Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 425

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 420

←

Archive 423

→

Adding to an existing Wikipedia page - Questioning (sexuality and gender)

I'm looking to expand on the Wikipedia page, "Questioning (sexuality and gender)" by expanding on topics that are existing on the page as headings, as well as adding headings such as "support and help" and "behaviours and development". I have been editing in the sandbox, but am wondering what the next step after that is. Am i able to publish directly on the Wikipedia page or do I have to be approved first by sending in a draft to have it reviewed? Am I not allowed to add major edits to an existing page? My problem is that my topic is geared towards a certain age group under this topic, therefore I want to add it's own heading (Adolescents) and add subheadings beneath that. Should I create a new Wikipedia article if I do so and link it the existing page?

Thank you!!

aileenerchoiAileenerchoi (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is about Questioning (sexuality and gender). If you have constructive edits to make, you can go ahead and make them. There is no formal approval process. But be careful: your most recent edit to that article was reverted, because you deleted large sections without explanation. Maproom (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Aileenerchoi, if you are considering making major changes, additions or deletions from a Wikipedia article, I suggest you propose them on the article talk page or you run the risk of having the contribution reverted if you do not leave an explanatory edit summary. What you might do is start a discussion on the article talk page and provide a link to your sandbox so that other editors can see what you've been working on. Although Be bold is a Wikipedia principle, in practice, large changes or rewrites of articles should be discussed first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz. Your response answered all of my questions. I will post on the article talk page before I make any major changes on the article. I know that the page has been reverted and rearranged with some of my contributions included in it, I hope that I can add more of my writing under the appropriate headings.

Aileenerchoi (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Now I have set up a page in order to allow consumers to see a little bit more about us if they want to. We are partners with the BBC and are confused as to why our page may be deleted. How is this so? It's called "Speedy Deletion" or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discorser (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Discorser: One issue is that Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy. Editors are strongly discouraged from writing about subjects they have a close connection with (family members, employers, their companies' products, etc.), because it's tricky to maintain neutral point-of-view in their writing. —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The article Discorser has now been deleted, and you have been asked to change your user name as it contravenes our Username policy - please do so before making further edits - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Arjayay, the article Discorser is in our midst again, created by Jxmie0 a couple of hours after it was deleted by Boing! said Zebedee. That's unlikely to be a coincidence; Jxmie0, are you connected in any way to User:Discorser or to the company of the same name? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page

– Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not involved in the company although I am aware of what it does. They had updated their website and said that if anyone wanted to know more info then there was a Wiki page. It was then deleted so I decided to create a new one out of kindness. Jxmie0 (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of the company although I am not related to it in any way. I have read about them therefore I added this page after discovering their old one was deleted.

I have deleted it again, have blocked User:Discorser as a promotional username, and I have blocked User:Jxmie0 as a sock as it is simply not believable that they just coincidentally happened to recreate the article only two hours after it had been deleted (and in a very similar format). I don't care if it's an actual sock, or coordinated meatpuppetry - it's all the same when it comes to misuse of accounts for promotional purposes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

IP editors

How can IPs make expert edits on Tables about Filmography and list of films in year? I can't make such edits like the IP users.The Avengers 07:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your question, The Avengers. Do you mean that you are technically prevented from editing them, or you don't have the experience to be able to do so? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually i am not able to know how IPs are able to do such difficult edits, which I can't do? How did they learn? It's not one or two, many Ips are editing tables, changing background colour, formatting. I am not being prevented technically, I don't have the experience to edit and format tables. --The Avengers 08:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, IP editors aren't necessarily inexperienced. Just because they haven't created an account doesn't mean that they haven't been editing and learning for a long time. Of course, they could also be people with accounts who are editing while logged out, but in most cases it's probably the former. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

... and one way to learn is to look at some of the clever edits to see what was done, then try it out for yourself, either in your sandbox, or by editing an article and using preview, without saving until you are sure that you have got it right. To learn about tables, you might like to follow the links in Wikipedia:Tables. Dbfirs 08:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's worth saying that even after almost a decade of editing, I'm still no expert on tables, The Avengers. I reckon they're one of the trickier areas of Wikipedia's markup. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Having brought some IPs into the WP fold and their own accounts, I saw that they knew much more than me about certain areas of the WP since they had been editing for years. That was an eye-opener for me. Don't disrespect the IPs. w.carter-Talk 12:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikitable changes posting in a row, creating new cels on row

Hello,

thanks for your help.

I was editing a wikitable.

The cell inserts display now as a row.

Table cells have been transferred into the rows from the first column

I need to know how to make a cell bigger.

