Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 651

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 645

←

Archive 649

→

Periods in College Degrees? (BA) vs. (B.A.)

I'm working on improving politicians' infoboxes and am wondering what is the correct standard to use in the parameter "education"? JocularJellyfish (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hell, JocularJellyfish, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Abbreviations widely used in Wikipedia specifically says BA (or AB) without periods or spaces. It also says: "The Manual of Style on abbreviations, above, eschews the use of periods with acronyms (M.D., Ph.D.)." (note that the red text indicates an example of what not to do.) This seems pretty clear to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. JocularJellyfish (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Paging @Safiel: JocularJellyfish (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel and JocularJellyfish: Referring again to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Full_stops_and_spaces The MoS indicates that STOPS should be used in American English style articles. Yes, that MoS article appears to contradict itself farther down. However, I have been on Wikipedia for a good eight years, during which time, the common usage in American English articles was full stops, (B.A.) I am well aware that on British English and Australian English articles, STOPS are not used. In my own personal experience in school and at work, I have always used STOPS and was taught to use STOPS. And I know STOPS are still the predominant usage outside of Wikipedia in the United States. I think it might be necessary to clarify the MoS as to the common United States usage versus the common British and Australian usages. Safiel (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Safiel You are correct that usage outside of Wikipedia permits "B.A." as well as "BA", although I think the trend is in favor of the latter. While the MOS does favor periods after abbreviations for US/North American usage, it also indicates that abbreviation that are also acronyms should not use periods. Specifically, MOS:POINTS says Modern style is to use a full point (period) after a shortening (although there are many exceptions) but no full point with an acronym. This is true for all varieties of English. In any case, I think the more specific guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Abbreviations widely used in Wikipedia takes precedence over any more general direction. But an RfC could always be created to clarify this. @JocularJellyfish: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

JocularJellyfish, I might add that we generally do not use postnominals, such as "Joe Smith, PhD" and in prose, it is probably more appropriate to write out the degree's name, such as "Joe Smith has a doctorate in philosophy." John from Idegon (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I was aware of that. My question is relating to the infobox. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 14:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it is worth individual universities and colleges differ in their recommended styling too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: An "acronym" is not simply an abbreviation. An abbreviation is M.D. to indicate "medical doctor." According to our very own Wikipedia article on the topic, an acronym is a word or name formed from an abbreviation from the initial components in a phrase or a word, usually individual letters (as in NATO or laser) and sometimes syllables (as in Benelux). Since "M.D" and "Ph.D." are abbreviations that fail the qualifications of serving as acronyms, to apply the rules that are set out for acronyms is a futile exercise. To wit, "md" is not a word, "phd" is not a word, neither of them are pronounced as words. They are always pronounced as simple initials. If they were words, then this would make them also acronyms. For example, since the abbreviation "POTUS" (President of the United States) is used by government officials, being pronounced as a word, "potus," then it qualifies as an acronym - even though "potus" is not otherwise an English word. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

2422889236x, according to MOS:ACRO, Acronyms are abbreviations formed, usually, from the initial letters of words in a phrase. It includes in its definition of "acronym" such examples as FBI and EU. It also says Common exceptions to this rule [of usually providing the expansion on first use of an acronym] are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter. thus clearly indicating that post-nominal initials are considered acronyms for purposes of the MOS. There is nothing here about an initalisim having to be a word to be considered as an Acronym. I think that RfC is going to be needed. (@John from Idegon, JocularJellyfish, and Safiel: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I have started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations# RFC: Periods in abbreviations for degrees. Anyone interested in this issue should comment there, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

How can I add a title to Walter Hamady's "Complete list of 131 letterpress books published since 1964"

THE FOREST by Janet Rodney and Nathaniel Tarn published in 1978 is missing. It is apparently one of Hamady's favorites. "This is one of my favorites because of the wonderful surreal collage work and the harmonics of the ink & paper." -- Walter Hamady JILLROD (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello JILLROD, and welcoem to the teahouse, and to Wikipedia. We don't seem to ahve an articel by that title. We link to Complete list of The Perishable Press Limited letterpress books published since 1964, but that is a lit maintained by Complete list of The Perishable Press Limited letterpress books published since 1964, but that is maintained by Perishable Press and Wikipedia has no control over it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanking or talking with other people from Teahouse

Hi,

Sorry a quick question - is there a recommended etiquette for saying thank you to other people on Teahouse? (I saw that some users have barnstars?)

I want to say thank you after people answer my questions, and I'm also wondering if there is a standard way to engage further or elaborate on a query. Thanks so much! SunnyBoi (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. For information on thanks, see WP:Expressing thanks. For further discussion on a topic, just hit the "edit" link alongside the relevant section heading. Indent your comment one notch further than the message to which you are replying. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about spaces with citations

Hello Teahouse friends,

I have a question about the formatting around citations, particularly the way in which reference numbers align with text in the main part of the article.

If an article refers to multiple citations after the same word (e.g. in this example where there is source 1,2: "this is the fact"1 2 ), would you normally place a space between the "1" and "2" small numbers, or would have have them closer together without space? I hope that makes sense.

