wikipedia. How do I go about this? Thanks for the help Baldclock (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything in the Mediawiki software which will let you create such a page, Baldclock. The nearest you can get to it is a Category: It might be reasonable for every page about a member of the Gogte family or a place named after them to have [[Category:Gogte family]] in its code, and there will then automatically be a category page Category:Gogte family which lists all those pages. But it is not automatic: somebody will have to add the Category link to each of the pages.

By the way, I'm not formally reviewingBalkrishna "Raosaheb" Gogte, but I have some comments:

• If the sources refer to him as "Raosaheb B.M. Gogte" then that should be the title of the article, not his real name with his nickname in brackets. The title you are using now could stay as a redirect.
• It reads very oddly with all the references to him in the past tense, but no death date. If he is still alive, then it should have at least some information about him that is in the present time.
• It is not for Wikipedia to say what he is best known for. If the article quotes an independent reliable source that says he is best known for something, that is fine; but otherwise that is a judgment that does not belong in a neutral article.

--ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so very much, ColinFine for the category suggestions. I'm not sure if there are enough Gogte family members or places to make an entirely different category, but I can perhaps follow a similar style to the way the Kapoor family, the Khan family or the Gadgil family have been listed, and make similar Chitale and Gogte family pages.

I also have the two books on Balkrishna "Raosaheb" Gogte that I've added as references linking to Google Books and WorldCat, physically available in my university library. I'm not sure if Wikipedia accepts non online book sources since the online sources aren't reader accessible, but I have enough material to expand the article on his whole life and career, his death date is also mentioned, but not in any sources I found online. I went with Balkrishna "Raosaheb" Gogte as the name of the article as I thought it would be more formal, if it is preferred that the name of the article be changed to his most popularly known name, I'll do so immediately (please just tell me how!). Thanks, Baldclock (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, Wikipedia accepts references which are not online, Baldclock. What is required is information by which a reader could obtain the source, eg through a major library. For sources which are not solely online, a URL is nothing more than a courtesy, and is not required. In fact, I don't recommend a link unless it is to somewhere where the text can be read (eg Project Gutenberg, or Google books if they have indexed the book). Template:cite book says to use the "url" parameter only for a place online where the text may be found, not for (eg) Worldcat - you can cite the Worldcat reference with the "oclc" parameter. --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Colin. I'll get right to it. Baldclock (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to link another user without pinging them?

This is more for this Wikibook project I'm part of, but I'm wondering if there is a way to link a user without directly pinging them. So when it appears on the page, there's no '@' symbol in front of their name and it's displayed like the inter links within Wikipedia. (e.g. link rather than @EmilymDaniel:.)

Thanks for any help, sorry if the query was a bit wordy.

EmilymDaniel (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, EmilymDaniel, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several templates to do this sort of thing - the one I used at the start of this reply is {{u}} - is that what you were looking for? --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi EmilymDaniel. I think Gronk Oz misunderstood your request. {{u}} does produce a ping in a signed edit. One of the requirements for a ping is to sign in the same edit so you can omit that like I did in this line.

EmilymDaniel: I added this line in a new edit and signed this time so you should be pinged about this edit but not the above [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) EmilymDaniel, if what you want is to link to a user specifically without sending any notification, another way is to use {{noping}}. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Note however Template:Noping#Consequences. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Gronk Oz, Justlettersandnumbers and PrimeHunter, thank you very much for your help, both answers were useful in what I was trying to achieve which was to just get rid of the '@' at the start of the username. It's useful to know how to link a user without pinging them as well, so thanks again for taking the time to help. EmilymDaniel (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is there an error with page: Seaun Eddy