How to put back cells that were taken from the first column and attached to the row I was editing

Thanks.OSheri (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, OSheri, and welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you're talking about List of Ontario students' associations - I have fixed that up and you can use the "compare versions" option under the article's History to see what I did. Hope that helps.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:MIRROR

Although the 2014 book Pride of Tamil Cinema by G. Dhananjayan won a National Award, it contains considerable plagiarism from Wikipedia. However, there are many chapters in the book that are not copied from us, such as the chapter documenting the behind-the-scenes of Mullum Malarum. Still, does the book fail WP:RS, regardless of how much plagiarism it contains? Because MM is currently a FAC, and the book is being used as a source in it, and removing it from the article will greatly affect its FAC pass chances. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that no one has answered your question yet, Kailash29792. The best place to ask this question is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Personally, I would be very cautious about a source that had plagiarised Wikipedia. Even if parts of it are not from Wikipedia, can we be sure that they haven't been plagiarised from other, not necessarily reliable sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Kailash29792. Assuming the plagiarism claim is correct (which I haven't attempted to independently check), this presents a very thorny issue. I empathize with the pain of putting in all that work on the article and then realizing there might be cause to lose much of it with no recourse. I also commend you for raising the issue where that specter exists. It's like the problem presented when a reporter at a serious paper gets caught falsifying one story and we are left with questioning everything they've done in the past, or a forensic scientist, M.E. or researcher is caught faking results – calling into question all prior legal cases they were involved with, or studies they contributed to. Is the whole baby compromised and must get tossed with the bathwater? And yeah, I see how integral that source is to the article. Sure, the content relied on in the article is not the part that's plagiarized from here. But we can't ignore the taint of the whole. We must assume it is also the result of some other compromised process. I have no definitive answer but my gut is: once known, it can't be ignored, and, as painful as it is, it should not be used at all—especially in the context of a featured article candidate which must have the highest integrity we can provide. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you guys. I have opened a discussion at the noticeboard, and Danny (Dhananjayan) has actually used the Tamil language book Cinemavum Naanum as a source for his information on Mullum Malarum in his book. BTW, he has done what no other author would have done: he gave his email ID in the book which I legitimately purchased, and if I contact him, could I ask him to rewrite the book before any future re-releases? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Pages needing revision?

When I created account, a sort-of tutorial popped up, taking me to a page flagged as needing copyediting. Where can I find a list of articles like this that need revision? Templated for copyediting, edit requests, needs improvement etc.

Thanks HandsOnMyEggs (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, HandsOnMyEggs, and welcome to the Teahouse - glad to hear you are so eager to help. A good place to find articles that are tagged for various types of work is Wikipedia:Community portal. If it is copy-editing specifically you're looking for, check out Category:All articles needing copy edit.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey HandsOnMyEggs. If you want to access that same page, please copy this code: ?gettingStartedReturn=true Now, navigate to any random article → place your cursor in your browser's address bar after the existing URL → paste the copied code → hit enter. I second Gronk's suggestion of the Community Portal. You can have the list of open tasks shown there always available for yourself by transcluding it into your user talk page or user page by adding the code {{Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask}} to the one or the other. You can also sign up for delivery of suggested articles to edit at User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! HandsOnMyEggs (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Alla Furman

This empty user page shows blatantly promotional content from Meta:User:Alla Furman. What can be done? —teb728 t c 02:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibly the user might take it down if asked (or strongly encouraged)? Otherwise it can be nominated as miscellany for deletion. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 03:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominate it where? The page is on Meta. —teb728 t c 03:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC) If it were here on English Wikipedia, I would tag it G11. —teb728 t c 03:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I nominated the Meta page for speedy deletion per Meta:WM:CSD#G7 (irrelevant to WikiMedia). It will be interesting to see how that works. —teb728 t c 05:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

meta:User:Alla Furman has been deleted per meta:WM:CSD#G7. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Can I delete footnote 1 without losing the reference for a later footnote?

I am working on my first article in my sandbox. (I guess the name of the page would be User:Nadnie/Sandbox ???) I typed in some notes near the end of the draft & added a citation, using the Journal template. For reasons I don't understand, the footnote appeared as footnote 1 at the very beginning of the article, & as footnote 7 where I wanted it, near the end. Can I delete footnote 1 without losing the reference material for fn7 ? I'm afraid if I boldly try, I will lose all the reference material I typed into the template. Thanks -- Nadnie (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nadnie, and welcome to the Teahouse. What I recommend you do is move the citation

<ref>{{cite journal|last1 = Landa|first1 = J. M.|title = A Yiddish Cafe-Chantant|journal = The Jewish World, reprinted in The Advocate: America's Jewish Journal|date = 12 February 1910|volume = 38|page = 1140-1143|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=WEgcAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1142&lpg=PA1142&dq=pepi+littman&source=bl&ots=xh7i8GCg9P&sig=qIYu-oQxK_6Pz7pvzNowvditKV0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnj7WV5MfJAhUsjIMKHZGsBJc4ChDoAQhEMAM#v=onepage&q=pepi%20littman&f=false}}</ref>

from the top of the page to where it's needed — that is, to right after the content in the draft which is substantiated by that reference. The superscripted reference number will then appear at that point, while the information contained in the citation will be displayed in the reference list at the bottom of the draft as normal. I would have moved it for you, but it wasn't clear to me exactly where the citation should go. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 20:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Done! Thank you! Nadnie (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinks to authors of citations