I am also interested in whether there should be a space after the reference number - would you have the number, and then a space before the start of the next sentence?

I looked at Referencing for beginners but couldn't see the answer.

Thank you for your advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SunnyBoi, and thank you for your contributions! I see that you already seem to have the hang of formatting citations using ref tags (as opposed to trying to insert the reference numbers manually as some new users do). The standard Wikipedia format calls for there to be neither spaces nor commas or other punctuation between reference tags modifying the same text. So, the square brackets around the numbers should have nothing separating them in article view. I hope this answers your question. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 04:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The advice is given at MOS:REFPUNCT. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

New Infobox

Hello all I want to make a new infobox for the NHLE (National Heritage List for England) similar to the one used for the NRHP at Template:Infobox NRHP. While making an infobox is simple enough, i want to be sure that this is a good idea first. please give your opinions on this idea. Nb. potentially this infobox could be used to improve about 20k articles, but there 600k properties on the register, some of which could have articles in future. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aguyintobooks: what would a new infobox achieve that couldn't be done with {{Infobox historic site}} either in its current state or possibly with some amendment. There is a bit of desire to have fewer infobox templates with greater flexibility rather than large numbers with greater rigidity. The main reasons being 1) less argument over which infobox to use and 2) more and more specialisation because infobox x didn't quite fit the bill for article y. I'm all in favour of changes that will improve articles but would prefer those improvements to sit within existing templates. Nthep (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

My main reason is that it would allow greater uniformity to the British Listed buildings register in a way that has had beneficial results in the US.

Basically the infobox would cover British historical buildings, there would be room for flexibility for the various sub-categories. A major advantage of this new infobox would be to allow easy and uniform of core data relevant to this register that is not supported by the Historic Sites infobox. the fact is that Historic England has a lot of information that could be used to improve these articles if there was an easy framework to allow editors to do so. additionally copying the NRHP template format will provide uniformity across the wikipedia. and allows multiple designations to be dealt with gracefully.

A Guy into Books (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you want to achieve, perhaps if you mock up the infobox and what its capabilities are then we have something to look at the specific of. Nthep (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at a straight relabelling of Template:Infobox NRHP into a new template called Template:Infobox NHLE. it will work in exactly the same way with (more or less) identical parameters. the only difference is in the names of levels of designations being different due to country.

A Guy into Books (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

So I'm back to the same question what isn't in {{Infobox historic site}} that requires this new template? Nthep (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

very simply, i want a infobox for historic sites that are specifically listed on the NHLE, with custom layout, headers and colors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs) 12:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand that but how does a separate template improve the articles it is added to? Isn't it a better user experience if information is presented in a consistent format regardless of the nationality of the site? Can I suggest you open this topic with a wider group of interested editors by raising it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites. Nthep (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Historic_sites#I_need_Some_new_designations

A Guy into Books (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia/Wikimedia Repository or Library?

The 2017 Nigeria Women Premier League regular season just ended this week, and I have some pdf documents that contains details of the league. I wanted to ask if there was a Wikimedia Library where I could license WOSO documents to? I think it will be nice if Wikimedia has an original copy. I believe in the long run, this will alleviate systematic bias, in case the online sources I use in the article goes offline in the future. Thank you. Looking forward to your informative replies. Darreg (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

There is Wikisource, but I am not sure if this would fit its inclusion criteria, Darreg. In any case you cannot license such documents unless you are the copyright holder, which seems unlikely. Are you?

The usual solution is to request the Internet Archive to archive a copy of the site. That can be done for any site at any time, free of charge. Once the site is archive, you can fill in the archive-url in the citation template, and the alternate site will be available, in case the primary site ever goes dead or moves. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright is not an issue. I understand WP licensing policy. I can easily get them to send an email to Wikipedia. I didn't get it from the internet, it was sent online to me, signed by the Chief Operating Officer of the league board. I don't know if its on their website (www.nwfl.com.ng). Darreg (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

That is good; so many overlook those policies. Please follow the procedures at Donating Copyrighted materiel, or the corresponding procedure on Wikisource. If the content is on the league's web site, then having that site archived is probably the best and simplest method to achieve your goals. You can also do this with any other online sources that you plan to cite. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Darreg: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do as you've suggested. Regards. Darreg (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Kingston Trio - problems editing

