Open main menu

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 60

< Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ | Questions
Archive 55 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 65

Contents

How can I add my company's logo to an article pageKmpurdy (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kmpurdy! A logo is a non-Free, "Fair Use" file. That is, it's not in the Public Domain, but we can carefully make limited use of it to specifically illustrate the subject article. What you do is go to WP:File Upload Wizard, follow the instructions there, select "Fair use" and choose the image from your computer, giving it a very specific filename like "XCompanylogo". Fill out the fields, and make absolutely sure you choose, "Fair use, company logo" as your designation, and that you indicate you're using the file only on the page specifically for the company. In the end, you'll get a message saying "file uploaded to File:Xcompanylogo, and you can include that in your article as you would any other image. If you forget what the filename was, you can hit your "Contributions" tab at the top of your page to look back and see what you uploaded it as. All good? Let us know if you have any issues trying this. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reviewal Process

Hi there,

Thanks for inviting me to join the teahouse! I admit I've had a lot of questions on my mind since I started contributing to Wikipedia! Would be so useful to ask some! Have only written one article just yet but am a crazy music fan so I look forward to editing and contributing to more music related articles in the future! Anyway, here's my question:

I've been waiting for my very first article to be reviewed for some time now, would someone here be willing to review it for me? I would really appreciate it if you could, I'm a newie to Wikipedia so I'm not sure how things work!

I am a fan of the singer Lyna Galliara and have written the following article about her, she gave me permission to use the images I've included and in fact she uploaded them onto Wikimedia Commons for me to make things easier and cos she's happy for them to be under Creative Commons and used by others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lyna_Galliara

Would really appreciate it if someone here could review it for me?

Thank you so much, Scott ScottDaviesMusicExpert (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Scott, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! First: just you you know, the article actually isn't in the review queue yet; the big box at the top still marks it as "in progress". No worries, though; we can still take a look!
Anyway, I'm sorry to say it, but I think you've run afoul of the same problem that most of us do when starting out on Wikipedia: you haven't established Lyna's notability. You see, notability is our criteria for inclusion of new subjects in the encyclopedia, and it can best be summarized as "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other and the subject itself." There are more specific guidelines for musicians, actually; you can read about those here, but coverage in reliable sources is the core of it all. The problem is that most, if not all, of the mentions you've listed wouldn't be considered reliable sources; things like Twitter and blogs almost never count as reliable sources, and even radio plays aren't quite it, either. Reliable sources are things that are published with some kind of guarantee or assurance of accuracy, so things like reputable newspapers or magazines that have an editorial, fact-checking staff. So, an article in Rolling Stone magazine or something like that could be considered reliable, but blogs and Twitter posts don't work.
I'm not sure Lyna is notable enough yet for a Wikipedia article. That doesn't mean she'll never be notable enough, though! She's just not there at the moment, so we need to wait a bit until she is, and then we'll have enough reliable sources to be able to write a good article about her. Thanks for your effort, though! Like I said, I bet we've all made this mistake in the past, so don't let it get you down. Having her upload the images on Commons was definitely the right call, and that's a particularly tricky area for people to figure out! So don't be discouraged, and don't take it personally; you did fine. :) Writ Keeper 14:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

What type of source is acceptable?

I tried to edit a page and put in a source, but some sources i key in is invalid or unacceptable.What type of source is acceptable?Walls Jericho (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse. Sources on Wikipedia must be reliable and independent. Major newspapers, academic books, and scholarly newspapers are all considered reliable sources. Wikipedia also favours secondary and teritary sources over primary sources, although primary sources can be used for uncontroversial details. Self-published sources like wikis or personal blogs are not considered reliable.--xanchester (t) 08:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Walls Jericho; welcome to the Teahouse. The problem isn't so much that your references are invalid - it's that they aren't there at all. You can't verify a statement with something like <ref=too many/> - you need to refer to a specific article or website. I suspect you've seen the way some of the other references on the wrestlers' pages are formatted and copied that, but unless you understand how referencing works, I'm afraid that's very unlikely to succeed.
Wikipedia uses references to verify information (so that readers know it isn't just something a random Wikipedia editor made up). You therefore need to find a source that supports your statement first. To add it to the article, use the following format:

This is the statement I want to verify.<ref>URL, book, newspaper article or similar source, with a link if it's available online</ref>

You need to provide more than just a name or word; a simple reference might be something like: "Davis & Hardbottle; Things You Really Need To Know About Wrestling page 118; Sweaty Jockstrap Publishing, 1988". Even a bare URL is better than nothing.
I hope this helps to explain things a bit; if you want to learn how to reference properly I suggest reading through this content guideline. Best of luck, Yunshui  08:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Just wrote this to help you, hope it's useful. Yunshui  09:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walls Jericho (talkcontribs) 09:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Making your wiki account location details private? Request for oversight?