I just made a small edit here to fix a citation which had wikilinks to all its authors, although only one of them had a page already. I have not previously linked to authors, so I'm wondering what the preferred standard is. I assume it's based on notability, but that can be difficult to ascertain if it's a field you don't know much about. Sharradan (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sharradan. In my opinion, the best practice is to wikilink only to notable authors who have Wikipedia biographies. I think that a red link is distracting in the reference section. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sharradan - I just looked through WP:REFB and WP:CITE, and there doesn't appear to be a direct guideline regarding this. So, it's pretty much up to the individual editor whether or not to include a wikilink. I agree 100% with Cullen328 that I would never do it so as to create a redlink. But there are some citation formats which don't mesh well with wikilinking such as <ref>{{cite book | last= | first= | title= | etc.}}</ref>. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Cite book works very well with wikilinking, there's a specific parameter |authorlink= for linking to the article about a book's author. I agree though that I would only use where the author already has a Wikipedia article. Nthep (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sharradan, Cullen328, Onel5969, and Nthep: I am not a fan of redlinks because they are red. I wish they were a dark maroon instead. Here is the official guideline on redlinks. We should all start doing more redlinking. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

By all means, Sharradan (and Cullen328, onel5969, Nthep and Checkingfax, and anyone else reading), if you come across a topic, whether it's an author whose work you're citing or something else mentioned in passing in an article, and notice that the topic seems to meet the notability standard but doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article about it, go ahead and redlink it. I often do so in order to remind myself of notable topics to go back and create articles about. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 21:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox troubles

Hi - I have another dumb question. Editing Ezeolisa Allagoa, I cannot get the spouse and the house to display properly in the Infobox. I compared them to the working box at Queen Elizabeth II and I just can't see why this does not work. The word "spouse" does not display at all, and instead of "house" it says "[[Dynasty|]]". Any Infobox experts out there who can help sort it out, please?Gronk Oz (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Gronk Oz. I fixed it with this edit, but in my non-technical-background, bumbling way of removing blank parameters to try to see if that would provide a fix. In short, I have no idea why that worked. Maybe there was a hidden Unicode character or something like that. Someone with a less surface understanding will have to help with the "why". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed the spouse listing. As for House, it just links to the article about Dynasty which the article that House refers to. To change that link would involve changing the infobox template which would affect hundreds (thousands?) or articles so I suggest just living with it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both - that's perfect! And seeing how you did it, I feel like a bit less of a fool for not seeing it.

--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Troubles that rhyme, no less! Cordless Larry (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's possible for templates to behave differently for blank and omitted parameters but it's confusing, especially when the template doesn't document it. I have changed it to behave the same.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter. That's process improvement in action - gotta love it!--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Listing cast without plagiarism

I am looking to expand the article on the movie 12 Winter and was going to add the cast list from IMDB, and I want to avoid plagiarism, but it is a simple list of names so there's not really a way I can re-phrase anything. Is there a different way to cite this? Or is it just understood that information like that can't be changed? I feel like I'm cheating if I just use the list straight from IMDB, and maybe that means it just isn't something that should be added to the page, but I'm not sure.

Tucsonhorse (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tucsonhorse, I don't know that there is any way to list the cast without "plagiarizing". However, I've seen quite a few cast lists and similar things on other articles so to the best of my knowledge, listing the names as listed on another site is acceptable--mainly because it's unavoidable. Also, IMDb is not normally considered a good source. If you have to use it, you can see if you can find a similar but more reliable site that backs up IMBd's claims. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 01:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks White Arabian Filly that is very helpful!

Tucsonhorse (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tucsonhorse. Copying a simple list of data items without also copying prose commentary is neither plagiarism nor a copyright violation. However, as White Arabian Filly correctly points out, IMDb is a poor quality source since it is user edited. The film's official website, or cast lists in professional reviews published in reliable sources, which can be easily found on websites like Rotten Tomatoes, are much better sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Tucsonhorse, I like to have references, so to confirm what Cullen said above, if you check Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What_is_not_plagiarism you will see it includes "simple, non-creative lists of information, such as a list of song titles on an album, or actors appearing in a film."--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Participating in AfD Discussions

I recently followed a link on a WikiProject page to an AfD . It was for an article about a book that I hadn't previously heard of, but I became interested because it lead me to multiple suspicious articles by the same user, presumably the book's author, and to several single purpose accounts that I believe to be alt accounts for the same user (the author). Now I have a couple of questions... 1) I added my 2 cents to the AfD, but I think I did it wrong. I didn't use a bullet point. Instead I indented my comment below the first one. Was I supposed to use a bullet point? Is it important? 2) A single purpose account that I believe to be one author's alt accounts replied to AfD arguing against the deletion. How/where should I address my suspicions about this? Is it appropriate to call it out on the AfD? 3) I found some pretty lengthy articles created by these alt accounts that are all poorly sources with only self-published websites, websites based on user-generated content and lots of circular referencing. One is for a movie that I suspect doesn't exist, yet it's listed in the filmography of 10+ celebrity articles (Charlton Heston, Mickey Rooney, etc.) with these same dubious sources. What, if anything, should I do about the numerous suspicious articles and the backlinks to them on many, many celebrity articles? 4) I think I made a faux-pas, because I was looking for guidance, so I asked some questions about my new concerns in the WikiProject where I originally saw the AfD notice. In retrospect, I think maybe I wasn't supposed to do that. Can I delete my comments or is that frowned upon too? I'm not sure how to correct my mistake. Permstrump (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Permstrump. I'll try to answer your questions.