Very recently (yesterday) we (Kingston Trio LLC) purchased & inherited the brand Kingston Trio. There is a new line-up of musicians as the other lads have retired. The new band consists of the original member's sons & family. We have not launched our new website yet, perhaps tomorrow. We have ownership of the name Kingston Trio and the sole rights to its usage. As manager, I was trying to make the changes in Wikipedia but I was blocked from doing so. Is there anyone who can help me? We need to let the general public know of the change and achieve a level of accuracy as being informative is what I understood Wikipedia was mostly concerned with. The people described within the present website as The Kingston Trio are not The Kingston Trio. Could someone guide me through the update? Professor Douglas Fraser-Manager Tenorbanjo (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Tenorbanjo: Wikipedia has articles about subjects which have been written about by independent published sources. The article The Kingston Trio is an example – it is about a band, and it cites over 100 sources about that band. It is not about the brand you have purchased, and it is not about your new line-up. If your new band becomes well-known and independent sources (not your own web site) write about them, then a new article can be created about them. Maproom (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tenorbanjo. Wikipedia summarizes what published independent reliable sources say about a topic. We have no way of knowing if your assertions are correct but it is certain that your prose is highly promotional and therefore inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Taking you at your word that there have been recent changes with the Kingston Trio, I turned to Google News and found this recent article The Kingston Trio's Trademark Sparks Legal Battle of the Bands in Billboard, a reliable source for show business news. It seems that there is a lawsuit about rights to the band's name. Our Wikipedia article is not going to take sides in this legal dispute and we will not report on new members until that dispute is resolved. Do not try to add any new content to that article unless it summarizes what published reliable independent sources say about the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The Kingston Trio -Wow! OK, you don't like one paragraph. I can prove everything in it.

Despite having many people provide information to the site, we are the only ones who can legally use the words "Kingston Trio". Are you telling me that I can not update the site with the correct information? It can not continue showing the old band members as the present Kingston Trio. We are not a version of or a "New Kingston Trio", we are the Kingston Trio; the only one. I do not want to change the history of the group, the Reynolds family worked hard to create that history. I am just trying to up-date the site. If we can not update the site it must come down. We own the name Kingston Trio. I can reword the offensive paragraph but the band member names must be up graded and we need a photo inserted. Please have someone contact me. Tenorbanjo (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

No one is going to contact you. Please stop making legal threats, or you will be blocked from editing here at all. Trademarks prevent others from using a mark commercially. They do not mpr4event others from writing about the subject, nor give the trademark holder control of everything written about the name, and that is assuming that you are in fact, the trademark holder. The addition was badly promotional, and would not be accepted no matter how many facts in it can be shown to be correct. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC) @Tenorbanjo: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

How can I make this right? Do you see that the band member names which are now incorrect need to to changed? Help me through this. I have received nothing but blockage. There has been no help, could someone be constructive and give me some assistance? Misleading information on Wikipedia is damaging for The Kingston Trio. I wish I could speak to someone. There has only been negative feedback. I am trying to fix something that is incorrect. Help!Tenorbanjo (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Tenorbanjo, you make this "right" by providing links to published, independent reliable sources that report on the recent changes to the Kingston Trio, and any new content must also include the lawsuit reported by Billboard, since that is the only recent reliable coverage I could find. This is not negotiable. We will not host your promotional content, period. You are speaking to highly experienced editors right now. Provide the published sources or nothing gets added about these new band members. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Tenorbanjo I see that Wikipedia follows sources, independent reliable sources. if you can provide such sources that say that the current lineup of the Trio has changed, then, and only then, can the new names be included in the existing article. Please provide them on Talk:The Kingston Trio. Please understand that your website, and your statements and press releases, and stories basically copied from such a press release, will not constitute independent sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tenorbanjo -- I don't know if you have more than two days experience in intellectual property or Wikipedia, so let's go back to basics. Wikipedia editors are assumed to have good writing style and searching skills. Since we are all anonymous, none of us has any documented subject matter expertise. Therefore, everything in the encyclopedia must be backed up by a secondary source. The government documents you have demonstrating ownership of the Kingston Trio brand are primary. A magazine article about it is secondary. A band website is primary. So are press releases. You may well have the right to control how the brand name and logotype are used in commercial communications. WP is not a commercial communication. Therefore, you have no right to demand that the WP article say, "lovingly standing in." Furthermore, if you are an agent of the band, you aren't eligible to edit the article at all. If you want something changed, write it on the talk page, and an editor will do it for you. I know it sounds stupid, especially when you think you can prove every word is true. Ok, go prove it to a magazine writer, then come back. BTW, when my mother and father were dating, they used to go to the hungry i and do you know who they saw? Rhadow (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to this on Talk:The Kingston Trio, helpfully so, I hope.Sensei48 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow "If you want something changed, write it on the talk page, and an editor will do it for you." That´s promising too much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Greetings. Sensei said the same thing. Read the text following, "prove it to a magazine writer, then come back." Rhadow (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Tenorbanjo: you wrote "we are the only ones who can legally use the words 'Kingston Trio'". That statement is so obviously false, that by making it you have destroyed your own credibility. Maproom (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Process of Citing an Article

Hello!

I know how to cite an article, but I don't understand how to use the programming code to cite an article and also make it appear on the footnote line.

I thought I was following the instructions correctly, but I guess I am not as the same error (The named reference $1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)keeps occurring.

Any guidance would be appreciated.

Thank you. Gadje75 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Gadje75:, You are coding references with only 'name ="some name"' without supplying the elements needed to find the material. The format you are using works only after you have previously defined that named reference. See WP:REFBEGIN for some helpful guidance. Gab4gab (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, @Gadje75:. I like to use the templates that are available under the "Cite" heading when using "Edit source". If you select "cite web", "cite news", "cite book", or "cite journal" (whichever best fits your source), then it's just a matter of filling in the boxes for which you have information from the source and leaving the other boxes empty. I found from experience that using those templates is much faster and easier than constructing citations manually. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you gab4gab and Eddie Blick for the helpful tips. I will utilize the tips right away! Gadje75 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Mother of Osman I

Hello Teahouse friends!

