Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 346

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 340 ← Archive 344 Archive 345 Archive 346 Archive 347 Archive 348 → Archive 350

Specific strategies to improve Multicultural BRIDGE

One of the articles I've been creating for a community organization in Berkshire County called Multicultural BRIDGE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Multicultural_BRIDGE) was recently rejected on the basis of the subject not being notable. Given the organization's received independently written articles in at least five different newspapers and journals (and received accolades from Deval Patrick and Carmen Ortiz), I respectfully beg to differ.
Having said this, I realize as a new Wikipedia editor, my article might not be written as professionally or neutrally as it could be. I'm looking for suggestions on how to showcase this organization's notability/advice on properly writing the article.
Thanks in advance, Kdipierro (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Kdipierro Hello! Welcome to the Teahouse!, I'll give you my opinion about the article you submitted, "I am having trouble reading it", like what Blue Rasberry said, "Focus on making 2-3 good sentences with good citations. Wikipedia has low standards - make an attempt to meet them. Read the guidelines.", and also, it looks like an advertisement page instead of an article. However, I find it unbalanced with the NPOV. I think it just needs spaces with the programs section, to make the reader understand more. It looks sophisticated that way anyway, but given with the 2 declines with the reason "advertisement", I indeed agree. It looks like an advertisement. CryOceD (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Kdipierro. I may be overreacting to one word, but I am concerned tht you refer to creating an article for the organisation: I think it may help to avoid thinking this. A wikipedia article is not for anything except Wikipedia. It must be a neutral summary of what independent people have published about the subject in reliable places: neither more nor less. It does not belong to the organisation, it is not controlled bt the organisation, it will not necessarily benefit the organisation, and people associated with the organisation are strongly discouraged from editing it. If criticisms of the organisation have been published in reliable places, they should be included as well.
In answer to your question on the page about links and PDF's: please incorporate those URLs into the appropriate citations; but do not, on any account, upload PDFs. Besides the fact that it will probably be a copyright violation to do so, there is no way to establish their provenance, so uploads of them will not be reliable, and cannot be used in references. --ColinFine (talk)

Thank you CryOCed and ColinFine for your critiques. What specific things can I do to give the article a more neutral point of view? In past drafts, I removed a list of awards, a mission statement, and other articles which weren't directly about the organization. I've looked online for criticism of the organization's programs, but haven't found any.
CryOCed - When you mention "spaces with the programs section," what exactly do you mean? Should I separate the programs under different sub-headings, or should I do something else?
ColinFine - I'm not a staff member of BRIDGE and haven't supervised any of their programs; however, I'm familiar with their work as a Berkshire community member and it seems they're significant enough to have a Wikipedia page about them. Is it permissible to share a PDF of an article that's beyond the paywall by uploading it onto Google Drive and setting the PDF to "read only"? Are there other ways to work around not having access to some of these links?
Thanks again, Kdipierro (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Kdipierro. I didn't actually review the article before my previous reply: I don't find anything promotional in the text as it now stands. In fact, the text's a bit thin, probably because you have taken out material trying to get it neutral. I haven't looked through the history to see what was there before, but my guess is that you could put some of it back, as long as you're careful about the wording: it shouldn't have any empty marketing speak, and any even slightly evaluative terms (especially about how wonderful the organisation is) should be include only if they are directly referenced to an independent source. Awards are fine as long as they are properly referenced: to say that BRIDGE won XXX award (with a reference to prove it) is a simple statement of fact.
I did wonder if you were employed by, or connected with BRIDGE: the wording I picked out suggested it, but only as one possible interpretation. I'm quite happy to accept that you are not.
As for the PDF: no, still not. Unless you have specific permission from the copyright holders, it is probably an infringement to upload it onto Google drive or anywhere, and Wikipedia does not allow linking to material that infringes copyright anywhere. Sources cited are not even required to be on line: obviously it's convenient if they are on-line and free-access, but the critical thing is that a random reader can in principle get hold of them. For the reader to need to subscribe to a service, or to go to a library and order a copy of something, is acceptable. (And Wikipedia has the resource exchange to put people in touch with others who have got access to resources). And even if you have permission to do so, it can't then be used as a reliable source. If a source is not easily available, it is permissible to include a short quotation from the source to show how it supports the text in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

When to move an article from userspace

Should User:Rubbish computer/Composed salad be reviewed before I can move it into the main article space? Rubbish computer 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not just add that material to salad? Doesn't make sense to me to have it as a separate article.--ukexpat (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rubbish computer: I agree with @Ukexpat:- a composed salad seems to have little notability, but could be a section of Salad#Types of salads instead, I guess. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302:@Ukexpat: Okay I will do this. I made this page after seeing it listed as a potential article on Cullen328's user page. Rubbish computer 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

May an employee of an organization create that organization's page?