I apologise as this has no doubt be answered hours before my asking. Is it possible to make not visible, your location details? As I made my account quite a few years ago I had not noticed I had these details visible. Thanks Safez (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit- What I found more interesting, is the amount edits my account has somehow made... over 10 000... I havent made an edit in at least 2 years Safez (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Safez. Are you referring to edits made whilst you were logged out (editing under an IP address)? Your named account User:Safez has only ever made 48 edits. If you edit using your account, your computer cannot be geolocated, whereas it can be if you edit using an IP address.
If you're concerned that edits you've made as an IP could be linked to your account, you can have those edits be hidden from view by making a request for Oversight; a member of the Oversight team will then supress them. Yunshui  07:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am referring to the geographical location (city, postcode) information that is supplied when you check someones profile. For example, I do a quick websearch for my user name and I am immediately presented with information including city/postcode information. I'd like this information to not be so freely available. Safez (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well perhaps you shouldn't have openly posted it on your userpage, then... I've noindexed your page so that search engines won't cache it, but it'll take a few days before they update. You might want to, I don't know, not post your personal information on the sixth largest website in the world? Yunshui  09:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

thank you, I understand that yes, I should not have. I did this over three years ago. Had I had the foresight I have now I would not have done so. Is it possible to have those details removed entirely by the oversight team? Safez (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't imagine they'd object, but since it's been present since the creation of your userpage the page will need to be deleted and restarted. I'll sort it out for you, leave it with me. Yunshui  09:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, your userpage has now been deleted and recreated without any personal information, and I've asked an oversighter to consider supressing the deleted revisions (I can't promise he will, but even if he doesn't only administrators will now be able to see them). As I said above, search engine indexes take several days to catch up to changes on Wikipedia, so it will still be a while before your details fully disappear from Google. Yunshui  09:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your time and assistance with this. :) Safez (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Can the page in my Sandbox go on Wikipedia

In reference to User:Jocy H/sandbox

Hi, this is scarey. I've written about myself - as other writers have done. It's in my sandbox. Can it go on Wikipedia as a page, or does it need approval or proof? If it can be an entry, how do I do that? Jocy HJocy H (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jocy, and welcome to the Teahouse. You're correct in saying that many other writers (and other individuals) have written articles about themselves - these nearly always turn out to be unsuitable for Wikipedia, and are either rewritten entirely by other uses or deleted altogether. We actually have a content guideline which emphatically discourages the writing of an autobiography; the resultant conflict of interest makes it all but impossible for such contributors to adhere to Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. Your sandbox article, for example, is little more than an endorsement of your works and a listing of them; it says virtually nothing about you yourself. In addition, it contains no reliable sources with which readers can verify the information you claim. It would not be acceptable as a Wikipedia article, I'm afraid.
If you genuinely feel that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, a more appropriate venue would be Requested Articles. Here, you can ask other editors to create an article about you, without fear of a conflict of interest. However, please don't try writing an article about yourself; it almost always ends in tears. Yunshui  08:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Setting aside "don't write about yourself", the article User:Jocy H/sandbox is not submittable as it stands. To have a biography of an author, it is not at all enough to simply prove they've written and published a book. The article absolutely must meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (authors). That is, there has to be substantive, neutral, third party discussion of the author and her/his significance. Not a blurb on Amazon, not a promotional bio on the publisher's site, but actual articles in journalism or academic sources saying "hey, let's talk about author So and So and the impact of the recent book Stuff about Stuff." The current article does not have any of that. Definitely review the Notability policy (good to know in general for editing Wikipedia), and again, writing about yourself is just generally a bad idea. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Signure and new article creating process

How to use signature while creating a new article?

Do I need to use my signature or when I create a new article, my signature is automatically added?

Thanks Can.kilic1981 (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Can.kilic; welcome to the Teahouse! Signatures are just for talk pages, actually—never add your signature when editing articles. To add your signature (to a talk page), just type ~~~~ after your comments. Happy editing! —Theopolisme 23:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :))) Can.kilic1981 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Can.kilic. Your "signature" in article space is found in the article's history. To see it, click on "View History" at the top of the page.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Any article relating to this subject?

Is there any article on Wikipedia relating to the subject of the royal prank call in London. It is the one where two Australia DJs pretended to be Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles and actually got information about Kate Middleton.

Sheldonc1981 (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a section at Hot30 Countdown#Kate Middleton prank call and a paragraph at Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Violations of privacy. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Also Mike Christian#Royal prank. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing the right-hand column

Hello,

I'm a new user and have managed to update the Ganges_shark page with new content and in-line citations. There are just a few things I haven't been able to figure out through the help pages:

- How can I add new headings and content within the right-hand column? I want to add taxonomic synonyms and common names beneath the scientific classification. I have managed to create a heading for Synonyms by copying the HTML from 'View source', but the formatting goes awry when I try to add text beneath. My knowledge of HTML is limited and I don't want to muck around in the code too much.

- Range map: the previous range map was incorrect, indicating ocean habitat, whereas this is a freshwater species with a range very similar to that of the Ganges River dolphin.

- Figures/photos: I have two photos to add, and I'm currently awaiting permission for use from the authors.

Many thanks!! Ocococo (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ocococo, and welcome to the Teahouse. By "the right-hand column" I presume you mean the Taxobox, in which case you don't need to create your own HTML header - just add:

| synonyms =
*''species1'' <small>Authority1</small>
*''species2'' <small>Authority2</small>