I want to ask that why can't I add Halime hatun in the section of Mother of Osman I? I know that she was his real mother because it is mentioned in the page of Halime Hatun

Hello Esra bilgic! Wikipedia articles can be wrong, they´re only as good as the editors paying attention to them. In this case, Halime Hatun has no source for this claim, but Osman I has a source (in the infobox) that says that his mother is unknown. Quite possibly the Halime article needs changing, perhaps there are sources that says she is possibly his mother? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Diriliş: Ertuğrul is not a good source for any historical claims on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Historic adventure TV and Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources as Gråbergs Gråa Sång says. A well sourced Wikipedia article can lead you to reliable sources that can be used to support content in other articles though. Unfortunately in the case of Halime Hatun the motherhood claim is unsourced and has a citation needed tag. Gab4gab (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Putting a PDF file into the Wikipedia file namespace rather than creating an external link

The Wikipedia "BACnet" article wants to reference the minutes of the inaugural meeting of the ASHRAE committee that developed the protocol. I thought it would make sense to refer to a PDF of those minutes internally within Wikipedia rather than putting the PDF file on some external server (easy enough to do, of course) and then creating a reference to an external link. Is there some way to do this? Apparently uploaded files are supposed to be limited to images, videos, and similar media - rather than document files.

Please help me figure the best way to refer to this material.

Thanks! Hmn2 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Hmn2, and welcome to the Teahouse. Were these minutes published? If so, they should be cited just as any other publication, by title, author, date of publication, and publisher. If they are online, a URL is also helpful. They should not be uploaded to Wikipedia. If the minutes were not published, they cannot be used as a source in a Wikipedia article, and can only be mentioned if some other published source refers to them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thanks for your reply. As is the case with other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs, e.g., IEEE, ASTM, ISA, etc.), the minutes of committee meetings are kept in a repository of such documents but not formally "published" by the SDO. They are publicly available on request from the SDO or the relevant committee. I don't know the WP definition of a "source." The document is being used as a "reference" because these particular minutes lay out the development scheme that has been in successful effect since 1987. The ASHRAE standard (135, a.k.a BACnet), besides being a U.S. ANSI standard, has become a full-fledged ISO standard (16484-5) and thus there is some interest in explaining how that came to be. Can I just put a URL in the reference to refer to an external location of the file for those who might be interested in reading these minutes?Hmn2 (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmn2 The standards of what constitutes a reliable source can be found at WP:SOURCE and are elaborated at WP:RS. A source must be published, but our verifibility policy (footnote #6) says: This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see. so I think these minutes qualify, based on your statement.

I would advise that they be cited by title, giving the committee as the author and the SDO as the publisher. Please provide the date of the minutes, and the relevant page numbers if the minutes are paginated. A URL linking to an authorized online version would also be helpful. You can use {{cite web}} for this purpose, but that is not at all required. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: OK, thanks! That sounds easy enough and should address the need. Mike Hmn2 (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding a photo to a inbox

hi, I would like to know how to add a photo to the infobox? Any help would be great! G Grace 1384 (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Grace 1384, and welcome to the Teahouse.

To use an image in an infobox on Wikipedia, follow these steps:

Ascertain carefully the copyright status of the image. If in doubt, ask. As a rule of thumb, images that you did not take yourself are almost always under copyright, and images that you took can be released under a free license.
If the image is in the public domain, or under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons' license requirements, or if you hold the copyrights and are willing to release the image under such a license, upload it on Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard.
If the image is neither public domain nor available under a free license, check whether it satisfies all non-free content criteria. In particular, photographs of living people almost never qualify. If it does not, it cannot be used on Wikipedia; do not upload it. If it does, upload it on Wikipedia (not on Wikimedia Commons).
Once the image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers (either to Commons or Wikipedia), follow the instructions in the documentation of the particular infobox template. Some infoboxes take only the name of the file (as uploaded) say ExampleFile.jpg while other require the file prefix File:ExampleFile.jpg and yet others want the full image syntax (for which see the picture tutorial). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Is use of government-backed wikis to illustrate view of the government acceptable?

Using a wiki page to claim that the claim that a wiki page made is true is impermissible, or so I have been told.

However, if a page was backed by the government, can it be used to illustrate what the government's position is?

An example is this page:

www.rwandapedia.rw/explore/ingando

The page says various things about ingando, eg. "there are civic activities". Presumably I shouldn't cite the page to say "there are civic activities".

Is it permissible to cite another source, eg. a peer-reviewed article in the Harvard Human Rights Journal, to show that Rwandapedia is government-backed, and then cite Rwandapedia to show that a government-backed information source says that there are for example "civic activities"?

Docentation (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Docentation, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is true that Wikipedia has a rule that a Wikipedia page cannot be cited as a reference on another Wikipedia page (though it is permissible to find reliable sources on one Wikipedia page and cite those same sources on another page). In general, other wikis are not considered reliable sources, either, because anyone can edit an article and there is no formal editorial oversight.