The page of "Seaun Eddy" has been flagged for errors WP:BASKETBALL and WP:GNG. However, the page is well cited - as his membership of the basketball team and the team's legitimacy in Japan's top league. Why is this page still flagged and what has to be done, specifically, in order to clear this flag. Tokyogeek (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tokyogeek - I don't see any tags on the Seaun Eddy page, and no-one has edited it since you did on 7 February - If you can provide the URL of the page where you see tags, we can see what you are seeing. - Arjayay (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tokyogeek, welcome to the Teahouse. Seaun Eddy is not currently flagged and the page history [3] shows it hasn't been flagged since 14 January. If you are thinking of the post at User talk:Tokyogeek#Proposed deletion of Seaun Eddy 4 then the signature shows it's from 13 January. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Tokyogeek - I wonder if you are referring to the last post on your talk page? An editor re-added the proposed deletion notice, or "prod", but as can be seen at the history of the Seaun Eddy page here that prod was removed because once removed, a prod cannot be reinstated. It was suggested the editor could take it to WP:Articles for deletion but they did not do that. - Arjayay (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger of tables

Hi. How can I merge the tables of Air India destinations that are separated? Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi FlyJet777. Precisely which tables do you want to merge? I found two tables at Air India destinations, one at Air India Express destinations, and one at Air India Regional destinations. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

users

I am looking for a certain user, but I forgot how exactly the user's name was spelled.

Maybe is there a place where you can specifically look for a user?

L.S. inc. ^(talk) 14:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, L.S. inc.. You might want to check with CentralAuth if you can remember part of it. MereTechnicality ⚙ 14:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks, MereTechnicality. L.S. inc. ^(talk) 14:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Always happy to help :) MereTechnicality ⚙ 14:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@L.S. inc.: You can also try Special:ListUsers if you may remember the start of the name, or click the "View history" tab of a page the user may have edited. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I found the user I was looking for. L.S. inc. ^(talk) 15:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

STREETRUNNER

Can you help me put up a page on STREETRUNNER the American, Grammy Award winning, multi-platinum music producer? Hunnykoko (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Hunnykoko. Have you read Your first article? You need to understand about reliable independent sources. Wikipedia is not interested in what you know, or what I know, or anything that has been published on social media or in a user-generated source such as Wikipedia itself. It is hardly interested in anything said by the subject or his friends or associates. An article, especially one about a living person, should be 100% based on reliable published sources, and nearly 100% based on sources unconnected with the subject. All the references you currently have are either to Wikipedia itself (never acceptable as a source for a reference - though linking to articles, as you have also done, is encouraged) or to STREETRUNNER's own videos (acceptable as a source for uncontroversial factual data like places and dates only). What you need to do is to find places where people who are not connected with STREETRUNNER have published material about him, in places with a reputation for fact checking, such as major newspapers. Without those, the article is never going to be accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

So does MTV.com, Thesource.com, and music sites count? Also if he is listed on actual Albums for production how do I cite that? Hunnykoko (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I found a ton of sources. Websites, Books and Magazines. I hope that helps. thank you for advising me :) Hunnykoko (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Preferred form for a reference+footnote?

I have done two different things in this article where I have a footnote with additional information AND a reference in the same place. Under History-reference 11 I attached a shorter note to the reference itself. Under Design-reference 25, I added the note separately because the text is a lot longer. Should I be consistent and make the first one a separate note too, or am I good? RM2KX (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey RM2KX. Some of this is a matter of personal preference. If there is a quote that is needed it is perfectly acceptable to include them in the citation template under the quote = parameter. However, this falls apart pretty quickly when what is needed draws from more than one source, or requires additional explanation beyond a simple direct quote. This is where footnotes as you have used them are helpful, since they themselves can support inline citations and other markup such as wikilinks. TimothyJosephWood 14:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, TimothyJosephWood! RM2KX (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I want to learn more about wiki how can I start?