1) Using a bullet point is the standard we use when commenting at afd's but it's not required. The content of what you say is by far more important than how you format it. Also, you can always go back and reformat your comment with a bullet point if you want to.

2) If you suspect a single purpose account comment at an AfD you can use the {{spa}} template which flags that comment as such to the attention of other participants or you can approach the user themself at their talk page.

3) There are multiple processes to deletion. I would say WP:PROD would be a good option in your case.

4) Yes you can delete your own comments, however it's considered more proper to strike-out the comments you wish to retract, especially if someone has already commented on your comment. Also, you mustn't ever edit or delete someone else's comments. See WP:REDACT for talk page guidelines regarding this. Also, don't worry about asking questions. In my opinion it's never wrong to ask a question, regardless of where you ask it. Other helpful Wikipedians will point you to the proper venue if need be.

I hope that helped. :) -- œ^™ 08:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are satisfied with the answers received here, Permstrump, it might be a courtesy to post a note at the WikiProject page as a follow-up to your questions there, saying that they have been answered (just to save people there from spending too long answering questions that have been answered elsewhere). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello œ and thank you for the reply! A few followup questions... Should I explain why I'm using the SPA template b/c at first glance, it might seem like this user is editing a variety of pages, but they all backlink to different books, tv shows and movies claimed to be written by the author of the book in question in the AfD. Also, if I think a WP:PROD for the movie would be challenged, should I do a new AfD? Is there a reason to wait/not wait for the current one to end first?

Cordless Larry, good idea about updating the WikiProject page. I will do that. Thanks! Permstrump (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Permstrump, instead of using the template with an explanation, simply explain your concerns, though remember we should always assume good faith. I think you should address the user directly, direct them to our neutrality or conflict of interest policies if necessary. The page Wikipedia:Single-purpose account has a lot of useful advice related to your situation, and I highly recommend reading it. If there is an existing AfD for an article you cannot PROD it. Aside from the one book AfD you are involved in, you mentioned numerous other dubious articles. You may opt to start a new AfD for those articles instead of PRODing each one if you suspect your proposed deletions may be challenged. Indeed, that is usually the default fallback when a PROD is challenged. In fact, you may even create one AfD that nominates all your suspected articles in one go! -- œ^™ 10:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again! Would you mind telling me if this sounds OK in response to the (suspected) SPA's recent comment on the existing AFD? "Recategorizing it to self-help doesn't change that it violates WP:USERGENERATED in addition to WP:NBOOK and the other policies already mentioned. I noticed that the pages you've edited since 2011 are pretty much all related to works by the author of this book. Have you noted a conflict of interest somewhere that I might have overlooked?"

Page got immediately removed_Franklin_Loufrani

Hi all,

Can you help me with this please?

I had uploaded a Frenchy page for "Frankli Loufrani" however it was removed after a couple of minutes. There wasn't any clear reasons for why this had been removed but it took me to a discussion page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Franklin_Loufrani/Suppression

Is anyone able to explain why and what I should do to upload the page?

Thanks!

86.188.131.18 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that fr:Franklin Loufrani was deleted back in June at the result of a deletion discussion. And when the page was recreated, it was speedily deleted pursuant to the same discussion. French Wikipedia is a separate project which is not connected with English Wikipedia; so you would have to ask there. The French equivalent of our Help desk is at fr:Wikipédia:Questions techniques; that may be the place to ask. —teb728 t c 12:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Will try the French discussioin page!

86.188.131.18 (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre behaviour in the link within a reference

I stumbled across the article International Fetish Day, and I was curious to see whether this is still a thing. Its second reference is a link to the home page at www.internationalfetishday.com. However, when I clicked on that link something strange happened. Instead of opening that web page, it opened the same article on Wikipedia again. (Talk about circular arguments!) Any thoughts on how this happens, and how to fix it?Gronk Oz (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz, as far as I can see there is nothing we can do about it. I tested the http://www.internationalfetishday.com/index/ which should have taken me to their start page as well as some other common page names with the same result. Putting the link through Google resulted in some redirects to the same "WP-page". I can only assume that the page is presently dormant, and instead of just leaving it blank the people running it have done the next best thing and put the <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0;url=https: to the WP article"> (which I will not display here for fear of redirecting the Teahouse somewhere) on their index page, resulting in a redirect here. It is an adult page, so it's also possible that initiated members have the correct url for direct access to pages beyond the index page and they use the WP article as a "front". w.carter-Talk 14:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There are several methods to do URL redirection and they actually don't use the above method. MediaWiki doesn't permit the <meta> tag to be inserted in the rendered html so nothing would happen here. The last non-redirecting version in the Internet Archive at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.internationalfetishday.com is https://web.archive.org/web/20130127122950/http://www.internationalfetishday.com/. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

>Phew!< ...better safe than sorry. ;) w.carter-Talk 15:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As those references are to a page which redirects back to the WP article, they don't qualify as valid references, so I have deleted them. Maproom (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everybody - I thought I was losing it for a while there... --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Add the page: International Family Equality Day

Dear Teahouse

I have try hardly several try to create a article under the category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Civil_awareness_days with the name: International Family Equality Day

Several times this has been deleted. Always with refer to the copyright. The fact is that it is my own text and I have the copyright to. What should I do or how I can adjust the text so that Wikipedia adopts this page? Very thankful for every tip!

