Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 417

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 main page.

Archive 410

←

Archive 415

Fixing dead links with archive; no cite template used

Hello all,

I'm looking to make my first edit and want it to be constructive. I found a dead link, and I want to do better than just marking it as dead. I understand how to use the archive parameters from the link rot article, but the trouble is a previous editor did not use a citation template. My question is, how do I add an archive URL, date, and all correctly without those parameters. The link in question is the first reference on this article. Thank you for helping me on my first day MZimm6 (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi MZimm6, welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for wanting to help out. If you want to include archive date and all then rewrite the reference to use a citation template like {{cite web}}, but citation templates are difficult for new users. An easier fix when the page is archived at http://archive.org is to add this right after the code producing the dead link, i.e. after[http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/bell/cresson_bio.pdf ''The Elliott Cresson Medal - Founded in 1848 - Gold Medal'']:

{{dead link|url=http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/bell/cresson_bio.pdf}}

I recommend doing this. It helps readers find the source and it helps editors discover the problem and maybe use a citation template later. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi MZimm6. A simple introduction to creating citations and using the templates is User:Yunshui/References for beginners. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter, I too am relatively new to editing on Wikipedia.org. I recall finding a dead link in a Wikipedia article some time ago. I found that the dead link was archived on archive.org. When editing in the archive link, I looked for other examples of how it should be done and I couldn't find any at the time. Of course, if I did find an example, it would have been possible (perhaps likely) that the way that editor did it was not the correct (preferred) way to do it.

In any case, I basically "hacked" in the archive link immediately following the dead link. As I recall, I think I may have applied "strikeout/strike-through" to the original link (leaving it otherwise intact and functional, though still dead). Then I added a short comment indicating the link was dead and that it was archived, followed by the archive link. (This is all from memory which fails me often. I would have looked it up now to see what I actually did, but I don't know how).

In the end, I thought at the time, that my edit looked okay (perhaps "perfectly fine"), but I had nothing to compare it to.

My assumption was that a reviewer would either accept my edit as is, if they found it to be (barely) acceptable, or they would fix my formatting/implementation, rather than outright rejecting it.

I was pleased to find your recommended way to do this, but I am still confused. Your example is very clear, as far as it goes, but it doesn't show where, or how to add the archive link.

Fyiman (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fyiman, I'm sorry to read you are having difficulty. My recommendation is that you use the fill-in form for citation templates, which can be accessed by first clicking "Cite" at the right-hand side of the blue bar in the top of the editing window of any page, then clicking "Templates" at the left-hand side of the second blue bar which appears. Then simply select the appropriate template based on whether the source in question is from a book, an academic journal, a newspaper or magazine, or a website that is none of those. You will need to click the "Show/hide extra fields" button to gain access to the "Archive URL" and "Archive date" fields; note that both must be filled out. Good luck, and feel free to return to the Teahouse with any additional questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 18:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Do I need consensus to turn a bad redirect into an article?

Today I created an article that replaced a bad redirect. Professional Aviation Safety Specialists has redirected to Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association for the past 5 years. Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association currently does not mention Professional Aviation Safety Specialists and as far as I can find it has never mentioned it. I took the redirect and changed it into an article on the union. Within a minute the article was reverted back to the bad redirect with an edit summary "Restoring redirect. Consensus required to create article". I asked the editor where it said I needed to have consensus to create the article. The only response I get is that it was challenged so now I need consensus. Not that anything was wrong with the article, just use AFC so it can get reviewed. I think this is wrong. 155.178.180.6 (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

In short, no, I don't think so. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, which means you shouldn't have to go around asking permission to do things (although it's fine to ask if you need help, like you did here!). I think the article should be recreated if it meets notability, especially if the redirect wasn't even mentioned in the Marine Engineers article. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 20:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like someone else agrees and has restored the article I wrote. 155.178.180.6 (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, multiple editors have now indicated their agreement by editing the article. It could use additional sources and information even so, but it is IMO a good start. DES ^(talk) 22:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Test

Question. Seems I can't get my question submitted. Let me try again. 204.148.173.64 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Mdebartolo (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

My Article For Riley the Goblin Got Declined

I was making an Article About Me Turning Into a goblin and it got Declined I was trying to make an article about the story that i was about to tell please help me RU-6972 (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to write a work of fiction, you can do so on your own website, but it doesn't have a place on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. You have already been blocked once from editing. If you wish to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia you will be welcome to do so, but if your edits here continue to be entirely disruptive, your block will be indefinite. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey RU-6972, and welcome to the teahouse. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that only non-fiction (true) elements can be published. Additionally, to create an article, it is highly suggested to prepare a draft first and ask reviewers to review it. You may want to visit WP:! for more information. Cheers! (Protip: People usually won't care about anything you do in your userspace, unless it has some SERIOUS issues, so please conduct tests there.) Frank (User Page) (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

How to delete a page

Please tell me how I can delete a page? My searches, alas, have only confused me.