I'm an intern at an education advocacy organization located in a major American city. I've been asked by my boss to create a Wikipedia page for our organization. (One does not already exist.) The group has existed since 2012, has received local and regional media coverage, and has partnered with national funders and research partners; I do believe the group is "worthy of notice." However, I don't know whether Wikipedia encourages / allows employees to create pages for the organization that employs them. Any thoughts? Benjaminpstein (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Benjaminpstein: You need to read WP:COI and, if you insist on creating this page, hard to refuse because it is a direct order, I advise you very strongly to use the WP:AFC process and take all reviews on board. Your boss may want publicity. Wikipedia is a two edged sword because it finds out warts as well. We do not allow any form of publicity. You ought, also, to declared your COI using {{Connected contributor}} on the putative article's talk page.
You have to be very good at writing dull but worthy text, material I doubt your boss will approve of, but we will not approve any form of puffery. Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Benjaminpstein, Welcome to the Teahouse! If an employee is asked by their leaders to create an article about their own organization is allowed, thus you cannot govern your opinion into it. It's not allowed here. you must know the NPOV (Neutral Point of View) guidelines. If your organization is worthy of such notice, please go ahead, make the article at a draft and send it for review. Don't allow such publicity, like stated by Fiddle Faddle above. CryOceD (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both; your explanations and the links you included illustrate exactly my concerns. I'll try AFC and I'll make my Connected Contributor status explicit. Thanks again! Benjaminpstein (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Your boss has put you in a very difficult position. Anything you write about the organization is bound to be mercilessly edited by other users and will likely bear little resemblance to your original contribution - that's how Wikipedia works, but your edits will be even more closely scrutinized because of your COI. That is bound to be a source of frustration for you. I would suggest that you ask your boss to reconsider his request.--ukexpat (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
A final opinion, Benjaminpstein? It is difficult to write an article about a person, organization, event or product that you have a personal connection to as it hard to have a neutral point of view. Your boss should realize that the task he has given you is not a walk in the park. New articles are scrutinized very carefully and I also encourage you to use the WP:AFC process.
But while you will have some challenges ahead of you, I think you should try any way. What Wikipedia cares the most about are reliable, independent sources that cover your organization, not primary sources, that is, material that comes from your organization. Feel free to come back to the Teahouse as you work on your article and questions come up. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My First User Interaction

Hello! I'm not entirely sure whether it is appropriate to ask a question about a specific conversation with a user, but seeing as it was my first, and I don't think it went very well, I really would appreciate any advice (or suggestion for a more appropriate platform for such a question).

The link to the conversation is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#Altercari

Clearly, I did in fact do something 'utterly pointless' on my userpage - I made the unintentional mistake of copy-pasting in the speedy-delete tag. The resultant conversation unfortunately had a combative tone. My question is how can I avoid similar conversations in the future, besides avoiding similar mistakes?

Is this sort of conversation/tone unusual or am I experiencing culture shock?

Sorry to bother you all. I very much appreciate this service. A L T E R C A R I 22:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Altercari, Welcome to the Teahouse, Apparently, the user you were talking to eventually have been angered, since he thought you're an experienced editor, and you knew the templates, he claimed that you continued to edit until to the point it reached the sufficient number with the wikilinks, and yet you didn't notice the speedy deletion tag. You can't just say "You have no idea", you must ask questions first and further, that will only dissapoint the user your talking to, at least that's my opinion. As they always say, have good faith, and civility. Be bold, don't be scared to ask further questions off of, users that sometimes teach you unexpectedly. CryOceD (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Altercari. The other editor, RHaworth, is a highly productive contributor who also happens to be a blunt speaker. If you read his user page, you will come away with a better understanding of his personality and style. Do not take it personally. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328. Please ignore my previous message below. If I would want to appeal something like a page deletion, is there a way to contact another admin, if the person I'm talking to, as in this case, has a somewhat blunt style? That would make a big difference to me. A L T E R C A R I 22:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply, CryOCed. So this isn't normal behaviour? I am unfortunately rather sensitive to combativeness and I felt intimidated and actually quite worthless after this interaction. If, in the future, I encounter someone else with whom I have a not-ideal interaction, is there some other way I can contest a userpage deletion? A L T E R C A R I 22:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, Altercari. I hope that helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Thank you for all your advice. A L T E R C A R I 23:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Altercari, although RHaworth might have been brusque, he actually continued to converse with you and tried to provide information to you on what happened to your user page. He was trying to be helpful. If you become a productive editor on Wikipedia it is highly likely that you will come into conflict with another editor on WP because, well, people have different points of view and different opinions. Arguing and trying to persuade other viewers that your edit is appropriate is part of the editing experience for most editors. It helps a lot if you do not take these disagreements personally as they are a fact of life on Wikipedia, it's what happens when people from all over the world try to collaborate.
If you are looking for an introduction to WP, I recommend Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Altercari If you have better sources at your hands, you'll definitely win a userpage deletion discussion, on the other hand, don't feel worthless after someone's reaction through your skills, it's better to have experienced the reaction to know yourself more better, so you can make changes to your personality when it comes to other people, worldwide. By the way, I recommend Ssilvers to be your adopter, he is really good! CryOceD (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
CryOCed, I shall try to get in touch with him! Thank you for the recommendation! A L T E R C A R I 23:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Liz − absolutely. RHaworth was very informative. Were it not for him I wouldn't have heard about this resource, which has been of great help to me! He also fixed the problem very quickly, which I appreciate. I know it's not ideal to have such thin skin as I do, and it may well be my undoing as a wiki editor. I'm not afraid of disagreements though. In this case there wasn't even a disagreement. It was simply a mistake that had to be corrected. I would rather avoid (unnecessary, from my point of view) brusqueness in the future, unless it's part of a debate that's really worth having. A L T E R C A R I 23:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not Copyright - please help!