somewhere inside the template. I've done this for you in the article.
The rangemap looks to be fixed; it's currently identical to that of the Ganges River dolphin, so I assume you worked out how to sort that.
As for additional images, thank you for locating new pictures! In order to use them on Wikipedia, you need to persuade the authors to release them under CC-BY-SA or a similar free licence. Once that's done, you should upload them to Wikimedia Commons; bear in mind that you may need to persuade the orginal authors to either email the volunteer response team or make the licensing status of the images publicly available online. Yunshui  10:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yunshui 雲‍水 - thank you so much! What a great first experience on Wikipedia - very helpful and so fast!
- For the Taxobox, I've added the common names below the synonyms, using the same formatting as you. But something must be missing because the text is not appearing.
- For the range map, I replaced the original map with the one from the river dolphin page as a temporary improvement. But it's not 100% correct either, as it shows the Indus River. I can always crop Pakistan out of the map, but I prefer to modify the image. Are there guidelines on that?
- Photos - thanks again for the info - I'll investigate.
All the best,
Ocococo (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I see what you did there... unfortunately, the Taxobox template doesn't support a | common names = parameter (a full list of available parameters for the template is available here). That information might be considered excessive for the article, but if it is to be included, the best place to do so would be in the main body of the text, under a new heading ==Name== or perhaps ==Etymology==, depending on how much info you have.
Image modification's not my forte, I'm afraid - you might find Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload useful, though. Whilst I can't help technically, policy-wise you can certainly create a new map based on the existing one, but you need to credit the original to avoid violating any copyright.
Best of luck. Yunshui  11:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

How to insert a picture while editing a page

Please tell me how am i supposed to insert a picture in the page i am editing Nikgeorge777 (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

first their are a few requirements your account must be 4 days old and you must have made 10 edits.then i would check out this:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.(p.s. sorry if this isn't a good answer i'm not really an administrator.)
Zeroro (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
To expand on Zeroro's answer: if the image you want to use is already on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, you can include it by entering the following basic text into the article:[[name of file|thumb|caption]]. So, for example, if you wanted to insert the image at File:Chips and beans with egg.jpg, you would type:

[[File:Chips and beans with egg.jpg|thumb|A picture of chips, beans and egg]]

If the picture you want to use is not on Wikipedia, but on your computer, you will need to upload it first. If you took the picture or made it yourself, you can do this at Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise, you can try making a request at Files for upload on Wikipedia, but if the image is not freely licensed, it will probably not be usable here. Yunshui  09:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Great - this explains it. Thanks again!!

Ocococo (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tables with further splitting

Hello,

so I have been asking myself, how to do a consonants table with further splitting (for Gulf Arabic) like the table you find in the article of Egyptian Arabic with all the subdivisions and all. I tried to copy it... but it was just... weird as I had to change a few things and I was compleeeeetely lost. A little help would be much appreciated.

Thanks, -Konanen (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Konanen, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you refer to cells covering more than one row or column. You don't "split" or "subdivide" cells in tables although the rendered result could be interpreted like that. By default, all cells are the same but you can merge adjoining cells with rowspan and colspan described at Help:Table. For example, the "Nasal" cell at Egyptian Arabic phonology#Consonants is two columns wide with "colspan=2 | [[Nasal stop|Nasal]]" in the wikitext. Start by figuring out how many rows and columns you need in total for your intended table design, and then which cells must be merged. Place the required rowspan and/or colspan before the top left cell of those you want to merge. If you save an attempt at User:Konanen/sandbox (linked on "Sandbox" at the top of any page if you have default settings) and describe what you want then we can give accurate advice or fix it for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have put it in User:Konanen/sandbox. It is not finished yet, but when I try to add "! Rowspan="2" colspan=2 |  " to the first "Header Text" my table gets screwed up. I have not yet worked out how to merge the cells, I guess... :D

Greetings, -Konanen (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you worked it out. Well done. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A big yay for me, but of course one should not forget to show gratitude, so I do thank you very much!

-Konanen (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A few Questions ...

1. Is there a template for Ancestry.com to prove a birth date of a subject?

2. How does one accompany their edits with a short explanation on the "View History" page to back up their contribution?

3. Are ASINs from other countries such as UK, Japan, et al allowed to prove the existence (release date, etc) for an album? The Wiki-template says, "yes" but not for US. Is this correct?

Wikiguardpatrol (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wikiguardpatrol, on the Ancestry question, they either host original records or family trees created by amateur genealogists. Neither are appropriate sources to prove or disprove a date of birth. We should be using reliable, published sourced to verify that sort of thing. Sionk (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a really great question though. Especially if birth and census records repeatedly show the same birth date. I've used it to confirm birth and death dates for subjects before. Besides, where do we think secondary sources get their data? Generally someone digs it up from these sources. I think it'd be super cool to see a template for ancestry. But, c'est la vie. For now, I'd just try to link to the record if possible - use it sparingly. I'd rather have multiple primary sources that state a subjects birth and death dates, then none at all. SarahStierch (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
See WP:BLPPRIMARY. We shouldn't be using primary documents to support private personal details of living people. You have to make an assumption to link the correct documents (or document entry) with the correct person. That is WP:OR. Often it seems people don't even know what the source is. It is just 'stuff I found on Ancestry.com'. Sionk (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

In regards to #2. I'm a bit confused, but, you can't really add any comments to the VIew History page, except in your "Edit summary," when you make your edits. You can leave comments on the talk page discussing your contributions. I'm not sure about the ASIN, perhaps someone else here knows? SarahStierch (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Sir/this article was not about me or a friend ,it was about a musician in our community.I do not think so this is cheating!Shirin Nezhadbahram (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Shirin ... ???

In regards to #2: I see that sometimes when an editor contributes or edits an article, on the "View History" page in ( ) and light gray, there are personal remarks as to why they made the edit ... that's what I'm trying to figure out how to do. Thanks.

Wikiguardpatrol (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Those remarks come from the edit summary. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, David! Wikiguardpatrol (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Request Expert Views MOST URGENT

(larger post removed by another editor, in regards to the repeated deletions of the published version of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hradyesh by User:Aaanshu).