Kind regards, Maria von Känel

Maria von Känel (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Maria von Känel and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to license text such that Wikipedia can reproduce it, you will need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Please note that, due to the way Wikipedia allows anyone to use its content, it is not sufficient to grant Wikipedia "permission" to use your content, effectively you will need to give permission to anyone in the world to use your material for any purpose.

Secondly, Wikipedia text should be neutral and scholarly. If you are writing about International Family Equality Day elsewhere on the internet, it is probable that you are using promotional or emotive language. You will need to edit such text to fit the tone required of an encyclopaedia.

Thirdly, just because content is legal in a copyright sense, this does not necessarily mean such an article will not be deleted. For a new article to remain a permanent feature of the encyclopaedia the article needs to show that the subject is notable. "Notable" has quite a specific meaning on Wikipedia, but in essence it means that the topic has been subject to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. This is best achieved by using such coverage as references for the article's content. --LukeSurl^{t c} 17:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

help knowing if this will pass articles for creation

Hello again. I would like to translate another article from the German Wikipedia, but would like to check first that it will be accepted here (because I don't want to go to all the trouble of making a translation for nothing).

1. To avoid getting the notability rejection. Can you tell me if a person with these credits is considered notable?

one of the founders of a steamship company (The Lower and Middle Rhine Steamship Company)
co-founded the Dutch Reformed Church in one German city
founded a system of poor relief that was so successful it was adopted by cities throughout Germany
was a member of the Prussian House of Lords for six years

2. To avoid getting the references rejection.

(a) Can you tell me if these are considered reliable:

a 2015 published book on the region where this person lived
an entry in a 1972 dictionary of German biography
a 2000 published book on the members of the German parliament

(b) Can you tell me how many references are needed? (It was was really frustrating last time to get "it needs simply more references" when I already had seven. But what is the minimum?)184.147.121.46 (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi IP user, I think the person meets notability. The sources you are listing sound reliable. As for the minimum number of refs, the policy I have always heard is "at least one reliable reference, but more are better". If somebody turned it down for having "only" 7, it may have been because some specific statement in the article wasn't referenced. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to know whether or not he is notable, why don't you say who it is you're asking about? Maybe I'm unduly suspicious – but your trying to get an answer here without telling us his name makes it look as if you suspect he isn't really notable, so you're trying to get someone to agree in advance that he is. Maproom (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. From your list of achievements, it is very likely that he is notable; but notability does not lie in what he may have done, but in where and how much he has been written about. Your three sources are probably reliable (though it depends how they were published) but, at least for the first and third, whether they are useful to establish notability depends also on whether they contain substantial material about the subject, or just a passing mention. --ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. Sorry I didn't mention the name - I didn't see the point since you could only read about him in German, I wasn't trying to hide something. Daniel von der Heydt. The reason why I want to know in advance is the person I translated earlier, Wilhelm Neumann-Torborg, was rejected first for all these reasons (notability, not enough references). ColinFine, of the three references, only the middle one is available online [2] so the question isn't answerable! 184.147.121.46 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC) And the German article is here. [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.121.46 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be online. But if you are going to cite a source in an article you absolutely must have seen the source yourself and verified that it supports the information for which it is cited. If "the question isn't answerable" by you, then you may not cite the source. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Am I not required to include them as part of the attribution of making a translation? 184.147.121.46 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree - in my opinion he is notable. I even found a source in English, here - if you use it you'll need to extract the bibliographical details. Maproom (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am also glad to know it seems likely to get through and won't be wasted time to translate.184.147.121.46 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User page to Article

I have created a user page - User:Dr Richard Fiene. I would like to have this go active on WikiPedia but I haven't been able to figure out how to do this. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Rick.Dr Richard Fiene (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dr Richard Fiene, and welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to have confused your user page with an article. User pages are for giving basic information about yourself or your Wikimedia-related activities. See Wikipedia:User pages for more information on this, and see my user page at User:Cordless Larry for an example. Articles, on the other hand, are encyclopedia entries about notable subjects. Did you mean to create an article called Richard Fiene instead? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Noting the title of this section, "user page to article", am I correct in thinking that this is a draft article that you want to move to the correct location, which would be Richard Fiene? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read our guidance at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY - "We have biographies here, not autobiographies. Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact."
As it stands, this would be totally unacceptable as an article, as it does not cite any reliable sources whatsoever, whereas every significant fact needs to be cited to a reliable source, preferably independent of the subject, so the information can be verified. Furthermore the long, promotional, lists of publications and research projects might be appropriate in a resume, but not an encyclopedia article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dr Richard Fiene, I see that you have now created Richard Fiene. My questions weren't intended to suggest that you do that straight away - I was trying to understand what you were trying to do with your user page. As Arjayay states, Wikipedia policy strongly discourages you from writing about yourself. I should have told you that in my initial reply. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Richard Fiene has now been deleted as a copyvio - Arjayay (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Gill Fielding and Draft: The Humberview Group