Hello there,

I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for the nonprofit at which I work. We would like to transfer information from the website to the Wikipedia page in order to save space on the website. However, when I did this, Wikipedia notified me of copyright issues. Is there a way to let Wikipedia know that I am not copying information from the website, but that we are in fact owners of it?

Thanks!

Wcc1915 (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Wcc1915: and welcome to the encyclopedia, Wikipedia!
While I am sure your organization does wonderful things, as an encyclopedia, we are not a free webhosting platform for your organization. You will need to find other options. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Wcc1915, what you need is secondary sources, that is independent coverage of your nonprofit which typically is in the form of books, magazine coverage or newspapers. This will demonstrate notability which is important in establishing this article and prevent it from being deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll explain a bit further, Wcc1915. On the subject of copyright: any material on your website is automatically copyright, whether you explicitly mark it or not. Wikipedia does not accept copyright material unless it has been explicitly released under a suitable Creative commons licence. Your organisation may do this if it chooses (but it should be aware that in doing so it will granting anybody permission to use the material for any purpose - see donating copyright materials if you should want to pursue this). But the other point is that material on your website is very unlikely to be suitable for Wikipedia. If Wikipedia has an article about your organisation, it will not be your article: you will not have any control over its contents, it is possible that it will contain information which you would prefer not shown (and likely that it will not contain some information which you would like to appear) and your are strongly discouraged from editing it. This is because we are an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @TheRedPenofDoom @Liz @ConlinFine. This is very helpful.

Wcc1915 (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

My first Refusal

Hello, I've recently been notified that my article submission has been refused because "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement" However, I do not know why it would be considered as such. I've checked other articles about Unilever or Callebaut which both possess a page. Could you please help me figure this out? Thanks for your return. Luco Luc-Olivier Rahier (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Luc-Olivier Rahier! Welcome to the Teahouse! I have read your draft, the layout text is indeed some form of advertisement, and apparently it's hanging down at the NPOV (Neutral Point of View), please, read the guidelines within the link I gave you. You must be neutral when it comes to companies like these, "Puratos is a multinational company offering a range of products", that indeed looks like advertisement, it doesn't really specify what kind of products Puratos offers. CryOceD (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, "Puratos is a specialist in the taste of chocolate. They are passionate about rare chocolates", the statement obviously confirms that it's not in a neutral point of view. Your text is biased by the way. Please see Being Neutral. CryOceD (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks CryOceD for your feedback. Much appreciated. I'll make sure to go through the text to correct this.

Luc-Olivier Rahier (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Article draft

Hi all. I recently uploaded a draft of a Wikipedia article on my Talk page regarding a company called TwinFocus Capital Partners. I am not affiliated with this company at all. I was hoping that some of you might take a look at it and offer any comments/recommendations to ensure that it will pass Wikipedia's requirements. Thanks! Richmond1800 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Richmond1800! Welcome to the Teahouse! I can guarantee, that will pass, but seperate some sections into specific names, if you want to add more, and apparently, if you send that for review, your not the one who will edit it fully though, we'll try to help you! Regards! CryOceD (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you!! CryOCed

Speedy Deletions in Userspace?

I recently used the { { helpme } } template to ask for feedback on a draft article saved in my userspace. It was a draft BLP about a musician. One editor commented that it might be too promotional but there wasn't anything that couldn't be fixed. Another editor tagged it for speedy deletion under criteria G11, "unambiguous advertising or promotion" and it was summarily deleted by an administrator.

I found these two responses quite interesting, particularly because speedy deletion under CSD G11 is by definition reserved for pages that are "exclusively" promotional and that would need to be "fundamentally rewritten" to become encyclopedic, which isn't what the first feedback said. Also, CSD G11 states that if a subject is notable (which it was) and the "content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion", which is the nature of the advice I was seeking out.

Regardless, I have a couple of questions:

1 - My primary question is whether it is an appropriate practice to apply speedy deletions to drafts of articles that are saved within userspace.

2 - Also, when administrators delete pages based on speedy deletion tags, is it common practice to examine the pages and decide for themselves, or to just delete the pages without examining them? In other words, is the tag essentially a request for an administrator to take an action, or to look into whether an action needs to be taken and then take the action if necessary?

Thank you for the information. It will help me understand the context behind the speedy deletion process.Kekki1978 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: The concept of speedy deletion is one where there are intended to be checks and balances. The deleting admin should check that the deletion is valid and based upon policy. It's perfectly acceptable to ask that admin politely where they considered your draft met the criterion under which they deleted it. All edits are subject to community scrutiny, and admins are not an exception to this. Speedy deletion is sometimes applied to userspace drafts. My view is that the transgression must be blindingly obvious to warrant the approach. I am not an admin so I cannot see the deleted material. Fiddle Faddle 18:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Fiddle Faddle: thank you for your response. You answered exactly what I was wondering about. Kekki1978 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kekki1978, what I think Fiddle Faddle/Timtrent was also saying was that it is not inappropriate to ask the admin who deleted your page why it was deleted. You can also go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and see if your article can be undeleted. Be prepared to have an argument on why your article should be undeleted and what steps you will take to improve its content. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: Thank you for your suggestion. Very helpful.Kekki1978 (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A Follower.