Also, if one clicks on the username of the person who created a page and it says no page for this user exists, is there a way to find out who the creator of the page is?

Thank you.TheRealReel (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi TheRealReel. Deletion here has many ins and outs; different bases and different processes. There is no concrete answer to this question in the hypothetical but to point you to some general pages that your question indicates you may have already read (such as Wikipedia:Deletion policy). What page do you think should be deleted and on what basis?

Clicking on a user name takes you to a person's userpage, which may have never been created. That doesn't mean the person is not a real account and did not create a page. In fact, there are users who are and remain regulars here for a decade who don't have user pages. To see who created an article go to its page history and navigate to the first edit. That will (usually) show you who created the page (there are exceptions to this that are not worth going into here).

If you're trying to contact the user who created the page, they may or may not have a created user talk page. You can contact them there, even if it doesn't currently exist, you can create it. They will get a prominent notice if you edit it – if they are still around. Again, give us the details and we can give you a tailored answer.

By the way, if this is about Ciara Flynn, that has been proposed for deletion by another user. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi The RealReel. Just to add on to what Fuhgettabout posted, the short answer is that you can't. Only administrators can delete an article, etc. and only when there is just cause for doing so. Only things whose problems are obvious violations tend to be deleted outright by administrators and pretty much everything else needs to be nominated and then discussed by the community. There are various ways that an editor may nominate something for deletion, so please read Wikipedia's deletion policy per Fuhgettaboutit suggestion for more details.

In general, the community will discuss things nominated for deletion until it reaches a consensus either way. Moreover, the community prefers to fix problems whenever possible and sees deletion only as a last resort. So, if you do decide to nominate something for deletion, you should be ready to cite relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines in support of your nomination and show that whatever you nominate is beyond fixing. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for examples on what not to do when it comes to deletion discussions so that you have some idea as to what to expect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to Editors Fuhghettaboutit and Marchjuly for your help! There is a lot of detail to learn about Wikipedia! I am looking at the sources you kindly gave me, but in order to reply in this decade (ha ha), I'll have to reply before I've learned as much as I'd like. Yes, my questions concern the page for Ciara Flynn. I contacted the actress, as a fan, and she was concerned to know who set up the page because it contained unauthorized, unpublished data and no data sources. She is currently filming, so I volunteered to help sort things out.

The current issue is the notice covering the page which announces, in effect, that she is "not notable enough" and her movie is "not likely notable". Talk about bad press! We don't think Wikipedia is purposely trying to give a bad image, but she is being googled a lot thanks to her feature film and to have this page come up is unfair and harmful. I fear Wikipedia won't see it that way because its focus is on encyclopedic function, but ask anybody in the business and they'll tell you the same as I. She didn't set up the page, yet she is being negatively impacted by its existence. I was hoping to find a way to delete it without waiting till Nov. 19 as that will eliminate the "not notable" label and the unauthorized data. I don't mean any of this in a rude way, btw, I'm stuck in a situation of trying to convey real world impact where the primary focus (as far as I can tell) is on journalism and encyclopedic efforts.

I also have a question as to how soon a new page might be created if this one is deleted. I'm sure she would want to be on the alert if somebody tries to create another one which causes similar problems with dates.

Also, if the page is deleted does some negative notice about that get posted? I have great respect for Wikipedia, but this experience has been rather concerning and your help would be appreciated.TheRealReel (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies; for some reason, my reply is formatting strangely. The first part of my reply is set on the page as if it is part of the editor's reply just above mine. My reply starts with the sentence: "Thank you to Editors Fuhghettaboutit and Marchjuly for your help!" I tried to delete and repost it, but it still didn't straighten out. Thank you for your understanding.TheRealReel (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it was just due to the colons at the start of each paragraph. I reformatted them a bit for you. VQuakr (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

After the page is deleted, the deletion rationale will remain in the deletion log, which is rather inconspicuous. And as soon as the page is deleted, someone could try to create a new article, but she would still not be notable; so that attempt would be subject to deletion. —teb728 t c 07:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again TheRealReel. Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a reliable source per WP:WPNOTRS for any purpose, so it shouldn't treated as such. It's user-generated content which can be edited by pretty much anyone at anytime. Edits which are considered to be improvements in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines are most welcome, but those which are not will eventually get revised or reverted. Cleaning up articles to ensure they comply with relevant policies and guidelines is an ongoing process and the template messages added to the tops of articles are intended to bring issues a particular article may have to the attention of other editors so that they can be resolved. Wikipedia articles are not owned by their creators, editors who work on them, or the subject being written about. Articles are improved and problems are fixed through collaborative editing and achieving consensus.