However, when I went to check whether Rwandapedia is a wiki which anyone can edit, I found the following statement:

"Rwandapedia is an open platform where anyone, anywhere around the world, can instantly access accurate and up-to-date information at no cost. A team of researchers is constantly updating the archive to bring you the latest statistics, interviews, photos, videos and audio recordings from across Rwanda." ( http://www.rwandapedia.rw/page/about-rwandapedia )

This implies that there may be formal editorial control of the sort required by Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. I also did not find links enabling me to edit articles or create new articles. So, my advice is that you post about Rwandapedia at the reliable sources noticeboard, being sure to cite the article you mentioned and the page I found. There other editors with expertise in source reliability will build a consensus as to whether Rwandapedia can be used as a source here or not. Good luck! —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 17:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Help with templates

per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites i want to either add to an existing template or make a new one, but i don't really know how. who generally works on templates? A Guy into Books (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey A Guy into Books. You can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested templates. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External link filter malfunctioning?

There's probably a better place for this, but I'm not sure where. When submitting an edit I'm occasionally presented with a notice explaining that I've added an external link and need to solve a CAPTCHA to prove I'm not a bot spamming links. Makes perfect sense, except when I haven't added a link -- see for example this edit from a few minutes ago, which just adds the word "toad". What's the deal? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe that when there is already an external link in the same section, often applied via a template, the software may incorrectly see it as one that the last edit has added. (Note also that adding or modifying a template call can actually add an external link when an editor did not explicitly intend to do so.) In this case I suspect that the doi parameter in the citation a bit below the word you added, which generates an external link in the citation, may be the cause. You can probably get more expert advice about this at the technical pump where the editors with knowledge of and interest in Wikipedia internals often hang out.

Or you could choose to register an account. I understand that confirmed accounts are never asked for to solve CAPTCHAs when adding external links. That is entirely your choice, of course. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it compares external links in the whole saved page to last time the external links were registered by the software. The article had not been edited since 25 June. A module edit 28 July [1] caused the article to add a "IATH" link in the Authority control template at the bottom. The effect may have been delayed until you edited the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Advice to User:Joseph1100

Is anyone here willing to attempt the thankless job of reasoning with a new editor who won't use article talk pages and who deletes comments that they consider negative (which is so far everything except the welcome) from their personal user talk page? This editor has made some contentious edits to a few articles including Mary in Islam that have been reverted. They then filed a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I had to close it due to lack of discussion on article talk pages. They have now edited Mary in Islam again, but just editing without discussion isn't the way Wikipedia works. Is anyone willing to try to reason with them, because otherwise they are likely to be indeffed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Robert McClenon. Another administrator has blocked that new editor for 31 hours. I left a message on their talk page encouraging them to discuss the matter at Talk:Mary in Islam upon their return to editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps I was too optimistic in hoping that someone could reason with him before he got himself blocked. But at least he is only blocked for 31 hours. If I had been the admin (but I am not an admin), I would given him one more warning, but I think that the 31-hour block was reasonable, and may have been the necessary warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to give warnings at any time, Robert McClenon, as long as they are policy based. In my opinion, a warning can be phrased in a helpful fashion, and is likely to be more effective that way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Citations on basic information for a music artist?

I'm writing my first article on an artist named Defunk. Most of the information I've gathered is from a few interviews he's done, but I found his birthday through his facebook page. I also read off a bio on his artist website defunkmusic.com, to narrow down what he truly describes his music as. (it's pretty diverse.) I think anyone that looked up my references would agree they're trust worthy, but I figured I'd ask since one questionable reference on the list the Article Wizard provided was "no myspace pages" Koshyalex (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Koshyalex. Because this is your only edit with this account, I cannot review the draft article that you are working on. Notability on Wikipedia is shown by significant coverage of the topic (Defunk) in independent, reliable sources. We want secondary sources. His own website and social media and interviews he has given are primary sources. They do not help to show that he is notable, because they are not independent of him. As for the reference to "Myspace", the general principle is that social media sources are rarely considered reliable enough for anything other than the opinion of the individual person posting, and even in such cases, we only use verified social media accounts since fake accounts are common. If you cannot establish notability, then no acceptable article can be written. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Page May East

I have just been invited to the Tea House and have a question. This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_East is outdated

I decided to update few months back and realised it was deleted as I should not updated material that is related to myself. Is there a way to unpublished the page or do I need to wait until someone decides to update MayEast UNITAR (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MayEast UNITAR. The article May East is at risk of deletion because it is unreferenced. I suggest that you post the changes you want, along with links to press coverage verifying that information, at Talk:May East. Comment here when you have done so, and experienced editors will take a look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Help getting my article published on Wikipedia