Hi there I am new to Wiki... Just a query, I have a follower, another editor that followers my every edit in order to undo it. Is it normal for one editor to follow and undo every edit you do? Wikipedia says be bold with the editing, yet I find my edits undone before I have time to put my citations on them. Also, I noticed there is a lot of mis-information that he is trying to protect and I am a purist. Please advise. *Castle&Gardens* (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: OP tries to sneak POV-commentary into articles by lying in their edit summaries, and has been reported at WP:ANI as a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Castle&Gardens, Welcome to the Teahouse! It's not rare of being followed and your recent edits being undone in Wikipedia. Some users, who are more experienced than you, is correcting you, showing you the ways of how to be a good Wikipedian, Ian.thomson has been on Wikipedia at least for 6 months, at least older than me, I am only a week old! But I strive to learn, and on how to be good, is to learn, you should too, start from the beginning, and you'll see if you can interact with Ian much more friendly in the future. Being trollish kinda way doesn't really help you in your situation. ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
They've been blocked for a week for disruptive editing and misleading edit summaries. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference finding

Hello. What is the easiest/best way to finding references? I use Google; it is easy to find references but it is hard to find reliable references. Where do the "pros" find references? Right now, I am trying to find a reference for this article's only cite needed tag. I am pretty bad at finding references. —DangerousJXD (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello DangerousJXD, I prefer finding references that is much reliable based on its information, the fact that I choose much more sophisticated ones, well, I research on them first, then list them down if they're certainly good at the information they're giving, based on per sources you give. ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't want the above editor to be offended but can I have another editor answer please? —DangerousJXD (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I also use google. You get a lot of unreliable stuff, but also some great material. Once I have a bit of information (even from a lousy source), it gives me more information on what to search. I then narrow my search and find specific sources for specific information. For example, if I read on a blog (bad source) the country X invaded country Y in year Z, then I might put both country names, "invade" and the date in the search bar. Chances are something reliable pops up, either saying it is an urban legend, or that it actually happened, and giving more details, leading to a more specific search... It takes time but it is a lot of fun. It is also easier if you have access to some journal subscriptions through work or school. Hope that helps. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey again DangerousJXD. Google is great but not the standard Google search, which is a search of the entire web. Google Books is a habitual first stop (to get there easily, do a regular Google search and then go to the menu at the top, under "more" and choose "books"). Though you'll find unreliable sources there as well (even books selling Wikipedia compilations), because of the nature of books, it concentrates reliable sources and is many times over better than a web search. Google Scholar can also be very useful (you have to search for that one, it's not in the regular interface, just type "scholar" into Google to reach it, or bookmark it of course). Google news used to be great but it's been greatly diminished in reach for almost three years; it still can be very useful, especially for more recent content (it's a link at the top of the page when you do a regular Google search). I put together a page for other news resources at Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources. Of course there are pay services – newspaperarchive.com is incredible but it's expensive. Also, you can apply for certain subscriptions to great services like JSTOR through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Also, be aware of the excellent service provided at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange (easy shortcut: WP:RX). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What's going on with the navboxes?

All the navboxes that I've come across today didn't have a show/hide option and were displayed in their fully expanded state. Is this a compatibility issue for Google Chrome users (the browser I'm using) or something else? This problem seems to affect anything using the {{Hidden begin}} and {{Hidden end}} templates. CabbagePotato (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that sometimes, when I clear browser history and cache, all of the navboxes seems to be fully expanded. At least thats what I think, I don't really consider this as a fact, but purging the cache is the culprit, in my opinion... ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@CryOCed: That's an interesting observation, but the thing that's really bugging me is the lack of a show/hide button on the navboxes. I've never seen the button actually disappear before.
I also noticed that the Template pages for the navboxes display the show/hide option, while the transcluded versions (in the articles) do not. CabbagePotato (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@CryOCed: I had to actually close the current browser window and open up a new one for the navboxes to display properly, so I think you should be right about the problem being caused by purging the cache. Thanks for your help! CabbagePotato (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Cool! I'm glad I could help those with a guess. Well that's rare.   ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@CryOCed: Sorry to bother you again, but I've just noticed that it appears that the navbox issue still occurs whether or not the browser history is cleared, and it doesn't occur all the time: Sometimes the show/hide button displays and sometimes it doesn't. For all I know, this is just a personal issue not related to clearing the cache. But thanks for your help anyways. CabbagePotato (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@CabbagePotato: Have you tried updating your browser? If it isn't updated, that's likely to be the source, in my opinion.. ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 02:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@CryOCed: My Chrome browser is currently up-to-date according to its "About" page. CabbagePotato (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@CabbagePotato: Have you tried switching browsers? If it doesn't work, install some browsers, e.g "Firefox", "Opera", "Safari", and be sure to get the latest updates, also try enabling Javascript in your browser if its not yet active, try going to "Preferences" at the top of the page, and "Gadgets", and go to "Appearance", then uncheck the "Allow navigation menus to be collapsed if its checked. ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 02:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@CryOCed: The navboxes seem to be displaying properly in Firefox. Thanks again for all your help! CabbagePotato (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@CabbagePotato: No problem! If you have trouble or help with anything, don't be shy to ask me!   ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 02:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Correctness of having "(show)" where a [show] tag is used

I noticed earlier today that some pages use the Hidden template, and then add "(show)" at the end of the header, despite there being a [show] button on the right side of the page already. For example, a picture at the top of trypophobia is hidden, and the header redundantly includes (show). Is this bad practice, or there for the convenience of the reader? Typherix (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Typherix, I guess it's just some form of error, or some users are new to it and they don't understand it, you can fix them if you wish. ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I just took the time to notice that Wongba hid the picture to avoid the reaction of editors if they have anxiety. ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks CryOCed! It definitely seems reasonable to do, just curious that it was decided to say it twice. Typherix (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Help to get article approved.