Wikipedia does not really create "good press" or "bad press"; Its articles are intended only to reflect what reliable sources say about a topic. Only those subjects which have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources are typically considered Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article. Wikipedia's purpose is not to help any persons career by writing positive things about them, by not writing negative things about them, or by writing anything at all about them. If someone is considered notable enough for a stand-alone article, then the article should reflect what reliable sources are saying about them (good or bad). As long as the information complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it is likely to remain in the article. Now, if someone such as Ms. Flynn has concerns that what is written about them does not comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then the they should follow the steps laid out in WP:BIOSELF and in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. Moreover, if you have been in contact with Ms. Flynn and have agreed to act on her behalf, then you should would seem to have a conflict of interest and probably should take a look at WP:PSCOI. If "Ciara Flynn" is deleted because the article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, then it may simply be too soon for a proper article to be written about her right now, but that does not mean that such an article will or can never be written. If someday an editor feels that she is notable enough to satisfy WP:BASIC, they may decide to write an article about her. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Subpage for Userpage

I have been editing Wikipedia for few months now and have made more than 9000 edits. Yet I don't have any subpage for Userpage. What kind of subpages can be created for a userpage? Is there any tool or something which creates some subpage automatically like there is Popular Pages for WikiProject? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Capankajsmilyo. A subpage of your user page is never created automatically. Most subpages are used for testing things, and for early drafts of content. In fact your default sandbox, User:Capankajsmilyo/sandbox is a subpage of your user page. A subpage of your user page is simply a page whose name starts with "[User:Capankajsmilyo/" (or the name of some other user) followed by the exact page name, You can create multiple subpages, for whatever purposes you wish, provided it is to help contribute to the project. See WP:UP for more on what may be put on a user page. DES ^(talk) 12:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Capankajsmilyo. You can find ideas at Wikipedia:User page design center. For instance, my userpagge has a guestbook subpage at User:Finnusertop/guestbook. As for automatically created pages, DES above is right: no subpages are created if a user doesn't do it. Once a subpage is created, however, they support templates and some templates update their content automatically. See: Category:User namespace templates for templates specifically for use on you userpage. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to that how I create article of my village which is currently not present in wikipedia?

Thanks for inviting me and I appreciate for giving me opportunity to ask and learn about wiki. My question is that I want to create wiki page for my village and let the world know about it more and be easily accessible to all of those who needs to know about the village. I hope you will guide me better way Rustamani Kashif (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rustamani Kashif, and welcome to the Teahouse. I urge you to use the Article Wizard and create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. I further urge you to read Your First Article and Wikipedeia's Golden Rule first, as well as Referencing for Beginners. Note that any Wikipedia article must be supported by reliable sources. Note also that, as the mayor of the village, you have a Conflict of Interest, and should be particularly careful to edit only in a neutral way. Do not praise the village, give only clearly verifiable facts, citing appropriate sources. Please read all the pages I have linked, to better understand Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and standards. Otherwise you may find problems arise because you violated one of these without knowing about it. DES ^(talk) 12:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Article?

I would like to create an article about the Dorylus helvolus, a speices of ant. Would that be alright? Uvinno (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Uvinno, given that most species of ants have been written about in scientific journals and studied extensively, I'd say that an article on Dorylus helvolus would probably meet notability guidelines. So yes, it would probably be OK to create the article. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 03:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As further encouragement, Uvinno, the article for Dorylus helvolus is already red-linked from the genus-level article Dorylus.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Uvinno the article about the genus Dorylus shows that most of the species are not yet covered in articles of their own. Please look at some of the already existing articles (blue links in the species list) and follow a similar layout in the new article. Please also consider writing about other Dorylus species - if you have suitable sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Uvinno. May I suggest that you join WikiProject_Insects? That group is pretty active and there is lots of guidance on writing articles about insects in that group's pages. There's even an Ant task force that focuses on creating and improving articles about ants. Leave a message on the group's talk page or on the talk page of any of the participants if you find that you need specific help. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 15:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Contest an immediate removal