Hi, I want to learn more about wiki how can I start? Liu893339850 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Liu893339850 “Wiki” is actually a generic term for a website that provides collaborative modification of its content and structure directly from a web browser. Wikipedia is the most popular wiki-based website. I have added some useful links to your talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

how to move content from my sandbox in order to create a new page

I want to create an article, I have it ready on my sandbox, and it’s ready to be published. In order to publish it from my sandbox I need to take certain steps. Could somebody please just confirm for me that I’m correct about the following? First from my sandbox, I click the “move” tab and I see three boxes: above one box it says: “new title”. Inside that box there is the word “user”. I can scroll down from “user” to “(article)”. I think I should do that. It makes sense. The other box says “Oxcross/sandbox” which is me. I think I should change that to the title of the article, which will be: Tanya Berezin. The third box says “reason”. I will type into that box “creating an article”. Last, I click on the “move page” box.

That’s all. Thank you in advance very much. Oxcross (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Oxcross. In short, yes. The first box is the namespace the article will be moved to, the second is the new title of the article once it is moved, and the third is (obviously) the reason for moving, which in this case is to create a new article. TimothyJosephWood 19:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that. Oxcross (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

... @Oxcross: and very nice it looks too! It'd be a good idea to add some categories and there are several articles mentioning her name where you could create links. Thincat (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Thincat -- will do. Oxcross (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Title of prospective article

I plan to work on a new Wikipedia article about a restored church building in Greenville, South Carolina. For nearly a hundred years it was Third Presbyterian Church, but that congregation has disappeared. Within the past few years, the building has been restored by an entirely new congregation called Trinity Church of Greenville. The congregation has applied to have the building included on the National Register of Historic Places, but I don't know under what name. Do you think it would be better to put up the article as "Third Presbyterian Church (Greenville, South Carolina)" or as "Trinity Church of Greenville"? John Foxe (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, John Foxe. According to WP:MOSNAME, the article title is whatever the sources call it, in preference to the "official" name of the subject (whatever that might mean). So you need to look at the independent reliable published sources you are using, (without which it is impossible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article), and see how they refer to it. --ColinFine (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait until I have something ready and make the choice based on instinct if clarity from additional sources doesn't resolve the issue before then.--John Foxe (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mention of controversial subject

Disregard. Now it's there. RM2KX (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I just tried to add a question and answer about KKK membership to the FAQ for Talk:Harry S. Truman, and while it showed up on the talk page for the FAQ itself, it has not shown up on the talk page for the actual article. Is this because the subject gets marked for review before going live? Or have I done something wrong in the writing? RM2KX (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Jesse Root Grant (January 23, 1794 – June 29, 1873)

"Jesse lived out his final years in Covington, Kentucky"

Died June 29, 1873 (aged 79) Covington, Ohio

Which state? Kentucky or Ohio?175.45.114.242 (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Greetings 175.45.114.242, This question can be asked at the article's talk page Talk:Jesse Root Grant. The Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Given that Grant lived in the Ohio River valley for most of his life, and is buried in Cincinnati right across the Ohio River from Covington, Kentucky, my strong hunch is that the Kentucky city is where he died. Covington, Ohio is a very small town quite a distance north of the Ohio River. However, to be 100% sure, the cited reliable source should be checked. The proper place to discuss this discrepancy further is Talk:Jesse Root Grant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ref List Fix

On the page Seaview Terrace there is a section "Filming", stuck in the middle of the Ref List. The section is in the wrong place, as well as being completely un-sourced, but I don't know how to remove it. I tried to edit it, but wound up breaking the Ref List. If someone can show me on my Talk page how to properly edit it I'd be very thankful. Mikepellerin^talk 02:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mikepellerin and welcome to the Teahouse.

There was a stray </ref> in the wikicode for the page. Removing it seems to have cleared up the problem. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Youtube videos as evidence of notability?

Hi,

I tried to create a page about a popular YouTuber that I am a fan of ("Vijay Varadharaj" of the YouTube channel "Temple Monkeys").

Vijay Varadharaj and his YouTube channel are quite popular among Tamil youngsters. He has also acted in a popular Tamil movie (Enakku Innoru Per Irukku) and his name has been referenced in the Wikipedia article about that movie.