I reviewed Draft: Gill Fielding and Draft: The Humberview Group and declined them, and received courteous replies on my talk page from User:Neilho and User:Alakov. Neilho wrote: Good Morning. Thanks you for your attention to my draft regarding businesswoman Gill Fielding. I have gone through the article today and removed every remaining reference to Gill's first name (apart from the opening paragraph, of course). I have also removed some superfluous phrases and adjectives where I could see this may have contributed to a non-neutral tone. I have also linked the 'rags to riches' description to the Wikipedia article on this phrase to evidence the factual nature of this statement. I'm not sure whether the listing of Gill's businesses is contributing to reviewers' impressions but I have included all of these - with references - as I feel they are relevant to someone whose notability is through both business and TV appearances. However, I have no issue with removing all of these if reviewers feel this will help move the draft into the article space (to avoid going back and forth, I will faithfully make any specific adjustments in the article space if you ask me to on condition of approval). Thanks again and I will resubmit now.

Alakov wrote: Hello Robert McClenon. Thank you for reviewing the article. Could you kindly let me know what sources would be independent in a case of a business article? I found to mentions on Bloomberg and though this would be sufficient.

Would other experienced editors please look at the drafts and provide the authors with additional guidance? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'll leave a detailed message for User:Alakov regarding the Draft:The Humberview Group draft. Thanks, /wia /tlk 20:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

How can I relate/link my user pages? Poly-linguistic

Greeting dear wikipedians. How can I link my English & Persian user-pages together? Am I have to do something in wikidata, register or do some stuffs in wikicommon?

Amir R. Pourkashef 08:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir R. Pourkashef (talk • contribs)

Hi Amir R. Pourkashef. Userspace pages cannot be linked via Wikidata. Using the method at Help:Interlanguage links#Local links, add this to User:Amir R. Pourkashef: [[fa:کاربر:Amir R. Pourkashef]]. And this to the Persian user page fa:کاربر:Amir R. Pourkashef: [[en:User:Amir R. Pourkashef]]. It can be placed anywhere on the page but is usually at the bottom. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Amir R. Pourkashef, the above is probably all the answer you need. An alternative method which works on (almost) all Wikimedia sites is to create a single user-page on Meta (i.e., at User:Amir R. Pourkashef); this will be transcluded to your user-page on any Wikimedia site where you have not already created one. If you want it to transclude (say) to here, you would need to request deletion of your current user-page here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate you guys. no I am an amateur, i prefer to test the first method but i don't know how!

...Anyway, that was helpful, Amir R. Pourkashef 16:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

All you have to do is edit the page User:Amir R. Pourkashef and place the code [[fa:کاربر:Amir R. Pourkashef]] anywhere on it (the bottom is recommended). And then edit the page fa:کاربر:Amir R. Pourkashef and place the code [[en:User:Amir R. Pourkashef]] on it. Copy the code as it looks in the rendered page here and not in the edit window. I can do it if you want. I see you have created m:User:Amir R. Pourkashef at meta. It is automatically displayed at all wikis where your account has been created (see Special:CentralAuth/Amir R. Pourkashef for a list), but a user page has not been created. This for exmaple means it is displayed at de:Benutzer:Amir R. Pourkashef and wikisource:fa:کاربر:Amir R. Pourkashef. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Review Quality Culture?

Hello,

Grammarfascist kindly reviewed my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Normhowe/Quality_Culture. I have since rewritten it through about 20 different edits. I believe it's now ready to be seen in public. If someone could please take a look at it, I'd greatly appreciate it.Normhowe (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If the article is about Quality Culture rather than about Joseph Juran, and it appears that it is, the lede sentence should begin with Quality Culture and not with his name. That is, rearrange the sentence. Please remove or rewrite the phrase: "Most change efforts exact both human and economic butchery." Mention of human butchery sounds either like a reference to war crimes, or, more positively, to the work of humans who slaughter animals for human consumption. The fact that the phrase is nebulous is noted, and does make writing the article difficult, so you need multiple third-party sources stressing that Quality Culture, while hard to define, is important. Other editors may have other comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason why "Quality Culture" is capitalised in the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Hello! I am not very new to Wikipedia, but one question is bugging me: can any editor make a WikiProject (ie. WikiProject Spiders), or is it specially reserved for experienced editors or something? Thank you. Megaraptor12345 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Any user can make a WikiProject. WikiProjects are intended for the betterment of the Wikipedia community, and it would not be productive to not allow ALL users to participate. Hope that helps! smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 18:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Advice is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Creating a WikiProject. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Question answered! Megaraptor12345 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with "Request edit" template