I wrote an article on Massis Armen Bahador and it was immediately rejected. I tried to rewrite it in my user box but now can't find it. I am confused as to where my test articles are. I would appreciate help. Thank you in advance. 204.148.173.64 (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that this is at User:Mdebartolo/sandbox/Massis Armen Bahador. Another version seems to be at User:Mdebartolo/sandbox. You will find it easier to keep track of your edits if you log in. If you are not User:Mdebartolo, you might want to work with that user. Note that both versions will need the addition of citations to reliable sources to establish notability. I suggest reading Your First Article. DES ^(talk) 22:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Assuming you are User:Mdebartolo, when you are logged in all you would need to do to see every live edit you've made is click on "contributions" at the top of the page, which would have shown you the two drafts linked above. It's not a good idea to have two drafts on the same topic, not the least because if others make any substantive edits to both pages then there is a copyright mess because the subject is spread over two places each with divergent page histories. Please choose which one you want to work on, take whatever you'd like from the other and incorporate it into it, and then mark the other for deletion by placing this template's code at the top: {{db-userreq}}. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Creating multiple copies of a draft because one of them has been declined is not useful. The changes that you make to one of them do not filter through to the other one. It makes it hard for the reviewers to move the drafts into draft space. Please don't create multiple copies of a draft. This comment is addressed to multiple enthusiastic inexperienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia an elitist organization masquerading as an egalitarian one?

Apologies for my previous rambling. I believer I can be succinct and to the point. . I suppose I should actually ask a question, so here goes: does Wikipedia have any desire, interest or plans to cease being elitist favoring a more egalitarian stance on information? . A well established test (as in law, for instance) revolves around "what the average person can be expected to accomplish or understand". . Wikipedia appears to claim to be egalitarian, but it is not. . If the average person cannot verify a citation, then it is only the elite few who can do so. . This makes Wikipedia an elitist organization until such time as anyone is free to validate or dispute claimed citations. . You either include or exclude the vast majority and I'm afraid you practice the latter and this makes the entire project suspect and wholly unverifiable and therefore of little use to the average person, even if they fail to realize this. . pcGnome PcGnome (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Asked and answered Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#What_are_the_rules.3F. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It isn't entirely clear what your complaint is. It is clear that you are unhappy and angry, and you don't have to participate in Wikipedia. However, I think that the basic explanation is that knowledge is inherently elitist, and that projects like Wikipedia are ways of trying to make knowledge a little more egalitarian. For instance, if a good scholarly analysis of World War One was published by a university press in 1955, would you rather exclude it as elitist knowledge, because one has to buy the book to verify it, or include its content within Wikipedia and therefore provide readers with knowledge of how to borrow the book from a library? Please explain what your issue is, but I think that we have answered it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It is elitist to include only proper grammar because many people do not know how to write or spell so we should never correct any spelling or grammar errors and should keep anyone who writes well from editing because they are above the level of the common editor. The basic premise of Wikipedia is that by combining the unique talents and resources* that many individuals have we can create FOR ANYONE TO USE FREELY a far more comprehensive and accurate encyclopedia than any individual or small group could hope to do -

*ESPECIALLY the resources that would normally be locked behind paywall or otherwise not freely and easily accessible. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

this may also help you Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You say "If the average person cannot verify a citation, then it is only the elite few who can do so." No one has the time to verify every citation, even if they were all online and free. The average person can go to a place known as a library and put in a little time and verify the vast majority of cited sources, should that person choose to do so. WE also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange where people can ask others who have access to sources that are not available free online to provide copies for use in verification. The page says: "Some Wikipedians have limited or no access to information sources, other users have access to resources that are difficult to find or are cost-prohibitive for most people. This project tries to bring those two sides together, so that someone looking for a source to back an edit, can easily ask a member of the Resource Exchange to provide a relevant document."