My trouble with providing proper citations is that he has only been written about in Tamil media's YouTube channels, Tamil language magazines (some of which are print only) and is mostly popular for his satire of politics and mainstream culture. I believe his YouTube channel is one of the most significant voices in modern Tamil society. And I don't believe that this is just my opinion.

Will linking to his popular YouTube videos (as citations) be considered proof of his notability? That is if his videos have a high number of views (which a few do) will that be considered evidence of notability?

Or should I just wait for him to become more popular and written about in the local English language newspapers? It feels unfair to me that this should be the case.

Sathya KV (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sathya KV and welcome to the TeaHouse. The person's videos will not be of any help at all in establishing their notability. Similarly, your opinion is not relevant. Notability is determined by what independent, reliable sources have said about the subject. So collect the books that have been written about him, and the articles written in respected media that discuss him in detail. There is a good overview of what is needed in this article. If those references don't exist, then it may simply be a case of being too soon for this particular subject to have an article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, references don't have to be in English, or online. So if those Tamil magazines you mentioned are reliable, respected publications, and cover the artist in some detail, i.e. don't just mention him in passing, they can be used as references and proof of notability. Rojomoke (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response.

Sathya KV (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Licences

I would like to use a British Museum image the licence terms of which are "The image will be released to you under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license."

Can you confirm (or otherwise) that this would be acceptable? If it is, how should I word the attribution?

Thanks Langcliffe (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by BagelFox (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello BagelFox and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia requires a license that does not exclude commercial use. You would have to conform to the rules for non-free content to use such an image. See WP:NFC. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It was me rather than BagelFox that asked the question, but thanks for your very clear reply. Langcliffe (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I just picked up the last sig without noticing that there was a previous sig. User:BagelFox will need to ask a question in order to get an answer. And as for you, Langcliffe, welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for your tolerance of my imperfections as an editor. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ian Watkins additions/edits

Dear Wiki. I made multiple, accurate, additions to Ian Watkin's Wikipedia page some months ago which were reversed due to lack of citation of sources. I recently made similar edits which were all properly, and thoroughly sourced.

These have again all been amended as if one individual has total control over his page.

Watkin's case is due to be of significance at universities and child protection agencies for it's notoriety and for it's need to be explained.

Why is no one allowed to add anything to his page? BPJones90 (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Convenience link: Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maproom (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

BPJones90: this is not a case of one individual claiming control over the page. I see several editors (Rehevkor, Captain Cornwall, JzG, ‎Jayron32, Bencherlite) who have all helped to remove the personal opinions and unsourced statements you have added to the article. Anyway, the proper place for this discussion is the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Editing war with a experienced editor

My attempts to edit any alternative medicine article to add more information, let it be just references to other wikipedia articles or some additional information are simply overwritten by someone claiming I don't quote references. However I would like to point out that I am just expanding an article, not adding a new one. Mira.peltomaki (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mira.peltomaki. It looks like this has been fairly thoroughly explained at User talk:NeilN. So long as you are referring to edits like this one, then yes, that would require a reliable source. Reliable sources are required for any content on Wikipedia that is challenged or likely to be challenged, not just for creating a new article. Reliable doesn't mean just "western", but it does mean that if a source takes the truth of something as more-or-less a matter of faith, or if they do not adhere to generally accepted standards for rigorous testing, then they most likely to not count as reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia.

This is also the case if sources are not independent of the subject. So, for example, we would most likely not accept a source connected with the Evangelical Christian movement with regard to the efficacy of prayer, and we would probably not accept an Ayurvedic source with regard the efficacy of their own teachings, since they have a vested interest in promoting them. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Timothyjosephwood I understand the explanation and have done a new edit, which I believe correctly explains the Western and Eastern medicine conflict on the subject. However this is more about the fact, that I was harassed by a user, who removed all my edits. I was correcting a wording and an error in the explanation of an Ayurvedic concept, something I AM an expert, and adding more clarifying information in two articles about Ayurvedic medicine and doshas. The user in question removed both my edits stating my edits were pseudo science, which makes no sense since the article is about Ayurveda and it's concepts to begin with. Mira.peltomaki (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mira.peltomaki. While it may seem that way, having a disagreement over content isn't harassment. It's actually pretty normal, and people disagree about all kinds of things on Wikipedia every day. You are doing the correct thing, which is to discuss the disagreement with those involved. Ideally, you will be able to reach some kind of compromise. If not, you may want to explore the options available through the dispute resolution process. TimothyJosephWood 18:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