Experts please help me get my article live ...

'Bot and admin warnings

Removing Speedy at Hradyesh

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking the time to contribute.

I'm a bot designed by another Wikipedia editor, and I'm here to help you with our deletion process. I noticed that while working on an article recently, you removed a speedy deletion template that tagged it for deletion. Don't get discouraged! Deletion discussions happen on Wikipedia all the time.

If you don't want the article to get deleted, please click here.

The link will take you to the talk page, where you can explain why the article should be kept. If you have any questions about this or need help with editing, you can ask at the Help desk.

We really hope you'll stick around to help make Wikipedia better! Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Hradyesh, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The point about preparing a draft of an article in a sandbox is so you can get it into suitable shape there ready top become an article. It is not so that you can write the same kind of promotional crap that you have been told over and over again is not suitable to be a Wikipedia article. We are not interested in being told that someone is "a passionate individual", nor are we interested in seeing "references" to press releases, promotional web sites, and write-ups in newspapers of press releases. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • And it is not "just one administrator who seems too had a bad day" If you look at the deletion log Hradyesh, you will see that it has been deleted by four different administrators—all for the same reason: Your page is exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. —teb728 t c 22:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Aaanshu, a few things:

  • If you are concerned your article is at risk of deletion, we strongly advise you let the "Articles for Creation" process run its course. You chose instead to directly publish your article by placing it in the main article space, where it was deleted. If instead you waiting for volunteers to review it and offer advice, it would not be published until ready, and would be very unlikely to be deleted.
  • According to the records at Hradyesh, no fewer than four different admins have deleted your attempts at publishing the article. I would suggest that indicates a general agreement it was inappropriate, over the course of some eight months.
  • While I don't agree with James B. Watson's choice of words, his overall point was correct, that it is not appropriate to repeatedly submit a promotional article, especially after being told why it's inappropriate. His language could have been better, I agree.
  • The Teahouse did not endorse your article, it was you that chose to publish it. I offered some structural improvements and suggestions. If you are concerned about possible deletion, you should not move an article into articlespace, but instead leave it at AfC or in your sandbox until other editors advise you it is ready.
  • Looking at the article, is is rather promotional, but not horrendously so. The writing could use some work to remove promotional tone. Looking at the References, one of them is to Wikipedia itself (you can't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia, that's circular logic), the one at the Telegraph is a press release (so no real credibility), etc. Some of them are to car enthusiast sites I'm not familiar, so no opinion on those. The one from the Times of India is literally a tweet-like mobile phone posting by a columnist, so really not worth citing. Overall, a lot of the articles seem very similar in nature, so it doesn't give the impression so much of a wide body of coverage as of a press release that's been re-spun in slightly different ways. I'm not an expert on car sourcing, but at least a portion of the sourcing does not contribute to the strength of the article.
  • Fundamentally, I would strongly suggest you read WP:Neutrality, and take a very hard look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hradyesh and ask yourself "what in this article could possibly be seen as advertising rather than simple fact?" Also, it's not really cricket to put in photos of the cars which don't even include Hradyesh, as that makes it look like you're advertising cars vice describing a person.

A few things to consider. Again, James was a bit brusque, but people tend to get annoyed if they feel someone is trying to "force" an article forward and ignoring critique and advice about it. We here at the Teahouse can help you with the article, but you need to understand that there are legitimate concerns about its promotional presentation and the quality of sourcing, and not simply "one person" in a bad mood. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Matthew , This is exactly what I am trying to understand

1. If you have an access request to plz check all the earlier versions and you will agree about the correction made after understanding the raised concerns.

2. This time I was working on my sandbox and requested for an article creation post which I searched my request in the pending AFC segment where I could not find the same thinking I did something wrong I posted the same content on the article project page. Thats how the entire problem started.

3. I tried to not use the earlier termed promotional language and focusing on the work and sole reason why the person should be featured in this article. i.e. introduction of Hot rods to India , Morris street and all India roadshow. Jus to make sure the article should not be termed as promotion I clearly mentioned the car is not available for sale but this car is India’s first street Rod.

4. I had filtered the list of references limiting only to leading newspapers or auto publications and can further filter the same.

5. In this learning I had come across n number of individual articles which are neither backed by any references , supported by press releases or article was just of 2 or 3 lines still these article exist in wikipedia and such speedy deletion don’t get actioned on them. To my surprise I saw one article where even James visited but not speedy deleted the article so why this double standard view points?

6. The point of my concern is at one side my article is just deleted in fraction of seconds for the claimed promotional language at the same time other articles do exist based on the same outline why those are not still not speedy deleted ?

7. Theres a code of conduct for articles and new users Is there any code of conduct for “expert”, “senior” administrators having years n years or experience on the usage of there language and behavior ?

8. I am reiterating the fact here m learning to publish my first article , yes it got speedy deleted earlier after which I again tried to correct it but this time I feel there was a scope of correction , there was scope to improve it as per the required standards if some one had a different view on the topic. Just speedy deleting the post in fraction of seconds isn't that just showing off of someones rights n powers? The way administrator responded n have opted to use the words is that acceptable at wikipedia ?

I am not here to annoy anyone but this kind of treatment by admin is not encouraging at all. This is my first article and i need to finish it in a proper manner m not asking to wave off any guidelines just requesting to help me learn .

How should I restart -in my sandbox or should I place a request at AFC ?