Could you please advise what I need to do to get the ClearView Wealth article approved.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:ClearView&redirect=no Thank you. Maplepond (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I work for a company and want to upload a current logo to replace the one on our article. How do I do that?PabloRicardo (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello PabloRicardo! Welcome to the Teahouse, to upload a photo, simply go to Wikimedia Commons. Look to your left, you'll see the "Upload File" under the Participate section, click that, read the pictures carefully, after you have read the guidelines, click next, click the Upload media, navigate through your folders and choose your picture, wait for the upload to finish, now, if it's done, click "My Own Work", If you want to choose different CC licenses, click "choose other licenses at the bottom right of the page, then choose a CC license thats appropriate for you, now, fill in the data, you must not skip this part, after you have filled it, click ok and you will be presented with the page of links. Click the first link and copy it.
To use, just go to your article, click on "Edit Source above, pick a place of where you want your picture, paste the code you have copied before, and click "Show preview", if your not satisfied with the place, you can delete it and change the directions, if you're satisfied, then you're done.

If you do not understand and want a more comprehensive tutorial, click this. Regards. ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 00:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, PabloRicardo. CedricK's advice applies to most pictures in Wikipedia, but company logos are not usually handled in this way, because (for understandable reasons) companies usually do not want to license their logos so that anybody may use them! Instead, company logos are usually used in Wikipedia under 'fair use' rules - which means that they are held in Wikipedia and not in Commons. You can upload a new version of the logo at its image description page, which you can get to by picking on the image from the article. You will need to make sure that the use still meets all of the conditions in the non-free content criteria. For more information, please see WP:LOGO. If think you are already aware that you should not normally edit the article directly, because of your conflict of interest; but updating the logo is one of the things that you may do. --ColinFine (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What should I do next after having my changes reverted twice?

An editor with very strong opinions (which I believe to be misguided) has edited Sailfish_OS in a way I believe needs discussion. The editor has reverted both my initial undo, and then my attempt to take their opinions and render them in clearer English. I'm concerned both to simply revert the last edit and also by the verbose and robust tone of the editor. How would it be best to proceed? ClareTheSharer (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle - the next step is to attempt to engage in a talk page discussion with the other editor. If that fails, the next step is dispute resolution. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Trademark "TM" on Comapny Logos

I know we cannot use "TM" in Wiki articles, but some corporate logo include "TM" designation on the logo. Is this OK for the company logo area? Thanks Robpater (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Robpater to the Teahouse! You cannot use Trademarks in texts, and articles. If the logo has a TM mark on them, and that is okay, but not the text. SEE Wikipedia: Manual of Style: Trademarks ~CedricK (Talk to me!) 01:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!
Robpater, I'm afrid the above advice is not correct. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks where it explains in some detail how to use trademarks in text. It does say "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." This would not apply to a logo image that includes a TM symbol. DES (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
But a company logo is not "either article text or citations" so is not covered by this. Furthermore, we cannot alter company logos to remove the TM, or this would breach the fair use rationale - IMHO if it is part of a logo, used once in the infobox, it should be fine. - Arjayay (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. My point was that "You cannot use Trademarks in texts" was incorrect, not that we must avoid TM symbols in logos. Trademarks are used in text all the time. TM symbols are used only rarely in text, when there is no other option. Logos, when used, are copied unchanged from the most official example available. DES (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Reviews on new pages.

Has anyone reviewed new pages? I found some disturbing things, some are violating guidelines. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waste_Connects_Australia&redirect=no https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sumitranandan_Agnihotri&redirect=no https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MD_Sumro&redirect=no The four pages I encountered while patrolling.

CryOceD (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi CryOceD, the first two are already deleted, the third I have flagged for speedy deletion. I've been noticing more un-reviewed pages recently... that the trouble with a unorganised volenteer system - sometimes you have lots hitting the same backlogs, sometimes not enough! Special:NewPagesFeed is getting quite large! Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • CryOceD, if you haven't added it already you should look at adding Wikipedia:Twinkle - it makes reporting such pages for speedy deletion quick and easy, and you can do these yourself - especially when as obvious as MD Sumro was! Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, KylieTastic, I use Twinkle just to do the right job. Well, I often patrol 10 pages at once seperatedly, and I keep seeing new pages that is blanked, especially on new users. Regards! CryOceD (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
However, CryOceD, if you are going to tag pages for speedy deletion, please review the Criteria carefully first. The speedy deletion criteria are intentionally narrow and specific, and in case of doubt speedy deletion should not be used. Going too fast on WP:NPP can lead to unfortunate errors. DES (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarify 2 policies: Meaning of "Overly Abundant" Links? Using self-published info in a BLP?