TimothyjosephwoodWell, he has just suggested that the article I edited, infused water, should be deleted simply as he believes it's nonsense (personal belief). Since I am new to Wikipedia, I don't really know how to defend myself or my topic. He states there are not enough references, I have added few. Again the problem is absence of Ayurvedic medical article in English.Mira.peltomaki (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mira.peltomaki: Per guidance at WP:NOENG, non-English sources are permitted so long as there is no equal quality English source available. English or no, the way you defend against a deletion request is to demonstrate, by improving the article, that significant coverage of the topic exists in reliable independent sources (see WP:RS). Deletion discussions normally run for seven days before a decision is made, and if it looks like consensus may be in favor of deletion, and you still think you can improve it given more time, you may request that the article instead be move to a draft, where you can continue to work on it prior to publishing in "article space". TimothyJosephWood 19:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

TimothyjosephwoodThank you for your insights. It has helped me a lot. I guess if I had known that alternative medicine was such a can of worms on Wikipedia, I would have never bothered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mira.peltomaki (talk • contribs) 19:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

TimothyjosephwoodAh, one more thing. Why is the user in question allowed to have external website links on his profile, but mine were removed? In fact I copied the idea after seeing his page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mira.peltomaki (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mira.peltomaki: Per WP:UP#GOALS links to personal blogs unrelated to Wikipedia are generally not allowed in user space, although rules regarding user space are generally not enforced terribly strictly. Perhaps if Mean as custard feels that this is an important thing to personally enforce, they should take care to enforce it consistently. TimothyJosephWood 20:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mira.peltomaki. I'm not sure who the "user in question" is that you are referring to above, but if it's NeilN then I think the links you're referring to are all related to Wikipedia in some way or another, while the ones removed from your user page seems to have been to your employer's website and your personal blog. Generally, editors are given a little bit of wiggle room when it comes to their user pages as long as the content they add is Wikipedia related in some way. However, simply linking to your company's website or your blog is going to be a bit harder to pass scrutiny and more likely to simply be seen as WP:LINKSPAM since there is no connection at all to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not me. I just welcomed the editor and gave them guidance. I suggest you look at the editor's article contribs to find out who they're referring to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The user is almost certainly referring to User:Alexbrn, who started the AfD in question, and...for whatever its worth, does in fact have a link to their blog on their user page in violation of at least the letter of WP:UP#GOALS. TimothyJosephWood 13:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me what happened to the edits I made yesterday? This is a bit soul destroying that wikipedia makes it so hard to contribute

I spent several months creating an article on Incestophobia, and though unfinished ( still had references and bibliography to had in,) I decided to put it on wiki to find out how wiki works. A message came saying it could take 6 months before it would be looked at, and advised me to work on it in 'the sandbox' in the mean time.

The next time I went back to the find the article to work on it I was told it had been 'fast deleted' or some such due to lack of references.

I had to contact someone and explain that I wanted time to enter the references. They eventually restored the article and I was able to make a few edits and add my first link.

This has taken me about two hours of my time and I have made zero progress.

I came back today, and low and behold my work was not there a second time, and reading down to a way to access the work again, I finally found the document (edit original source) and my new editing had been removed! Kak zhal! I have been using slow and tiresome computer systems since about 1980, and this has been one of my worst experiences of frustration.

Can they not remove all the extraneous information written in computer jargon, let us work on something as clear and simple as Word for Windows, and send an email if they want have read they article and have a question or require editing etc. etc. Why delete someone's work and make it a confusing cat and mouse game/struggle to get any work done?