I am new to Wikipedia and I started a draft Biography of USMC pioneer Aviator Brigadier General Alexander Kreiser, this has been slow going, and I would like the help of Military Aviation editors to help get my article published. I have done the research I have a good amount of material, and many examples of other Aviators in his Squadrons those examples on Wikipedia include Christian F. Schilt, Vernon E. Megee, Lawson H. M. Sanderson, Ford O. Rogers, Ross E. Rowell, Frank Schwable, Roy Geiger. thanks much Minnehahas (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Minnehahas, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft looks like a reasonable start. It will need many additional sources. I edited it to place the citation in a reasonable location, and to put the name in bold face. Also, articles and article drafts, unlike talk page comments should not be signed, as they rapidly become the work of many. Do please read Your First Article, Wikipedia's Golden Rule, our guideline on notability for biographies and Referencing for Beginners if you have not yet done so, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Minnehahas, I'd suggest making a request at WT:MILHIST, which is the talk page for the Military History Wikiproject. They are one of the most active wikiprojects around and I'll bet you will find the expert help you are requesting there. John from Idegon (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Minnehahas. I have expanded your draft artovle a bit, and moved it into the main space of the encyclopedia. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, and feel free to continue expanding and improving the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

My company page

Deshpandeameya (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC) Why I cannot create my company page on Wikipedia? Deshpandeameya (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason for the proposed deletion has been given to you at User talk:Deshpandeameya#Speedy deletion nomination of Authenticook. You also need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Please also read User talk:Authenticook. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding a thumbnail image

I noticed that some articles have thumbnails and some don't, how do you add the tumbnails?JamminJasmine (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Rather than type out the (rather long!) answer here, I'll point you to User:Yunshui/Images for beginners, which I wrote to help answer this sort of question - hopefully the explanation there will be of some use! Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox formatting for article "Toonimo"

Why does the infobox format, on the article "Toonimo", as "type of site" instead of just "type" and "owner" instead of "founder"? I assume that it has to do with being indexed as a website instead of a company/software so is there a way to change it?Adiche22 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Adiche22 and welcome to the Teahouse.

The person who created this article chose the wrong infobox, {{infobox website}}, when they more properly should have been using, say, {{infobox company}}. There's no reason you can't change which kind of infobox template is used, but be careful to fill in the parameters as needed by the new type. Any indexing will pick up the change, there's no external adjustments you would need to to. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response @Jmcgnh:! Did a little research and decided to use the dot-com company template and it worked perfect! Adiche22 (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

An article on Pop Cricket (or an edit to the 'Sign' or 'Pub' cricket page).

Pop Cricket is a derivative of 'Sign' or 'Pub' cricket (which already has a Wikipedia page). This page already contains alternative versions and a subsequent variation: 'Number Plate' cricket.

Pop Cricket (and the rules) are listed in my published book 'My Old Man's A Busman (2014). It also appears on a website of the same name.

I'm currently working on a book specifically about Pop Cricket (although this has not yet been published).

I'm aware that I should not write the article, due to close association.

Please advise Pete1364 (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Pete1364, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm pleased that you recognise your conflict of interest when it comes to writing this article. Wikipedia requires that articles be about notable topics. In essence this means topics that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. This needs to be evidenced by reference to material published by reliable sources which are independent of those directly involved with the article's subject (the 'world at large' bit). Now, obviously, you aren't independent when it comes to Pop Cricket because you write books about it, so you'd have to be able to find discussion of the topic in works published by others who aren't involved. I've done a little searching on the Web and, to be honest, I can't find this sort of in-depth coverage of the topic. This may be because it's a new topic, but that's one of the things about Wikipedia - until people start taking an interest in a topic, it won't be notable for inclusion here. I'm sorry that this isn't what you wanted to hear, but I'm just being honest. Until there's independent coverage of the topic, any article which appeared on Wikipedia would likely be deleted. If you think you can find some suitable sources to reference, have a look at WP:COI for some guidance on dealing with conflicts of interest. Finally, I wonder whether Pub Cricket would be more appropriately added to the existing Sign Cricket article rather than a stand-alone one. However, the same issues about notability would apply to any content added there. Neiltonks (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Writing in a neutral tone

Dear editors/experienced writers of the Teahouse,

I wrote my first article for Wikipedia about the Indian artist Brodha V: Brodha V however it has been rejected twice now. I am trying to make improvements to it but I feel stuck. I was told that the article is not written in a neutral tone and I'm not sure how to state the artist's accomplishments in a more impersonal tone than I already have. I have reviewed the new writer's tutorial as well as other published pages on artists and based my draft on them. If any of you can give me some feedback or edit my draft to bring it to a more acceptable state, I would really appreciate it!

Thanks in advance. Nramesh (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nramesh, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sorry that you're having difficulty with creating an article. I took a look at Brodha V and, while the opening sections seem to be okay, I found some issues later in the article. For example:

Later that year, he released one of his most popular singles called "Aathma Raama" which received rave reviews.

Instead of simply calling it "one of his most popular singles", cite a source for the track's sales; also, replace "rave" with the more neutral "positive" — and be sure to cite at least two of those positive reviews!

He then released the song "After Party" in 2013, which was a fun party track that infused Carnatic elements into it.

The phrase "a fun party track" should not be in an encyclopedia, except maybe if a very reliable source can be cited using that exact phrase to refer to the song. But I think a better rewrite would simply omit that description and focus on the infusion of Carnatic elements, which sounds interesting... if you can find a reliable source for it.