I'm trying to gain some perspective on a couple of Wikipedia's policies.

For example, the prohibition against promotion in articles is discussed in the policy "What Wikipedia Is Not". The paragraph prohibiting self-promotion states that creating "overly abundant links" is prohibited. What is considered "overly abundant links"? Are "links" citations? Or are they links to external websites that are related to the subject?

If they are citations, why would "overly abundant citations" be "promotional"? Wikipedia's "Introduction to Referencing/1" policy discusses how any material whose verifiability "is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation of a source that directly supports the material." It also states that "material provided without a source may be removed from an article." Judging from this policy, it seems like it would be more productive to err on the side of abundance re. citations, but the policy cautioning against "overly abundant links" seems to be saying something different (if "links" is a synonym for "citations".)

The "What Wikipedia Is Not" policy also states that including "references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable", yet the Biographies of Living Persons policy states that material that living persons publish about themselves is acceptable as a source if it is not unduly self-serving, it does not involve claims about third parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and the article is not based primarily on such sources. I assume that since the BLP policy is more detailed and explanatory, it takes precedence, and so a limited amount of subject-published material as a source for a BLP is legitimate. Is that a safe assumption to make?

Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kekki1978, "overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources" are promotional because they promote the autobiography. Most content should be sourced from independent sources, but if notability is established from independent sources, limited self-published sources can be used in articles (including BLPs). —teb728 t c 09:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@TEB728: Ah, I misread the guideline, comprehending "overly abundant links" independently from "references to autiobiographical sources." Yes, of course, an overabundance of links to the autobiography and references to the autobiography promotes the autobiography. Thank you for the clarification.Kekki1978 (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Lenny Henry & Richard Curtis

I believe that someone (User MFlet1) removed my valuable contribution about Lenny Henry and Richard Curtis in bad faith. Lenny Henry & Richard Curtis have an excellent legacy: Comic Relief, Red Nose Day, Charitable/Philanthropic causes - all of which ought to be included in their Biographies. Therefore I will be re-writing my contribution in due course.

In the meantime, what can be done to avoid unwarranted bad faith deletions? TouchingHeaven247 (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, TouchingHeaven247. Sit down, cool down, and have a cup of tea. The place to discuss this is on the talk pages (eg Talk:Lenny Henry) where you have a conversation with the person who disagrees with you. I see that, after posting here, you have posted to the talk page with a declaration that you are going to insert the material again. This is not acceptable: putting an announcement on the talk page that you intend to add something, is reasonable. When you have added it, and somebody else has removed it, you must attempt to discuss it with that person on the talk page before adding it again, or you will be guilty of edit warring, which is a kind of disruptive editing. (And by the way, talk pages, in fact every discussion page other than this one, add new sections at the bottom rather than the top). I observe that MFlet1's edit summary was " (removed info already included elsewhere in article and/or in Comic Relief article)", so accusing them of bad faith is not a good way to start a discussion.
I am not commenting on your addition: I haven't read it. But it is not you that decides whether or not it is "valuable": it is the consensus of Wikipedia editors, via the dispute resolution process if necessary. --ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
With respect, nobody is forced to make contributions to Wikipedia. I have not made any further contributions/changes to Lenny Henry & Richard Curtis pages at this time. Wikipedia ought to know that racism and class discrimination is highly prevalent among the UK/and some European contributors. If I feel such a matter needs to be addressed, who do I ask...how is this concern of mine addressed in a non-discriminatory matter. Telling me to " sit down, cool down" and "talk" to the initiator of the racisms and discrimination is not at all helpful. It is a known fact that Lenny Henry and Richard Curtis are co-founders of Comic Relief and Red Nose Day. Their charitable works and philanthropic efforts warrant an entire Section. Why would anybody delete these truths from their Biographies?TouchingHeaven247 (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@TouchingHeaven247: With respect, accusing other editors of discrimination and racism counts as a personal attack, especially when their reasons for reversion are clear, but your reasons for claiming discrimination/racism are not. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Joseph 2302 - Wikipedia ought to employ "Monitors" and/or "Forensic Editors" to ensure editorial equity and standards. It is come to my attention that black people and "people of a certain class" in the UK are not treated with good editorial regard. For example, since Sir Bob Geldof is associated with Live Aid, his Biography is rightfully credited with a Section. Mr. Lenny Henry & Mr. Richard Curtis are associated with Comic Relief and Red Nose Day BUT their good, charitable and positive works are missing from their Biographies. I took it upon myself to begin a Section only to have somebody in the UK delete it with a "flimsy" excuse. Please let's give credit where it is due. Wikipedia please do a special survey about the way Black British Entertainers are written about - you will find that good, positive information is deliberately omitted (or deleted after a contribution). In other words, their works are minimized. Wikipedia, this is wrong...this is unacceptable. I trust Wikipedia will disown such practices.TouchingHeaven247 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:TouchingHeaven247, Welcome to the Teahouse, please, sit down and have a cup of tea. I mostly think that Wikipedia has already have thought of this issue. Wikipedia doesn't humiliate black people by facts, at the least. I think you might have misunderstood, actually, the editors make Wikipedia's own words, administrators make the move. You can file a report about it specifically through the administrators so that they can modify it, so other people wont have to be offended. If you are unsure or you actually think, that the one who edited that article has a misconception or is violating the rules, please report it through the administrators. As for the survey, I think it is a good idea, but I mostly prefer on patrolling the pages with that regard. CryOceD (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
TouchingHeaven247, many of us who edit Wikipedia are very well aware of systematic bias based on race or ethnicity, on income level, and on country of residence. I and many others work to eliminate or reduce this. But there is also a systemic bias in the world. If reliable sources cover some people or things less well than others, we can't write as much about the under-covered topics without violating our own standards of verifiability and notability. I haven't reviewed Lenny Henry or other articles you have contributed to, but discussing any issues on the talk page is a very good idea. Facts do need to be supportable from independent reliable sources as a general rule, except for very obvious ones. You may need to find and cite those sources to support additions you want to make. Oh, do remember that our standard for inclusion is verifibility, not truth. DES (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Lord Toby Jug