And why has the long and detailed wiki article on Australian Senator Peter Nugent , a man who made great contributions to Australian politics, and who was a long time supporter of human rights and on many important Senate committees including one on Human Rights, and died the day after returning from a trip to China, shortened to a four line stub? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Nugent IzaacAbe (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello IzaacAbe and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm sorry you are finding the editing process frustrating, but you should be aware that creating a new article is, indeed, a difficult task. Encyclopedia articles are not ordinary journalism nor opinion essays, so it can sometimes be a hard adjustment. The idea that you can add references "later" indicates that you may not be building your text by summarizing what already exists in reliable sources. Instead, it sounds like you are writing things down out of your own head with some belief that you can later find references that will back up what you've said.

Most of the Teahouse hosts recommend that people spend a considerable amount of time improving other articles on Wikipedia, learning the ropes, so to say, before embarking on the daunting task of creating a new article. Yes, Wikicode is a bit harder to write in than Word, but the coding is important for the transparency, portability, consistency, and interpretability of the text.

As for the Peter Nugent article, you can look at the history and see that, in the time since 2007 when the article was created, it was never any larger than it currently is. Perhaps you can expand it based on references that meet the requirements of WP:RS?

So, to repeat, sorry for the frustration, we understand how discouraging that can be. We don't want you to give up and stop editing. The Teahouse is here to help! jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The content was not deleted a second time it was just moved. You can find it at Draft:Incestophobia instead of in your userspace. - GB fan 13:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly a long and detailed article. Tokyogirl79 has given you some good advice. You might like to read WP:referencing for beginners if you haven't already done so, and you will need to remove the sections of opinion for which you cannot find references, and try to balance the article with some criticism of your side of the argument. Because the topic is potentially controversial, you will need to be very careful that you find WP:reliable sources for the statements that you make. We already have articles on Incest and Incest taboo. I suppose you know that the title of your article is a new word that has not yet made an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, or any other printed dictionary yet, though it has been in Wiktionary for a couple of years. Dbfirs 13:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I advertise on Wikipedia as if it were an advertising agency?

WikiDan61 has deleted my AirlineSim page for advertising, but it shouldn't be done as if it were an advertising agency... Uchoseitutakeit (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Uchoseitutakeit: To be clear, I did not delete the page. I am not an administrator and have no rights to delete pages. I did tag the page for deletion as it was blatant promotion. As for the rest of your comment, I don't know that I understand your point. Wikipedia has clear guidelines that disallow the use of this website to promote anything. The question you pose in the section heading ("Can I advertise on Wikipedia as if it were an advertising agency?") has a clear answer: no. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Autobiography

Why can I not write an article about myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashant Raut (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:Autobiography Dbfirs 21:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Article rejection

I wrote an article on Larry W. Jones and it was rejected because of insufficient resources'. He was President of TV Lan for many years and has been interviewed numerous times by a-list media and I included links.

I'm wondering if I need to start over. When I went to write his article I stumbled onto one that had been started sometime ago but had also been rejected and i'm guessing never corrected. So I added to it with additional resource's and resubmitted.

He seems like someone who should be Wikipedia worthy.