I'm not sure what you want. Would you like Wikipedia to use only sources that are available online for free? we do use such sources when possible, but there are whole realms of knowledge that would be excluded by such a rule. Our purpose here is to create a freely usable encyclopedia, with a very wide coverage of all significant areas of knowledge. Limiting that to areas with online sources would increase the bias towards recentism and toward the industrialized "first world", as other times and areas have a much lower density of online sources, free or not. It would also exclude most medical topics, where the reliable journals are generally not available free of charge online. I'm not clear what specific things have prompted your comments. There might be ways to deal with any specific issues you have. But "the free encyclopedia" does not mean no effort is ever required by anyone who wants to verify sources. Or people can choose to trust others to verify some sources, as everyone must in any case, due to lack of time. How long would it take an average person to verify all the sources in each of our more than five million articles, even if all were free online? Should we have fewer? DES ^(talk) 18:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, PcGnome, it could be argued that Wikipedia helps bring knowledge that is only available in paid-for sources such as scholarly journals to the masses, through summarising and reporting what those sources say. Yes, it might be difficult to access some of those sources and contribute to writing Wikipedia articles, but that's not Wikipedia's fault. From the point of view of the reader, I would argue that Wikipedia is very egalitarian. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Missrepresent

NAC:With help from multiple editors, article brought into mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I declined Draft:Missrepresent, saying that it needed more than one independent source for WP:NMUSIC. Its author, User:Sam Parsons 1981, then made minor changes and resubmitted it, and it was declined again, saying that it read like an advertisement. Its author then posted to my talk page. Will other experienced editors please advise and comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hiya

I underatand that it needed more - so I added more and then I get told it sounds like an advert it's a bit difficult that I do what's asked and then can't win?

Can someone help then to make it better as the dnb list has only 2 women in it and this woman really deserves some referencing. I appreciate the comments and the feedback but the next comment was that it only needs a bit more editing? I don't understand how being one of the top 5 female DJs in the UK is not something to be included on wiki when the whole music scene is full of men, if you try reading this :

https://thump.vice.com/en_us/article/why-dj-mags-top-100-djs-includes-so-few-women-according-to-the-djs-who-made-the-list

Women really under represented generally in the music scene and she is one of the biggest producers and wiki won't include her?

Sam Parsons 1981 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sam Parsons 1981 and welcome to the Teahouse. I do understand that creating a new Wikipedia article can be frustrating, as there are several different criteria that must be complied with. I urge you to read Your First Article, if you haven't already done so -- it has much helpful advice.

Please understand that no one is saying that Wikipedia won't include this artist, merely that the draft you are working on isn't yet ready to go live on Wikipedia.

Please understand that reviewers will generally not do independent searches to add content (although some will, sometimes). If reliable sources have said that "She is a leading drum and bass performer" then you need to mark that as a quote, or write "Good Drums magazine wrote that she is a leading drum and bass performer" if you are paraphrasing, and in either case support it with a citation. Then the reviewer can check the cite. Wikipedia articles should generally not themselves express opinions, but rather should state what the published opinions of others are. There are also some grammar issues in the draft, but those are less important, and I will try to copyedit a bit when I can. DES ^(talk) 16:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hiya

I don't think I can add many more citations! If you read all those citations it says over and over again she is a leading drum and bass artist.

I understand the grammar and I am working on it but the comments that it needs more referencing when I have referenced several worldwide newspapers, the BBC countless times, and online 3rd party publications, I don't understand how I can do any more.

Maybe it's turned into an advert because people keep asking me to prove her worthiness? I would of thought awards. the countless releases and being on ea games would be enough?

I am getting a little frustrated sorry!

Sam Parsons 1981 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi @Sam Parsons 1981: - I am seeing a bunch of links, but not reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight that cover the subject in significant manner while being independent of the subject. The Taipei newspaper is "reliable", but it is a promotional blurb about an upcoming event. The BBC is reliable but it is mostly an interview and therefor not indicative of content "independent" of the subject. Do you have reviews from major music publications? Most of the other links I scanned were blogs or wikis or commercial download sites (not reliably published) or pages affiliated with the subject (not independent) .

The topic of an article must have multiple coverage in sources that meet ALL 3 of the prongs: significant, independent and reliable.

It is far better to have a short article with 3 impeccable sources than to bury 3 good sources in amongst dozens of crap links posing as sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And yes, Wikipedia has a systemic bias. If you can think of practical ways to increase encyclopedic coverage of content that is other than white-western-well off-male-geeky-current focused that can be applied uniformly, please share. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hold up

I got told off for not having enough sources

so I add a bunch of sources

and now those sources aren't enough?

The BBC, Newspapers and newspaper clippings are all over her website but they are images?

Sam Parsons 1981 (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As a clarification, you "got told off for not having enough APPROPRIATE sources". You added more sources that were not appropriate/useful/didnt meet Wikipedia's requirements.

No, her website is only useful for a very small range of content and not for establishing that she meets the requirements for a stand alone article. As a question, have you read any of the links in the responses? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hiya

There are loads of publications, some i've found on her website from DJ mag prints, from newspaper clippings and stuff but I can't link to her website can I?