Aaanshu (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aaanshu. I have theory that might explain why you are having such problems: Are you perhaps Hradyesh himself, someone closely connected with him, someone who works for him, or someone commissioned to write an article about him? The reasons I think that may be the case is that in your 9 months at Wikipedia this is the only article you have worked on; you say it is “MOST URGENT” to get the article live; and you seem unable to recognize how promotional your writing is. The reason the question is important is that we have found it necessary to create a guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, because based on experience people like that have great difficulty recognizing promotional writing and assessing whether the subjects are important enough to have an encyclopedia article.
In any case I suspect that there may be a problem with your current draft that is greater than promotion. I really don’t understand why Hradyesh is important enough to have an encyclopedia article. Do I understand correctly that you think that the thing that qualifies him is that he introduced of hot rods to India? If that is what makes him important, I am sorry to say that he is not important enough for an article. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people) for our notability guideline. —teb728 t c 09:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Teb for the response , with ref. to the shared theory I am an automobile passionate and after knowing about Hradyesh work which is starting of a new league in Indian automobile industry. As there was no information available on wikipedia want to contribute on the topic . In the past months whenever I can get time to write on wikipedia I try to work on this. I never rushed into anything the only thing why raised the alarm yesterday as "Most urgent" cos the article was speedy deleted and I wanted to get it retrieved to understand the concerns n make the necessary corrections.

with reference to the notability part I am quoting the wikipedia guideline under which I am working on this article: "Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

If there are other people from different international region who are part of wikipedia profile just because they are part of hot rod , custom cars segment, my article hold significant notable credential work and reason too not only for introducing this concept in India but also making first street rod in India and the All India roadshow etc.

As you correctly repeated my words I am trying to learn writing on wikipedia - I cant start something new leaving my first article in between.The whole point here is how I can correct and proceed further to the next level on which I am seeking assistance from all the experts.

Aaanshu (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Aaanshu, you have a draft article still at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Hradyesh so you can work on that. Ignore what you are seeing in other articles that you think are deficient and concentrate on the advice you have been given - find independent reliable sources about this person and use those. NtheP (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It isn't clear why there is Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Hradyesh as well as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hradyesh. The latter would be the usual place for the AFC. There will be confusion if the two continue in parallel, so I suggest that you make sure that the latest version is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hradyesh and that you blank the other version and get it deleted. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi there,

The Wikipedia instructions and details are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Uploading_images

You will see there is a tag stating that the article may be overly-technical, so post a reply in the Teahouse and I or someone else will be able to offer further assistance.Soulparadox (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarifications

Thanks Nthep , I ‘ll restart working on the same. Request to please clarify on the following :

  1. Should I directly edit the page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Hradyesh ?
  2. Or Should I copy the same on my sandbox and further edit ?
  3. Is it recommended to start with a stub and then further add information on the article?
  4. I will further filter the language to eliminate any reflection of promotional article and edit the linked references. Do I need to focus on some other stuff too?

Thanks again for all the assistance. Aaanshu (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep it all in one place. Don't start a sandbox page, don't start a stub in mainspace, just work on the AFC page. NtheP (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

How to add image in Wikipedia?

Page Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kapil_Srivastava

Also, guide me on how to add image, the image url options are as follows:

1) http://kapilguitarist.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/state-award-from-education-chief-minister.jpg

2) http://kapilguitarist.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/kk.jpg

3) http://kapilguitarist.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/kk2.jpg

Hi there, refer to the Wikipedia instructions and policy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Uploading_images. You will see the tag stating that the article may be overly-technical, so get back to us in the Teahouse if there is anything further that you require.--Soulparadox (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

English Proofreader wanted!

SOLVED!

Hello Wikipedians!
I just arrived on the english wikipedia and I'm writing a new article. The problem is, my english gramma is not perfect. So I'm looking for a person who can lend me a hand and checkt it for me.
Greetings Captain Miles (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Miles!

I'd be glad to proofread your article. Cheers, Kevin12xd... | speak up | take a peek | email me 03:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I now have two people who are helping me. Thank you very much! Captain Miles (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

How do I create a new article without it automatically going to the review request queue?

Hello. I've been away from Wikipedia a couple of years, and now I'm back and I've started to create new articles again. Only when I'm finished, now the articles seem to automatically go to a review request queue. They didn't do this before and I'm not sure how to skip it. I let it go the first time because I thought it was a good idea. Things might have changed and I was making mistakes. But it went through okay, so it seems a waste of resources. The reviewer left a note saying: 'Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.' But how?

Clicking on the link the reviewer left for me (Wikipedia:Starting an article) left me more bewildered than before. I thought that's what I'd been doing.

My most recent new article in the queue is here. Why did it automatically go to the queue? What do I do to just post it online?