Thank you for your help in advance, TV Land enthusiast. SDAcord (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi and welcome SDAcord. Can you provide some examples of the "a-list media" you included as references? Keep in mind that just establishing that someone does, or at one time did, exist is not usually sufficient to establish an individual's notability. After conducting a very non-thorough, cursory search, on Google News, I see a lot of short quotes by Larry Jones in WP:RS commenting on TVLand programs but I didn't see anything of sufficient depth that would, for instance, allow me to say where he was born, or where he went to school, or what job he was doing in 1985. These aren't criteria required to establish someone's notability, however, the point is that there generally needs to be some reliably established biographical information on a person beyond the fact that they were, at some point in the past, alive and, during some period of time, were employed doing "X." If you can post some of the sources you included in your previous attempt we may be able to provide a bit more directional assistance. DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your question and thought your article was deleted, not that it was submitted at WP:AFC. Looking at the sources you provided, it doesn't appear any of them are about Larry Jones or establish why he is notable. The name "Larry Jones" appears in the sources, but all we know from reading them is that Larry Jones is a living human - possibly male - who, as of the date of the article, was employed at TVLand. WP:GNG requires a topic be addressed in detail and "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", which applies even if the trivial mentions are in otherwise reliable sources. You may want to look at some of the sources used in the "early life" section of the article for Jeff Zucker for an example of sources of ideal biographical depth. DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW - I was using Doug Herzon as a ref - since he was a contemporary of Larry's at Viacom

Just checked out Jeff Zuckers - I'll see if I can add in some additional info into his bio.

SDAcord (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Valencia Ballroom

Dear Sirs or Madam,

I am in possession of a picture album of a book titled "Valencia, York PA. 10th Anniversary 1929-1939". It is a 94 page book that includes black and white photos of nationally known big band leaders during that era. The book also has text describing the beginnings of the Valencia Ballroom, in York, PA., and renovations to the ballroom during that 10 year period. The book states "it is thought to be the first air conditioned ballroom in the USA in 1931". I am a family member of the Tassia family who owned and operated the Valencia Ballroom during that time. The book's pages are 8.625 X 11.0 inches in size.

The book was compiled and written by my uncle, Steven Tassia and my father worked at the Valencia during that time in various management positions. The book does not have an ISBN number or printer name or date of printing. I only know that it was printed probably during the summer of 1939.

I would like to initialize a Wikipedia web page titled "Valencia Ballroom". I know that book is not copyrighted as I have searched the US government office's web site with negative results.

My questions are:

1. Is it permissible for me to initiate a Wikipedia page of both text portions of the book and photos of some of the nationally known big band leaders?

2. I would like to know what kind of electronic file extension would be most convenient to both you and me to initiate the Wikipedia web page, i.e. .jpg, pdf, or others?

3. In addition to the book as a major single source of reference material, there were newspaper articles that were written during and after the 1929-1939 era that I would like to add as commentary. What are your requirements for reference or citation articles that you would require for this project.

I am looking forward to your response to my questions. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Tass AH 1234 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Tass AH 1234. While you certainly may use the book as a source for information in articles, it is unlikely that you will be able to upload scans of pages and images contained in it unless you can demonstrate that they were first published before 1923. Per guidance at Wikipedia:Public domain, only works published before this time can be assumed to be free from copyright, and in all other cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader to demonstrate that it is not copyrighted. Unfortunately, unlike trademarks, it's not necessary to register a copyright at a particular government office, but rather because an individual is the one who created or published the work, copyright is presumed. TimothyJosephWood 19:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Tutorial for citing sources with RefToolbar.

Hello Tass AH 1234. I have a few minor precisions to add to Timothyjosephwood's answer. He probably read your post a bit too fast; it seems absolutely impossible that the book, relating events up to 1939, existed (let alone was published) in its final form before 1923, and therefore does not fall in the public domain. Moreover, being merely the owner of a book or photograph (i.e. a physical piece of paper) does not ensure one has the copyright (i.e. the legal "moral" rights) over it.

For your other question, newspapers articles are usually high-quality sources and are welcome. Not only do journalists check carefully what they publish (at least in theory), but the fact that they could publish an article about something is evidence that this "something" was the subject of interest; in Wikipedia jargon, it supports the notability of a topic.