Hi, everybody - I hope this will be a quick question. I am working through Tonypinkney's requests to change Stelio Stefanou from a question below ( here), and most of them are pretty straightforward. My question is: once I have dealt with a request, should I remove the corresponding {{request edit}} template from the Talk page? I have looked through all the instructions and they don't say to, but I don't know whether that template triggers it to clutter up somebody's To-Do list somewhere - or should I just leave them in place?Gronk Oz (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Never mind - I found the answer at Template:Request_edit/Instructions#Templates.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I may have always been doing it "wrong", but I've answered many such questions and I always just null the template – make it into a link using tl| or tlx| and so forth. So I'm glad you asked this question because I learned something from it. By the way, the instruction page you found contains the material that is already included in the template's documentation – when you have a template issue, looking at a template page itself to see if it has documentation is usually a good first stop. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit and Gronk Oz: Click on this blue link: {{request edit}} and you will see all the parameters for answering and for creating edit requests. PS: Many edit request templates say that nulling the request with a tl| or a tlx| is also a valid choice, but your options are so much greater if you use the template parameters instead. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax I think there's another way to show diffs but if you're going to us a URL the "https:" part is probably needed. If you start after "//" it probably won't work as a link.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Charlotte Devaney

I reviewed Draft: Charlotte Devaney and declined it on failing to meet musical notability guidelines. User:Cilla1987 then replied on my talk page: “hi there Robert iv been trying to get the wiki page re-instated for Charlotte Devaney for some time, she has just gone top 40 with her current single and has a ton of media links ,as well as appearaing in how to lose friends and alienate people so wondering whats dosnt make her notable?” I am not quite sure what is meant about losing friends and alienating people. I do see, on re-examination, that a mention has been inserted, at the bottom, below the references and external links, to a single that went Top 40 in Australia. That does appear to clear the bar for notability. Because it was at the bottom of the article, I didn’t notice it. I would suggest that the author move the top 40 mention to a more prominent part of the article, as well as replacing the ugly external link that contains special characters. I don’t know whether the author is saying that Devaney is losing friends and alienating people, because there isn’t any mention of that in the article, or is expressing concern that submitting a declined article loses friends and alienates people in Wikipedia. What does alienate reviewers is repeatedly resubmitting an article without trying to improve it, and this is not such a case, because Cilla did ask what to do, and most AFC reviewers are relatively patient and not easily alienated. (I am one of the less patient AFC reviewers, and more easily alienated than most, and I have not been alienated.) If the question is about Wikipedia, then, just, thank you in advance for making the required changes. Do any other experienced editors have their own comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk

hi hahaha no i ment, Charlotte Devaney co-starred in the Hollywood Film ' How to Lose friends and Alienate people' in 2008, please see link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455538/fullcredits/ So you will re-instate the wiki page now? User:Cilla1987

Please see How to Lose Friends & Alienate People (film), where she is mentioned as a cast member. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

She doesn't meet actor and actress notability guidelines based on one movie role. (Also, IMDB is not a reliable source.) If she has had other roles in other movies, she may be notable as an actress. It does appear that she does meet musical notability guidelines with one single. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Cilla1987: The above bit of confusion is a good example of why we need punctuation and capitalization (as well as spelling). If we were all in the same room and heard you say what Robert McClenon quoted above from his talk page, we'd recognize "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" as a movie title. But writing doesn't have all the clues that we unconsciously put into speech with tone of voice, pitch, and rhythm (and a bucketful of other things that linguists call "prosody"). So when we read what you wrote about "as well as appearaing in how to lose friends and alienate people so wondering whats dosnt make her notable?”, we are "not quite sure what is meant about losing friends and alienating people". --Thnidu (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

hey (talk

ok great so you can re-instate the page based on her musical notability. When will it be visable on google ?

also please see this link for how to lose friends and alienate people full cast and crew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lose_Friends_%26_Alienate_People_(film)

User:Cilla1987 —Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cilla1987. There is no "reinstating" required: the draft is still there as a draft, and will remain so until it passes review. The reviewers have made quite clear that at present the draft article does not establish that Devaney is notable. Robert McClenon has suggested above that she probably meets the criteria for a notable musician (but not a notable actor), but the article must establish it by suitable ciations, or it will not be accepted. Once a reviewer has accepted it and moved it to main space, Google will probably index it, though Wikipedia has no control over this process and cannot predict how long it will take. --ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

First, as we noted, at present, because of the way that the article is written and formatted, it doesn't establish her notability, so that it needs rework to mention her top 40 single in a more prominent part of the article. Second, the OP may just be a little unsure about Wikipedia terminology in requesting "reinstatement". She may think that she submitted the draft to mainspace and it was demoted to draft space, or something like that. In any case, it was in draft space, and is still in draft space, and is waiting for her to fix it. Third, as to Google, Google is usually very quick to pick up new Wikipedia articles, but, as said, Wikipedia has no control over Google. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

hi there --ColinFine (talk

ok thanks for this, Charlotte Devaney comes under your 'notable' criteria listed in your help pages for musician's. She is currently placed at number 38 in the national Australian Charts see link http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/singles she is also playlisted on every major radio station in Australia.