Recognizing him for his talent, Sony Music India signed him on in 2013, under whom he released his hit single "Aigiri Nandini".

The opening clause of this sentence serves no other purpose than to laud the article's subject. I would cut it and begin from "Sony Music India".

I hope this is enough to point you in the right direction for removing promotional tone from the rest of the article. Good luck! —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nramesh: GrammarFascist wrote "be sure to cite at least two of those positive reviews!" That doesn't mean you have to quote them, either in the article or in the reference (quote parameter), but you must use them as references for the single's (Aathma Raama) popularity, and they must be reliable sources. --Thnidu (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

However, when writing about artists and other creative professionals (musicians, authors, photographers, etc), or about works of art (in the broad sense) if reviews are to be cited at all, I think the best practice is to have a "Critical response" section (or some similar name) and to both cite and directly quote several reviews: at least 3-4, if there are that many from reliable sources. If there are negative reviews from reliable sources, they should also be cited and quoted: in due proportion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nramesh. Please remember that Wikipedia is not at all interested, not even a little bit, in what you (or I!) know or think about the subject, and not very interested in what the subject says or wants to say. Wikipedia is only interested in what people with no connection with the subject have published about the subject. No wikipedia article should ever include an evaluative word (good or bad) on the subject, unless it is directly quoting an independent reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello @GrammarFascist @ColinFine @ DESiegel thank you all so much for taking the time to give me feedback. I will work on what you've pointed out and resubmit it when it is in better shape! Have a great day. Nramesh (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

These are great tips to keep things neutral, thanks for clarifying!

Drichards84 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

adding information

was trying to add some information to Prodigy's Hegelian Dialectic (The Book Of Revelation) album page. I executive produced, recorded and mixed this album and am doing the other 2 books in the series. How do I add information to the box on the right that contains all of the technical credits? I need to add executive producers, recording engineer, mixing engineer, and mastering engineer tabs to the info under the producers tab. JoeTheEngineEar (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This question has already been answered at the Helpdesk. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places. - X201 (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

help, i am not sure where i went wrong with my article

i followed all the institutions re my last article and it keeps getting deleted please help, the page i created was " Camcorp " a corporate business in Jamaica which i think should be publish on wiki

14:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey876 (talk • contribs)

@Jeffrey876: Draft:Camcorp Industrial was deleted under deletion criteria G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Phrases like "leading supplier" and going on about how many employees it has make it look more like an attempt at making a company page instead of a neutral article that cites and summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources -- that are not affiliated with the company. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Please understand, Jeffrey876 that Wikipedia has hardly any interest in what an organisation says about itself, and no interest at all in how it wishes to be portrayed. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the organisation have published about it (in reliable places). If an independent commentator has described a company as a "leading supplier", then an article may quote that (properly ascribed and referenced); but no article should ever use evaluative language like "leading" in Wikipedia's voice. --ColinFine (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

suggestions

Im new here, (14 days) , do anyone here suggest suggest me the way to write a new artical. From where to start?* - SingerLuch! ^(talk) 15:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Start at WP:Your first article - X201 (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@SingerLuch: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome. You should first understand that successfully writing an article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. Editors tend to be more successful at creating new articles when they start small by making edits to existing articles and working their way up to creating a new one, which allows them to learn as they go. If you wish to try to create a page, however, some advice is given on this page and you may wish to start at Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

citing journal--publication date as winter of two different years

Hi, I'm trying to cite a journal which is published seasonally, which, for their winter issues, means dates like "Winter 2016/2017," which breaks {{cite journal}} when entered as the date parameter. Am I setting up the reference wrong or is there a workaround or something for this sort of situation? Here's the citation in question: {{cite journal|url=https://www.rethinkingschools.org/articles/my-night-at-the-planetarium|title=My Night in the Planetarium by Rachel Cloues|first=Rachel|last=Cloues|date=Winter 2016/2017|accessdate=2017-07-19|volume=31|number=2|journal=Rethinking Schools}} Thanks! Mehmuffin (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mehmuffin Simply replace the / between the years with a hyphen, like this: "date=Winter 2016-2017". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

First Time submission - Neutral Tone inexperience

Hi Folks - I just submitted the first article I have written about a music and arts festival that will be enjoying it's 50th year in 2018. That will make it the 2nd oldest in the country. I am not a writer and am somewhat lost on how to begin. Any help is appreciated. The current article is at

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Roanoke_Festival_in_the_Park&action=edit

Thanks! Awakenedgroup (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, starting off by calling it "...the largest event in the City of Roanoke, Va." immediately suggests ad copy. That's not neutral. Following that statement, the next mentions "humble beginnings" which is also not encyclopedic. I know it may sound dull, but our articles should be written with as boring a tone as possible, and be as absolutely literal and dry as possible. Compare the existing first sentence to a draft of my own:

Roanoke Festival in the Park is the largest event in the City of Roanoke, Va. with humble beginnings in 1968 as music provided for a sidewalk art show. The Organization filed for and received it's 501C3 in 1969 and has operated continuously since 1968. 2018 will be the 50th year of Festival in the Park ranking the event as the second oldest Music and Arts event in the country, only surpassed by the Philadelphia Folk Festival.

and:

The Roanoke Festival in the Park is an annual even held in the City of Roanoke, Va. It traces its origins to 1968, as music provided for a sidewalk art show. The Organization filed for and received its 501C3 in 1969 and has operated continuously since then. It is the second oldest music and arts festival in the country. It is the largest regular event in the city of Roanoke.