While the requirements to cite sources are rather lax (basically, anything that allows to identify a unique source is enough), it is usually better to use the proper formatting, which is somewhat arcane. I suggest you use refToolbar, which is relatively intuitive; see the video next to my post. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 22:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Tigraan, I supposed I didn't explain myself clearly. What I meant is that if the book contained photographs that themselves were old enough to be in the public domain, a faithful reproduction of them in this book would likely not be a significant enough original contribution to "reset the clock" as it were. TimothyJosephWood 23:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

seeing revisions

how can i identify what a given wikipedian edited or deleted? i see a summary, but i can't find the revision in the article by comparing versions... there has got to be a way to highlight revisions Heshy507 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Heshy507, welcome to the Teahouse. First click the "View history" tab. Click "prev" to see the changes made by an edit. Click a time stamp at a revision to see the page at that time. See more at Help:Page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

On the History page, there's also a link for "Revision history search", sometimes known as "Wikiblame". Sometimes (not always) it allows you to find the exact edit (and editor) that added or removed a particular word or phrase. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Heshy507: Or if you want to see all the contributions an editor made, not just for a particular article, you can see their Contributions at Special:Contributions/Heshy507. (This link shows your contributions; fill in the field for a different user name and press the "Search" button to see anybody's.) If you want to see specifically what was changed in any of these edits, select "diff" beside that edit. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

123

123123Tyhu (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tyhu and welcome to the Teahouse.

It works best if you can ask your questions in English. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's Tyhu's first edit and "123" is a common test message so maybe the goal has already been achieved. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

My article keep getting deleted

I have submitted an article on Blaxmyth the band and it gets deleted without a clear and concise reason for the deletion. I don't think it's fair. I am not a professional writer, but I do believe the band is noteworthy and deserving of a writeup on wiki pedia. Blaxmyththeband (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Blaxmyththeband, and welcome! A few things. 1) In order to satisfy the notability guideline for bands, there must be significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources. 2) Our conflict-of-interest guidelines mean that writing about things you have a close connection with is strongly discouraged, and your name is an indicator that you probably do have a connection. 3) Your name might imply shared use; organizations (including bands!) shouldn't have a Wikipedia account to share. Generally, the rule is one editor, one account. In any case, you might want to request a change in name (or simply create a new account) as your name might be taken as promotional or implying shared use.

Sorry for the wall of text. Happy editing! MereTechnicality ⚙ 03:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to set the visual editor to default?

I was just wondering this since it would be a lot easier for me to edit this way. Keslerdo (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Keslerdo, welcome! Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and change the Editing Mode box to Visual Editor. MereTechnicality ⚙ 03:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Keslerdo (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Happy editing! MereTechnicality ⚙ 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Doubt about Era Natarasan Wikipedia Page

Hello sir/madam I am the student of Mr. Era Natarasan, He is my great teacher and best children writer. Great Sahitya Akademi awardee, and great many books he has written. He have not been created the "Era Natarasaan" wikipedia page. I only have created and dedicated this page for him. I have given the wikipedia page name as his own name. And also i have used his user name for creating the wikipedia page. In my wikipedia page the same name can be continued or is there any issues or policy violation regarding the name of the page. Please guide me in this regard.ERA NATARASAN (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are not Era Natarasan you should not be using that name as a username. Please read WP:Username policy and in particular WP:REALNAME. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

About Era Natarasan Wikipedia page

Hello Sir/madam

In our Page please specify and guide: is there any policy violation contents available. And also how to connect other wikipedia pages relevant to our contents.ERA NATARASAN (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi ERA NATARASAN, and welcome. The policy you're looking for is WP:AUTOBIO. It appears you are Era Natarasni and have written a Wikipedia article on yourself. Per WP:AUTOBIO, "Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy." DarjeelingTea (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Create wiki for an app

Can I create a wiki for an app？They have created some different themes apps for like-minded people, and I am a core user of the app. So I think that I can create wiki for their app on the Wikipedia. So is it appropriate?Melody Cai (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Melody Cai, welcome to the Teahouse. A wiki is a type of website and not an article. Most apps do not satisfy the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability and should not have a Wikipedia article. If you think this app is an exception then you can try starting at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and write a neutral article based on published reliable sources and not your own knowledge. But note that creating an acceptable article is difficult for new users and most submissions are declined. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)