Not everything is online and all the stuff I am linking online you are saying is not credible, well unfortunately music stuff is written on blogs what else can you do??

How is Moby Games not credible, the BBC is credible. Not only that but her music is played all over the BBC?

Sam Parsons 1981 (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey it's been approved!

Thanks for all your help!!

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Missrepresent

Sam Parsons 1981 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Formatting Articles to Accommodate Citations

Hello everyone, I'm trying to create a page for an architecture firm, and I'm having trouble properly displaying the notability. I don't think it's a question of if it's notable, because it's consistently ranked among the top architecture firms in the world. Its buildings get a lot of media attention from sources such as Forbes, The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, CNBC, etc.. However, most of the media attention is going only to their buildings, and not to the company. Outside of trade journals, people are generally more interested in a company's products than in the company itself. Because of this, it's hard to make many citations fit properly into the article. Would anyone have any suggestions on how I might be able to make source articles that are more about the company's buildings fit into a page for the company? Right now my only idea is to change my "Notable Projects" section from list-form to paragraph-form. That way, I'll be able to go into more detail about the projects. I'd like to know if you guys have any other suggestions, though.

Thanks, Hrboe (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Hrboe, and welcome to the Teahouse. I gather this is about Draft:BBGM. In future providing a link to an article or page under discussion saves the time of those who may want to respond. Expanding at least a few of the more significant projects to paragraph form might be a good way to go, although doing so for every building on the list might be excessive. Also a "Reception" section based on evaluations of their body of work in trade journals (as long as these are independent) might well help. The Awards and their cited sources should also help. You have added quite a bit since the last decline, and in my view this is near the point of acceptance even as it stands. DES ^(talk) 22:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hrboe, your issue makes sense and I think you have expressed it very well. I can't help thinking that there should be a guideline covering notability for situations like this, but I can't find one - can somebody more intimately familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines suggest one? BTW, while I was looking at your draft, I couldn't help myself and I filled in the missing URL for one of your references; I hope you don't mind.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The most relevant policy I can think of, Gronk Oz and Hrboe, is that notability is not inherited — in other words, in this case the architectural firm is not necessarily notable just because the architecture of some buildings the firm designed has been discussed in independent, reliable third-party sources. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 01:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

For creative professionals we have WP:NAUTHOR point 3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I don't think we have anything quite comparable for corporations or other orgs. Perhaps we should. When the architecture being discussed is what the firm does, detailed discussion of that work is at least arguably also discussion of the firm. This is an awkward situation I have seen before, both in regard to orgs and in regard to people, when there is clearly significant coverage of their actions but not themselves as such. We need to better deal with it. DES ^(talk) 01:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, everyone! And yeah, sorry I didn't put in the link to the page. I was considering it, but in the end opted against it. My bad. I'm glad to see that this is not an uncommon problem. I had looked over notability guidelines and had felt that cases like this seem to be in sort of a gray area. Hopefully we'll see some discussion on it in the near future. DES, I like your ideas about reception within the industry. I'll definitely be adding that. And thank you too, Gronk OZ. I didn't even know that source could be found online.

Best,

Hrboe (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that DES is right on point, in that the cited guideline explicitly mentions architects. Unlike a sculptor or poet, however, architects usually work in teams. For legal and financial reasons, those teams are organized as business units of some sort (corporations, LLCs, LLPs, etc.), and the work product is often a product of the entire team. Thus, if our guideline allows us to say that creative professionals who have notable works are ipso facto notable themselves, then companies that create such notable works are likewise notable under the same guideline. That said, it might be reasonable to tweak the guideline to reflect this more clearly, but I don't think such a tweak is required for the editor to make the claim under that guideline. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 22:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

How to warn

Say someone obviously vandalized a page by blanking it, then someone warned said user with a level 1 warning, but they did it again, is it ok to immediately escalate to a level 3 warning? - Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Andrei Marzan, and welcome to the Teahouse. (I moved your question from the bottom of the page; at the Teahouse, new questions go to the top.) I would say that under most circumstances, warnings should be given in sequence. However, if the same user has been warned for multiple kinds of misbehavior, and repeats one of them, it could be appropriate to jump from a level-1 to a level-3 warning, or a level-2 to a level-4. As with many things, it's a bit of a discretion call. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There are, in fact, versions of some warnings that are equivalent to a level 4 warning, and which need not be preceded by lower-level warnings for the same type of activity. I've sometimes given final warnings to users whose first edit was vandalism or another unhelpful edit that required oversight or revision deletion by an admin. It all comes down to determining what level of warning will protect the encyclopedia from the vandalism and other unhelpful edits. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

how do I change the picture of a celebrity? thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godson rao (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Godson rao. Pictures are sometimes a bit difficult, mostly because of copyright issues. The exact answer depends on what you mean:

If the picture you want to display is already in Wikimedia commons, then it is just a matter of editing the article to change the filename to the picture you want to use. (Like any other edit to an article, if somebody disagrees that this is an improvement they may revert your change: if you still want to make it, you should open a discussion with them on the article's talk page).
If the picture is not already in Wikimedia Commons or in Wikipedia, then you must first upload it. Unless all the conditions for using copyright images apply, then the picture must be released under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA (which allows reuse for any purpose, including commercial). If you own the copyright (which usually means that you have taken the picture yourself) you can license it as you upload it - use the Upload wizard. If you are in touch with the copyright owner, and they are willing to license it appropriately ("permission to use it on Wikipedia" is not enough) then they - not you - need to follow the procedure in donating copyright materials. Otherwise, the picture cannot be used in Wikipedia (unfortunately this applies to most of the pictures you can find on the internet).
If you want to make an alteration to the existing picture, you almost certainly need to download the picture, edit it outside Wikipedia, and upload it again. Provided the original picture was under a free licence, you are allowed to do this: the result is a derivative work, by you, but which needs to attribute the source. --ColinFine (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are primary sources a problem?

I got a message on an article I'm creating (Manse Jolly) that said "This article relies too much on references to primary sources." how is that a problem? Shouldn't articles be backed up with Prim. sources?

Thanks!

Mcampbell4394 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mcampbell4394, welcome to Wikipedia! Well, there's a couple reasons why Wikipedia avoids primary sources, where possible. Secondary sources, which could include as newspapers, magazines, or books, contain interpretation and analysis of primary sources. Wikipedia shouldn't analysis primary sources itself; we need someone else to do it for us. In addition, any Wikipedia article needs to show why the subject of the article is notable enough to be included. You do that by showing that sources other than the subject (that is, secondary, independent sources) have noticed the subject and written about them in depth. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I share your frustration, Mcampbell4394 - coming from a scientific background myself, I was accustomed to searching out the primary source as the most reliable. It took me some time to appreciate why Wikipedia takes a different approach, and largely it comes down to the their policy of "No original research". If I use a primary source who says they have found a cure for cancer, I would also need to examine how that research stacks up against the other research in the field, and come to a conclusion about how much confidence I have in that finding - that is all original research, and a reader has no way of knowing whether I did that competently or in a balanced way. If there is a reliable source who has done that analysis, and it has passed a rigorous editorial review to be published in a reliable secondary source, then even I have to admit there is merit to using that source. I still find this policy frustrating sometimes, I can also understand that the reasons are legitimate.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to chime in, primary sources are NOT FORBIDDEN, but their use is limited. The reason is that, by definition, primary sources contain only data and original information, but they do not themselves analyze that information for relevance, veracity, or provide any context for how the information fits into a greater understanding of the subject. You can use a primary source to basically support a quotation or faithful summary of the primary source, but not to explain, expand upon, provide relevance for, analyze, or put it into context against other information. By definition, secondary sources do that for us. If you want to say "X happened", then a primary source is OK. If you want to say "X happened because" or "Because X happened, Y also happened" or even "X happening is important or significant", then you need a secondary source which states that first. --Jayron 32 02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the general issues, the use of primary sources with regards to claims about living people is almost always going to create potential harm to the individual completely out of scale of anything of equal merit to our compiling of an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

New Author

Hello

I have signed up to wiki with the thought of creating a page to cover myself as an author and a creative company owner.

is this allowed, and if so, how do i go about it?

Capt.1989 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Capt.1989, unfortunately, you can't write a Wikipedia article about yourself; see the conflict of interest policy. If you do meet notability criteria, you can request that an article about you be created by somebody else at WP:Requested articles. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 14:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, White Arabian Filly it is not true that "you can't write a Wikipedia article about yourself". It is true that as per WP:AUTOBIO it is strongly discouraged. However, if a person creates a draft with the article wizard and goes though the articles for creation review process, many of the problems with autobiographical articles can be alleviated. I have stopped suggesting WP:Requested articles as the proportion that get created seems too small to matter, I think it is holding out false hope. But Capt.1989 should understand that unless he is in fact notable no article about him or her, by the subject or by anyone else, will last long. independent and reliable sources are needed that discuss the subject in some detail. S/he should read Wikipedia's golden rule. DES ^(talk) 17:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