Do you see the difference? It's simple statements of fact, delivered in a dry tone. Now, I'm not saying you can't say that it's the largest event in Roanoke, but that would not be something that belongs in the first sentence. The first paragraph is what's called the lede, and it's supposed to define and outline the subject. So first you want a sentence that dryly describes what it is. Then, you follow up with short sentences making statements of fact that help define the subject, until there's a clear, though not detailed picture in the reader's mind of what the article is about.

There are some more problems with it. You don't cite any sources, for example. You can read WP:CITE for an outline of the process of citing sources, and WP:IRS will help you identify what sources are acceptable. Finally, I notice there's a line that references a file on your computer. That will do nothing except let anyone reading the article see what your username is on your computer. You'll want to upload the image to wikipedia first, then link to it in the article. I can help you with that, if you need it. You can leave me a message by clicking on the "Tell me all about it" text that follows my username. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

is it okay to create a page about myself?

I am a content creator that writes music, records albums, makes videos and writes other types of prose. Am I allowed to create a page for myself so that people can find information about me?Jvillone91 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jvillone91 and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for asking here first. Please read WP:Autobiography and WP:Reliable sources. If you have been written about elsewhere, then it would be preferable for you to provide some sources and request that someone else write the article at WP:Requested articles/Biography/By profession. It is very difficult to write about yourself in an encyclopaedic way. Dbfirs 14:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I might also suggest reading this page as well. Having a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing for you, as good and negative information about you can be added to the article by others as long as it appears in a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll second 331dot and go one step further. Neutrality requires that we sometimes cover things like arrests, drug problems, divorces or other things most people don't want all over the Internet. That's not to say you have any of these problems, but a Wikipedia article is not an ad for you either. You could simply set up a Facebook page or something to serve your needs. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice folks! That all makes a lot of sense perhaps I'll avoid doing myself and hope that it happens organically at some point! Thank you so much! 172.74.147.153 (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

how to avoid getting your page deleted and how many attempts can you pass your page proposal

how to avoid getting your page deleted and how many attempts can you pass your page proposal im doing biography page by the way thanks in advance for answersRearm21 (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft will not be deleted unless you violate Wikipedia policies such as copyright violation. I have added a template to your sandbox draft to give you a "submit" button to allow you to submit the draft for review when it is ready. I notice, however, that at present much of the content is unreferenced. You need to include references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. The criteria for inclusion of a biography are given at WP:Notability (people). I've included a number of other links in a welcome message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

To answer your other question, Rearm21, there is not a limit to the number of times a user may submit a draft, though the draft reviewers may become frustrated with users who resubmit drafts without correcting the issues raised the last time the draft was submitted (this happens more often than you might think). As David Biddulph pointed out, however, it is crucial that any article abide by Wikipedia's notability guidelines and for biographies in particular there must be a minimum of two reliable sources (in practice a draft is unlikely to be approved with only two, however) for material in the article, preferably formatted as inline citations. The likelihood of your draft being approved depends largely on its conforming to these guidelines. Good luck, and remember that the Teahouse is here to answer any future questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 17:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Linking to another wiki or outside source in external links

My question concerns whether there is any protocol about linking to known databases outside of Wikipedia, but that contain their own wealth of knowledge. For example, one links an actor to his or her iMBD page.

My main focus on Wikipedia is to do improvement on American federal judge articles and I've been placing their Ballotpedia pages in the External links section as another source of information. I was messaged by another editor that we generally don't link to other Wikis. Is that true? And if so, then why is there a template?

What's the difference between that and linking to a federal judge's Federal Judicial Center page/profile?

I'm just looking to see if there's a rule anywhere that I can follow. Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Snickers2686. WP:EL is the place to look at for information about external links. IMDB is not acceptable as a reference because it is partly user-generated and so not a reliable source; but an article on an actor might link to it, particularly if they haven't a personal website; similarly we don't normally allow external links to social media, but if a public figure has an official Facebook page, we might allow a link to that. --ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine: So being as something like Ballotpedia is user edited, that's unacceptable as well? Those articles themselves are also sourced, that's why I'm unsure if it's defined as a reliable source or not. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Snickers2686. That makes it unacceptable as a reference. It does not of itself make it unacceptable as an external link, but I think it will be unlikely to meet any of the criteria in WP:EL. --ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

how do I edit ?

how do I edit ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.122.199 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Go to the article you want to edit, go to the top of the page, click "edit" or "edit source." If that's not there (perhaps it only says "view source"), that particular page is locked for a number of possible reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi person editing from 75.49.122.199. I suggest a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)