Your reviewers probably did not look at the links attached to the article as there were quite a few when i sent the article for review or they would have passed it, hence why when (talk took a closer look he said he believed it to be Notable.

many thanks for your time

Cilla1987

hi

ok will re write the article and re-submit

thanks alot (talk

Image placement seems somewhat arbitrary

I've been working for several years on a genealogical project involving the world's royal and noble families and the legendary and mythical ancestral lines thereto. As a result, I've been using Wikipedia extensively (along with a few other sites for corroboration), and in the process I've noticed (first) that bullet lists and images don't always play nice together (I've seen this on a number of pages), and (second) that when I looked at the page code (in this case for Vladimir the Great, Grand Prince of Kiev: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_the_Great), the placement of the code for the image within the page did not correspond at all with the placement of the image on the page as viewed.

My attempts to fix this were somewhat trial-and-error, and I was helped out by another user (Laszlo Panaflex) who pointed me toward the style guidelines, which have been helpful but not particularly for the specific point in question--unless my search-fu is weak. This is getting long, so I'll get to the point. My big question is: Why is the code for images not always present in the section the images appear in? This seems to be at odds with the goal of having images placed in the sections of the article that are relevant to the image in question.

Jakk42 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Jakk42 this sounds like a question that could be answered at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought this question seemed a bit "technical" for the Teahouse, but I didn't see anywhere else to go. Jakk42 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Examples of good umbrella articles

I'm hoping for a few links to good "umbrella" articles that I can look at as examples. I was discussing the article Causes of mental disorders on wikiproject:psychology and someone commented that "umbrella" articles like that often get neglected. I asked if anyone knew of better articles that I could use as a guide, but no one there had any suggestions other than to ask on a more active project. Anyone have some favorites that might be helpful for an article like Causes of mental disorders? Thank you!Permstrump (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much psychology, but Hilbert's problems might be interesting. There is some history and info about the topic, and then a list of the problems with status. These problems then each have their own articles. The article is a B+ class so quite good. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Happysquirrel! I'm about to check it out. P.S. To anyone else, I'll take as many links as I can get. :)

Take a look at some of our Featured articles, Permstrump. Some of them are broad in scope but still excellent in quality. In particular, I remember my friends at Today's Article for Improvement making an article - Sea - reach this status through concentrated effort. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 03:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Finnusertop! Lots to read now. Permstrump (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving a draft to another language Wikipedia

Is there any mechanism to move a draft to another language’s Wikipedia? My assumption is that there is not, and that the draft should simply be copied and pasted. I reviewed Draft:Theo van Amstel, and concluded that it was in Dutch, and advised that it be either translated, or submitted to the Dutch Wikipedia. User:Cva.kunst asked me how to move the page to the Dutch Wikipedia. I only know of copy-and-paste. I would comment that the draft is unreferenced. I don’t know whether the Dutch Wikipedia requires references as the English Wikipedia does. I would advise the author to copy and paste the draft to user space in the Dutch Wikipedia and add references to it. Can someone here advise the author as to how to request assistance from experienced editors in the Dutch Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently there is a user right that gives the power of direct transfer. See WP:Importers. —teb728 t c 00:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That was an answer to your assumption that there is not a way to move a page to another Wikipedia, but I guess it's not the answer to the question you were actually asking. For getting help on Dutch Wikipedia, I see there is a Help desk at nl:Help: Helpdesk; that might be a good place to start asking for help there. —teb728 t c 07:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Grammar and style

Hi, I'd like to put out this question/comment/pet peeve in the hope that *someone* will identify and respond.

Nearly every time I read a page (which I do frequently in the way others look up a word in the dictionary or to check out a trivia question), I find grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax, style and other basic problems. I usually try to edit and fix these, though recently I've had the page authors reverse my edits. But sometimes the pages are so huge, and the errors so numerous it would literally take hours or days.

Am I the only anal-retentive editor here? Has anyone else had similar experiences? What do you do? And perhaps most of all, considering Wikipedia's automatic robotic response to perceived editorial "transgressions", why isn't the proper use of the English language something that's overseen and enforced? I don't read other languages sufficiently well enough, but I'd bet sites written in other languages don't have as many of the same issues. I find it embarrassing!

Please, someone message me about this! I'd really appreciate the moral support. WriteinEnglish (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello WriteinEnglish, and welcome to the Teahouse. I moved your question up from the bottom of the page because at the Teahouse, new questions are posted at the top and I wanted to make sure that yours didn't get missed. There are plenty of editors who are concerned with spelling, grammar and style. You will find some of them participating in WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the revert of the edits you made at March (territorial entity), the issue appears to be that you didn't cite a reliable source (indeed, you conceded that a reference was needed in the text of your edit). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, rather than manually adding "reference needed" tags to unsourced statements in articles, you should use {{citation needed}}. This will result in the article being added to categories that highlight to other editors that it needs attention. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And in this edit you removed a reference, and didn't explain why. If there is a good reason for removing the ref, you need to include the reason in the edit summary. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that most editors here would support your work in improving articles. Most of the quality articles that I read seem to have good English, but some of the "populist" articles are edited by those without your knowledge of the language, and might need some work to bring them up to encyclopaedic standards. (Note that the "ae" there is standard British English.) You need to be aware of regional variations in spelling, and that style is sometimes a matter of taste, but keep up the good work, and let us know when your valid edits are reverted. Dbfirs 08:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)