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia, so please be patient and kind. I've recently edited the Lord Toby Jug page, I added what I thought were constructive links, but they were soon reverted. Can anyone help or tell me why. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaffieDoodlebug (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SaffieDoodlebug. You should ask Mlpearc (either on their user talk page, or on the article's talk page) why they reverted your changes to Lord Toby Jug. My guess would be that they didn't intend to remove the additional text you added first, but were responding to your determined campaign to remove his former name from the article. I may be wrong though. By the way, on this page (Teahouse/Questions), unlike all the other help and discussion pages in Wikipedia, new questions are added at the top; and on talk and discussion pages you should sign your contribution with four tildes (~~~~) --ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, SaffieDoodlebug to add to the answer above you also used misleading edit summaries which will always make other editors dubious of your edits. For instance, one of the edits removing his real name (see here) has the edit summary "Fixed grammar". The additions to the end of the article appear to be fine, but the removal of his read name without good reason is not. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Most Appropriate Way to Ask for Feedback on Article

I am writing an article about which I may have a COI. I am not ready to submit it for publication but I am interested in receiving peer feedback regarding whether I am writing with a NPOV. What is the most appropriate way to request this feedback? Is it common practice to post a link here in the Teahouse? Or to place a { { Help Me } } template on the draft's talk page? Or ask on the "Peer Review" Page? (Or is that only for published articles?) Something else? I'm not sure I understand the uses of each way of communicating with the Wikipedia community. Thank you.Kekki1978 (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please go ahead and submit it for review by clicking the blue "Resumbit" button in the pink box.--ukexpat (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ukexpat: Thanks for your thought, but the article hasn't been declined yet because I haven't submitted yet via AFC. I'd rather not submit it yet because it's not ready; I'm merely looking for an objective, rational eye to look it over and assess so that I can further improve it. I'm not sure how to most appropriately make that request. There seem to be at least 3 ways to ask for assistance, and I'm unclear about which medium is used for which purpose. Kekki1978 (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Which draft are you talking about? I see Draft:The Lords of 52nd Street and User:Kekki1978/Draft:Rick Shutter in your contributions. In any event, the formal way to ask for a review is to submit it to AFC, but other informal means are to ask here or perhaps at the help desk. Peer review is not really intended for drafts.--ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ukexpat: Thank you for clarifying the use of peer review and for listing informal means of asking for help. The draft in question is different than the ones you've mentioned. As I've experienced speedy deletion of a COI draft in my userspace based on an (IMO a bit overzealous but well-intended) application of the "unambiguous advertising or promotion" criterion, I hesitate to share the link in question here until the draft is further refined out of concern that such a deletion of a draft in my userspace will recur. Regarding the previously occurring speedy deletion, it is my understanding that under CSD G11, replacing promotional text with NPOV text is preferable to speedy deletion for a BLP when the subject meets notability criteria, and I remain hopeful that future actions will occur based on this nuance. Thank you again for your assistance.Kekki1978 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

How to post?

Hello, I want to ask you how/ where can a post a Wikipedia page to the Italian Wiki ?! I cannot find it , because it is not a section after you click on the SAVE PAGE . Torino Crea Engineering (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Torino Crea Engineering. I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. The Teahouse is intended for help with English Wikipedia. If you have a question about Italian Wikipedia, I'd suggest you try asking here, at the Italian Wikipedia Information Desk. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Torino Crea Engineering: I see you've created an article draft here on the English Wikipedia, in Italian. Note that all the different language versions of Wikipedia operate separately from one another, so an Italian draft hosted on the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) is in the wrong place. You'll want to take a look at it.wikipedia.org instead. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