Thank you. Penguin2006 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, welcome back! The easiest way to create a new article is to enter the name in the search bar, and it should say "You may create the page "Name of Page", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." Click on the name, and you'll see an empty edit box, where you can type your article.
Another way is to move the page (as shown in the picture), choose namespace (Article) and the name of the article (Henry Musgrave), and click move. -- ypnypn (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello Ypnypn. I did follow that first step you describe about how to start an article. I don't know why it went to 'articles for creation' after I hit 'submit the page'. I think I added something to it that sent it to Wikipedia talk, but I don't know what.
Thanks for your clear instructions on how to move the page. The pictures were very helpful. I'll do that.Penguin2006 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, now it's a live article (Henry Musgrave). Thanks!
But it has a tag on the top saying it's new and unreviewed. So someone's going to have to review it at some point anyway. Would I have been better just letting it go through the review process? What's best practice? I'm aware that Wikipedia is written by volunteers and I don't want to waste anyone's time. Penguin2006 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The best thing is to put it in the mainspace yourself, for a simple reason: It will be much quicker than the Articles for Creation process, which has a huge backlog. That process is really meant for articles which need a lot of improvement before entering the mainspace. The review process you're referring to is just to make sure every article gets checked to ensure it has no really serious problems, so it's not as big a deal. I just reviewed your article for you. It looks great! -- ypnypn (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'll just put articles on mainspace directly next time. Yeah, I didn't want to add to the Articles for Creation backlog as it's already huge. I've still got lots to learn, but I've done a few articles now so I've kind of got the hang of avoiding common errors, adding references etc. I'm already writing my next article now (Geology of Northern Ireland). I'd forgotten what a buzz writing for Wikipedia is. Thanks again, and for the useful and kind words. Penguin2006 (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hello Teahousers,

How do I join a WikiProject?Kuba.greenland (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Kuba, welcome to the Teahouse. In many projects on the project page you'll find a section called Participants, adding your name to that section is normally enough. Otherwise leaving a note on the project talk page is the way to go. You don't have to be a member of a project to work on articles tagged by them, or participate in discussions raised by or about the project but it can be useful if they issue newsletters etc. NtheP (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hej Kuba, one other thing to consider, if you join a WikiProject, often in their "templates" section they'll have a code for a little box you can put on your Userpage indicating membership in that WP. It's totally optional, but some folks like to display those to show which WPs they support, spruce up their Userpage, etc. You can look at mine (hit the link of my name) as an example. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

struggling to finish article.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Nash (performance artist)

they are asking for more interview articles - but I can't find anything significant.

Fivecats69 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fivecats. Welcome to the Teahouse! If you can't find reliable secondary sources, then perhaps you just need to look around a bit. Have you tried libraries? Old pamphlets? Sources don't have to be online, also. I'll do some looking around as well. Regardless, don't let this dissuade you from editing Wikipedia, though! Please let us know if you ever have any other questions. —Theopolisme 18:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Scottee was interviewed by Holly Williams for The Independent on Sunday in June 2011. It doesn't appear to be available online still (although I only looked at the first page of google results) but I found it through one of my research accounts. Pasting the Independent's entire article here would be copyvio, so I have instead emailed it to you. Keri (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys I need a map that indicates with a blue colour Greece, Israel and Cyprus

There is an article called Energy Triangle and writes about the joint gas explorations and extraction by Israel, Cyprus and Greece! So we need a special locator map that includes all three countries of Southern Europe. I am not expert in Wikipedia so can somebody create it for me?Kotsia2 (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Kotsia2, hi and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I don't thunk there are any trilateral locator maps like the one you want so I suggest you make a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop and I'm sure someone there can help you out. NtheP (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia guideline that

Is there a wikipedia guideline that says that religions with more adherents are more notable? Pass a Method talk 07:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pass a Method. WP:NONPROFIT says factors like size of membership can be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. I'm not sure that would mean that more is more though, for small size could be reported by independent sources. —teb728 t c 08:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong place for image suitability question?

I have a question about copyrights. I wasn't sure where to ask. I've been on WP for a while but one of my weaknesses as an editor has been in getting uploaded images to stick. Recently, while researching the Nakba, I found that a historian claimed he had a leaflet dropped in July 1948 that he further claimed as proof that the term "Nakba" had its origins in Israeli propaganda. [1] If such a document exists, I think it would be valuable documentation of his claim. So - where can I find out ahead of time if there are any copyright concerns or how to address other provenance concerns about this document? I appreciate your help. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If the historian’s claim is published in a scholarly journal which is a reliable source, you would cite a reference to the journal. Only a published reliable source can be used for verification. A scan of the leaflet would not be a published reliable source and so would not verify anything. And irrespective of copyright issues the scan would be deleted as having no encyclopedic value. (Note also that the editorial you cite is not a reliable source.) —teb728 t c 09:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Musical Artist Information

Hey, I'm new here, and I tried to edit a page of a musical artist, which lacked a information bar at the side. I input information such as genre, name, etc. but it just appeared above the article. ClashFan2 03:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clashfan2 (talkcontribs)

Hi ClashFan2, welcome to the Teahouse. We call it an infobox. Another editor has made some fixes.[2] See Template:Infobox musical artist for the documentation and note that }} must come after all the parameters. This is the case for all templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Clashfan2, and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse! Those nifty little sidebars that a lot of articles have are called infoboxes, and they are created on something called a template. The one you will need to use isTemplate:Infobox musical artist. Just follow the link to the page for it, copy it, paste it into the article on the top line (below any maintenance tags, tho) and fill out some of the information. Don't worry about what you don't have. If you leave a field blank, it just won't appear when you save it. Would you possibly let us know what article so we can stop by and see how it is going? Thanks for stopping by! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

List of dog breeds by country

Hi,

There appears to be an IP continually making edits to the List of dog breeds by country. It's very difficult to keep track of what he/she is doing as no edit summaries are included, sometimes the edits appear good, while others are dubious/probably vandalism. This morning, the entire section for Germany was removed, which I have restored. I have put a notice about it on the IP's talkpage. However, I see there is a template about abuse reports because it's a 'Smart Broadband'.

I think some of the edits have now made a bit of a pigs ear of this list as some of the breeds added are red links (possibly made up? I've never heard of Zen Bulldog or Zoo Bulldog, Paris Hound etc but perhaps they do exist?). It may be the only way to ensure the accuracy of the list would be to go through each breed - a very onerous task for someone!

I guess my question for you is - should this be reported somewhere, and if so, where?

SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Phil, welcome to the Teahouse. If you are sure that the edits are vandalism the place to report the abuse is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. In cases like this it can be difficult to establish if it's all or some of their edits but you are doing the right thing by leaving warnings on their talk page. The notice on the talk page is a common heading for talk pages of IP accounts. Looking at the contribution history, it is 'troublesome' so at some point someone must has carried out a WhoIs check and found which ISP the IP address is registered to, then if there are issues an administrator can contact the company to report the abuse. That isn't something for you to become involved in though. NtheP (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, NtheP. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Help regarding writing an article.

Greetings Teahouse Mates. I need guidance regarding writing an error free article which is really attractive. Help me please. Sugumar Senguttuvan (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Vanakkam Sugumar! For advice in general, Wikipedia:Your first article is a good introduction to the basics. In your case, are you thinking specifically of how to avoid deletion such as is proposed for your article Fear II: Tamil Short Film (2013)?
For your Fear article (which also should be entitled Fear (2013 film), but don't change it yet), have you read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fear II: Tamil Short Film (2013) where editors explain exactly why the article should be deleted? A few of the issues with the article:
  • The article uses non-Neutral language like An unique vibrant & epic compositions are expected from the debut music director for this final thriller blockbuster. You can imagine, someone reading that line would be inclined to suspect that the writer was either promoting the film, or a big fan who can't keep their personal enthusiasm separate from the need to give neutral, factual information.
  • Your overall formatting is not the Wikipedia standard. You need to look at other, similar Wikipedia articles on well-developed topics, and see how they format sections, categories, WP:Infobox, etc. Wikipedia has a certain way of formatting articles for clarity, so it doesn't work to just write it in whatever style without following the standard.
  • Your plot outline is very confusingly written; as someone who hasn't seen the film, I can't really look at the outline and get any idea for what goes on in the movie.
  • All the above are just things to keep in mind while writing, but they aren't the reasons it's been proposed for deletion. If it were just those, the article would be marked as needing cleanup, but the reasons for deletion are that you've provided no evidence that this film has received substantive media coverage. Your only references are a YouTube trailer and a press-release; further, this film hasn't even come out yet, so you would need strong evidence of major media discussion before it even comes out.
  • If you want to write a film article that won't be deleted, you must review Wikipedia:Notability (films) and ensure that any film you want to cover meets the standards set in that article.
Does this answer your question so far? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Uploading new version of a file

Hi guys, how do you go about uploading a new version of a file? Thought it was easy, but displayed file is still the same as the old revision, despite the file upload history being different. The new image which I replaced the old one with, does not display. What happened? The file is File:The_Bourne_Legacy_Poster.jpg, if you wish to know. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Bonkers, the revised version you uploaded (twice) did appear but another user subsequently reverted the image back to the previous version. If you do change an image version, especially when like this one it's used under a non free rationale template then you must ensure that the non free rationale is valid. So if you've obtained your version from a different source or as appears to be the claim here your isn't a theatrical poster you need to update the information template as well so that it matches the image you have uploaded. NtheP (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

protecting a page

can anyone tell me how to protect a page?Anidemun (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anidemun, welcome to the teahouse! You can request semi-protection or protection of a page at WP:RFPP. Common reasons are if there is edit-warring happening, repeated violations of the biographies of living persons policy, or repeated insertion of copyright-infringing material. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thanx Demiurge1000 Anidemun (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Primary Sources & Mugshot on convicted criminal page

After reviewing the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page, i have a few questions:

1) The restriction of reference to primary sources in wikipedia in general is understandable, but the restriction on the use of police reports as a primary source seems bizarre. e.g. I would like to clarify the number and types of weapons a convicted murderer used during their crime. The only reliable source of this would be the initial police report or perhaps the prosecutor’s indictment. Secondary sources such as newspaper or broadcast accounts notoriously get these details wrong. And in this case, the current wiki article states a “semi-automatic machine pistol” which is an oxymoron, and “numerous weapons”. The original police report lists only two specific guns, and later judicial document only discuss two guns. Wouldn’t these police/court records be the best sources and legitimate references for this?

2) Is inclusion of the booking or official prisoner mug shot for convicted criminals on the page a standard, or is it generally avoided? And as a follow-up: Can the mug shot from the publicly-available Department of Corrections prisoner locator site legitimately be uploaded to wiki commons and used on this criminal’s wiki page? BBODO (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