See main article sections

This is a weird question thus didn't know what to name the question. I was wondering if you can list a category instead of an article. In some articles, section say 'main article' which takes the reader to that article. For example this Ipswich article has see main article in the political section. Could I mention the buildings in Ipswich category in the building section. Hope I explained this question well enough. thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes you can, but make sure you format it with a colon before the word Category [[:Category etc]] otherwise you will add the article to the cat and the cat won't show up where you want it to.--ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Wrightie99, you can do this, but I'm not sure that it is a good idea. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid says "Typically, self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should be avoided" and, lower down Limited use of self-references is sometimes found in the Template namespace and the Category namespace, such as with disambiguation and stub notices. Expanding this to other areas is not encouraged, due to the need of third-party users to either delete those templates or modify them to remove the Wikipedia references. When forced to use templates like this, you should use them in a way such that the article still makes sense when the template is removed, in order to facilitate automated removal."
If you want to link to a list of buildings in Ipswich, I would be inclined to create List of Notable Buildings in Ipswich. However, ukexpat is a very experienced editor, and I'm not about to say that the advice above is wrong. DES (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the question is about self-references, but about using a category link in a See also section or similar. I don't think that's a no-no.--ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
My thought, perhaps poorly expressed, was that categories are navigation aids, not part of the encyclopedia proper, and so a link to a cat from inside an article is a form of selfref. Consider that if the article was exported, the cat links wouldn't work properly, unless they linked back to Wikipedia, while section links would. But perhaps I was wrong about that. In any case, I have rarely if ever seen it done, that is such links to a cat page from inside an article. DES (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah ok, I have not seen it before that's why I asked. I did what ukexpat said. could you see if you think this is acceptable, I will happily remove it if it does not follow guidelines however, I don't see a necessary need to create an article when a category has the buildings. I added it under the building section of the Ipswich article. thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Missed Information on Investors Group Field

Hello, > > It seems you have missed much information about this outfit in your events history > section. You did not mention anything about controversy and lack of democracy > with 1000 person petition and community meetings denouncing the development of the > stadium. You also lack attention to all the persecution and threats made against > community members when topics were brought up. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investors_Group_Field142.132.71.239 (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. If you cite reliable sources, you can add neutrally written information to the article yourself. Or, you can click "talk" at the top of the article, and make your comments on the talk page. Be sure to provide links to coverage in reliable sources backing up the changes you want to make. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Contest rapid deletion

My new, and admittedly rough, article (titled "Joseph J. Loferski") was flagged for rapid deletion. I want to contest that recommendation, but I do not see any button on the article. Where is it? helenduffy

Helenduffy (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Helenduffy, that is because the tag for speedy deletion was removed by Everymorning, less than 2 minutes after it was placed. Joseph J. Loferski is not currently marked for deletion, although I would add additional refernce citations, and trim the long list of publications to books and the very most significant articles, particularly those where a cited source discusses the article and its significence. DES (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Excellent news! I will trim that list as you suggest.

Thanks! Helenduffy (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Helen. There is no barrier to you starting again, but this time using sources for the information they provide, not for their sentences. As I noted at your talk page, I deleted the article because it was composed of swaths of text copied and pasted from sources like the Rhode Island Hall of Fame, Worldcat, and his obituary in The New York Times. You must write in your own words (you can quote short passages under fair use as an exception to copyright, and also avoid plagiarism so long as you indicate it is a quote by using quote marks and in-text attribution [you must also provide an inline citation for quotes under the verifiability policy]). Note also that minor surface changes are insufficient to avoid copyright and plagiarism problems; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

How do I repeat the same reference but with different page numbers

Hi, I'm a newbie. I've managed to master the business of using the same reference repeatedly with <ref name="name"/> but I can't work out how to add a different page number each time, eg if I want to refer to a later page in the same book(talk) 10:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Johnlauner
There are several ways, but if you are using the "ref name=" method for your references add {{rp|pageno}} after it (replacing the text "page no" with the number itself).
So the first use, referring to, say, page 22, would be <ref name="XXX">Book title + author etc.</ref>{{rp|22}} which produces [1]: 22 
The next use, referring to page 29 would be <ref name="XXX"/>{{rp|29}} which produces [1]: 29  i.e. reference and page no - Arjayay (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b quote from book XXX

Thanks, extremely helpful Johnlauner (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If a roller coaster was SBNO for a while, how would the initial opening date and reopening be expressed in terms of parameters?

The question says it all. If x was closed from 2 May until 4 July, and was initially opened on January 1, how would this be expressed in the infobox? -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't. Infoboxes are there to provide a general snapshot overview of a topic, not the nitty-gritty details. That's what the article body is for. I would imagine temporary closures, even if they were long enough to be significant, would only need to be discussed in the article itself. Yunshui 雲水 10:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Well for the infobox opening date parameter, would I state the date that it reopened or the date it was installed -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The infobox parameters state that it should be "the first day on which the coaster was open to the public". So in your hypothetical case above, the opened= value would be 1 Jan (year), and assuming that it was then active again after July 4 you wouldn't need to add anything about the temporary closure. Yunshui 雲水 11:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Cross referencing to other pages

If I cross reference to another page eg concerning a named person, should I do this each time I mention their name again (eg "Shakespeare was born in 1564...Shakespeare finally died in 1616")?

Also is it necessary to cross-reference for every single item with a Wikipedia page, for (eg "Shakespeare lived in England although some of his plays take place in Scotland,FranceandDenmark.")? Seems a bit over the top! Johnlauner (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Johnlauner. Good questions; the answers are: no, and no. Wikilinks should only be applied to the first instance of a term in an article, and while we have articles on most years, letters and numbers (for example), you don't need to link everything that can be linked; just those terms which a reader might need to look up or want more information about. Yunshui 雲水 11:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fully agree - please see WP:OVERLINKING for what not to link.
Fundamentally only link the first use (although they can be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead), do not link common words, major geographic features and locations, languages, religions and dates. Arjayay (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_346&oldid=1142564695"