BBODO, welcome to the Teahouse.
  1. I think your comment demonstrates why the primary source rule is there. Who says the police report is reliable or accurate? It's the officer's opinion of what they saw or found. If this officer's report was challenged in court and a judge ruled one way or another that ruling might just about be acceptable as a citation but only to the point of supporting the factual statement "the court ruled that . . ." Judges and courts are not infallible so it can't be taken as a definitive statement only one that was agreed in a certain forum. Admittedly a fairly important one but one that isn't fully independent of the subject.
  2. Mug shots are subject to exactly the same restrictions as any other image used on Wikipedia - it must be a copyright free image or permission for it's use has been given. Being publicly available is not the same as being in the public domain. NtheP (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. These non-answers really didn't help. A judge doesn't rule on what what's in a police report or what a policeman did or didn't actually see or do or what was found, only it's admissibility in court. Very different things. The point is that the documentation about what evidence was found at a crime scene is going to be the most reliable (unless actually demonstrated to be factually incorrect) source available. The logic here is that “Splattered blood covering approx. 6” X 20” approx 24” from the ground on the south wall of the building” from a police report isn’t able to referenced according to this rule, but “Blood splatters were found at the scene” from a newspaper article which is only parroting the police report, (or more likely only reporting hearsay), is a valid reference. That’s just bad research and bad documentation. Wiki references primary sources all the time, e.g. medical literature regarding pharmacology or physiology. Many letters are found in Wiki. e,g, Einstein–Szilárd letter, and Roosevelt’s reply. Can’t get much more primary than that. Government documents are referenced all the time. “Rosaparks busdiagram.jpg” is a court document. Doesn’t seem to be any problem there. A police report is just another government document. Saying something like “Police reported blood stains were found at the scene”, and referencing the police report seems the best way to document something like this. “Who says the police report is reliable or accurate?” is a silly question. You can ask that about any document. Who says a newspaper article is reliable? Every periodical has an “Errata/Corrections” section. Relying on a newspaper writer’s biased interpretation of something, or a sensationalist book quote is pretty illogical. It would follow that quoting the National Enquirer as a solid reference for Bigfoot’s existence.
These larger questions aside, the simple question is: how do i document and reference what weapons a criminal used in a crime, knowing that the current comments are incorrect?
  1. I understand a picture “[b]eing publicly available is not the same as being in the public domain.” That’s why I’m asking about its use here. Seems like a mug shot taken by a government agency falls under (17 USC 105) and is therefore not copyrightable, but the license i see used for mugs shots says that some are. My question is: are police or Dept. of Corrections mug shots generally considered useable at Wiki? I see lots of mug shots at Wiki, (File:Rosa Parks Booking.jpg, File:Steve McQueen.jpg, File:Jeffrey-dahmer.jpg, etc.) so this seemed true, but I wanted to verify that. Should I use the “{ {Non-free fair use in} }” license? BBODO (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

make a userbox?

how can i make my own userbox? Zeroro (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! There is a page at Wikipedia:Userboxes which gives you all the information you need about userboxes, do's and don'ts, and how to create them. Keri (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Welcome to the teahouse. Custom userboxes can be made by filling out the parameters for Template:Userbox. Or, more conveniently, by filling out Template:Userbox sample compact (example: {{subst:Userbox sample compact|id=UBX|id-c=red|info=This is a '''[[WP:UBX|Userbox]]'''.}}) which will automatically generate the Wiki markup for you.--xanchester (t) 00:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I am still very confused after reading this and I read the wikipedia user box page a well. Can someone explain in a more simpler step by step way. Quintus Petronius Augustus 15:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintus Petronius Augustus (talkcontribs)
Quintus, welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't an area I've much experience in, but I'd suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes (yes, there is a wikiproject dedicated to userboxes!) to see if they have a tutorial page. NtheP (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

HRH Princess Maria Carolina of Bourbon Two Sicilies (b. 2003)- Notable for an article?

Re: User:PrincessAlice13/Princess Maria Carolina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (b. 2003)

I have an article in my Sandbox about HRH Princess Maria Carolina of Bourbon Two Sicilies (b. 2003) I know that she has been to the Danish Royal Twin's baptism as her father, The Duke of Castro, is their godfather. She has also performed another royal duty. There are a quite a few pictures of her online, but I'm just wondering whether she is notable enough for Wikipedia. Any advice? Thanks! PrincessAlice13 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Princess. Welcome to the teahouse. Notability depends on whether the subject has received "significant coverage" in third party reliable sources independent of the subject. I see you do not currently have any references on the page but if she has performed public duties there are likely to be newspaper reports about it. You may be able to find more details here although I cannot see a subsection on princesses!--Charles (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, there was some discussion a year or so ago about a child of similar age who was slightly further removed, in his case from the former Greek throne. From what I can remember, the conclusion was that he was not notable, and/or that there should not be an article about him. You may struggle to find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to justify an article, but (even as a committed BLP zealot) I believe there's no particular harm in trying. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice and information! I have been reading more articles and have added more referenced information to my article. --PrincessAlice13 (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Are maintenance banners supposed to be added to the References section of an article?

Hi there, I'm in a bit of a dilemma- an IP user keeps on adding a Unclear Citation style banner and Lack of inline citations in the REFERENCES section of the Wonder Woman article. But the references section basically just lists all the refs and cites on the page, then why add these banner there. I removed it once, but the user added them again; is there really some issue that needs to be addresses? Thanks,WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Wonderboy, welcome to the Teahouse! In general, I believe it's okay to put maintenance tags at the tops of sections as opposed to the top of the page when the tag only applies to the content of that section. I see why the IP is putting the tags where they are; the tags are highlighting problems with the referencing, so they're being placed in the references section. The "lacks inline citations" tag doesn't need to be on the article at all; there is no shortage of them (which is a good thing!) The "unclear citation style" as a little bit more reasonable, and I could see placing it in the References section (because that's where one would see the citation styles used), the top of the article (because it needs to be fixed within the ref tags throughout the article, not in the references section), or removing it altogether (because who cares?). Maybe that's just me, though. :) Writ Keeper 17:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was just bold and went ahead and removed both of them, actually. —Theopolisme 17:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot guys!

WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)