while "can't" is semantically incorrect- there is no technical or policy prohibiting it- but based on every autobiography that i have ever seen, it is absolutely true that people can't write a Wikipedia article about themselves. An advert, a resume, sure. But a Wikipedia article ? Not ever even close. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but isn't this an example of survivorship bias? Surely there are at least some autobiographies on Wikipedia that are never flagged as conflicts-of-interest because they are decent, fairly neutral articles? The visible/detectable examples of autobiographies are, naturally, the most promotional in tone, but that doesn't mean all or even most are. Neutrality^talk 21:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello hello, Capt.1989! Welcome to the teahouse. While you cannot create articles about yourself, you can include a bit of information in your userspace (specifically, {{Special:MyPage|this page). I highly recommend you to read WP:! before creating one in your userspace. Frank (User Page) (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Licensing

Is CC-SA 1.0 and the license Wikipedia is using (by-sa?) compatible? (I want to license my user page under CC-SA 1.0). Also, can I make all edits (regardless of the editor) on my user / talk page license under it too? Frank (User Page) (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frank. All original text on Wikipedia is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0. You can license your contributions under an additional license, but you can't control the licensing of other users. —teb728 t c 00:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved Frank (User Page) (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Closed Frank (User Page) (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

How can I keep my name added to the list of potential 2016 U.S. Senatorial Candidates for California?

Hello,

I appreciate the feedback regarding the need for notability to be added to Wikipedia, while I know my name is not yet especially notable, my desire to potentially pursue a run for the U.S. Senate seat in California in 2016 is very legitimate. I can't officially declare my candidacy until I collect 10,000 signatures, which can only be obtained between January 1st and February 25th, 2016, but I am most definitely a potential candidate and would like my name to be listed as such on Wikipedia. Thanks! 12.7.116.130 (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Content in Wikipedia requires verification from reliable sources like newspapers, magazines, and books which is unrelated to the subject. Has your potential candidacy received such coverage? —teb728 t c 05:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi 12.7.16.130. In addition to what TEB728 posted above, it seems from your post and this edit that you might be "Karen Roseberry". If you are, then you should also be aware that creating an article about yourself as you are doing at Draft:Karen Roseberry is generally something that is strongly discouraged for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends. In addition, please try and understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and that Wikipedia articles are not owned by their creators, the editors who edit them, or the subjects they are about. So, it might be a good idea for you to carefully read Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences so that you better understand some of potential drawbacks of having a Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no news coverage whatsoever in reliable sources of a Senate campaign by Karen Roseberry. If reliable sources do not discuss the campaign, then Wikipedia certainly shouldn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, and what I'm going to mention below should be reviewed by any candidate's lawyer before being tried, but one way to generate some publicity for a potential run for any elected office, prior to being legally allowed to "declare" a candidacy, might be to publicly seek volunteers for the signature drive. A press release that says something to the effect of: So-and-so, a member of the (such-and-such) party, is looking for additional volunteers to help gather signatures... (etc.) If any newspapers run the release, that would help establish that the individual is a "potential candidate" for the office in question, and might be sufficient to list the person on a Wikipedia article or list where such potential candidates are identified. All conflict-of-interest (COI) rules on Wikipedia still apply, and other editors might not be willing to give any weight to such a mention based only on a press release (in other words, it still might not work). Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 21:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP Editor, and welcome to the teahouse. As mentioned by other users, you cannot create an article on yourself. However, you surely can get someone to write a article about you based on their opinion. You should also use a variety of trustworthy sources like aforementioned newspapers or books. Frank (User Page) (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand you're trying to help Imfrankliu, but I'm not sure if your giving good advice. The IP shouldn't actively go looking for someone to write a Wikipedia article about themselves because that is likely to also be seen as a conflict of interest. A stand-alone article should really only be written if the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources per WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN. If the subject is notable enough, then someone someday may write such an article, but the IP pretty much has to wait until that day comes. Moreover, the content of any such article should only reflect what those reliable sources say and not our opinions as editors per WP:NOR. Article content does not determine notability, so mentioning something within another Wikipedia article does not automatically mean it qualifies for its own stand-alone article; The notability guidelines, however, do not apply to article content per WP:NLISTITEM, so the IP needs to provide a reliable source which shows that Roseberry is indeed being viewed as a potential candidate as pointed out above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

incomplete name of ship - missing L' in title

I've just been amending the text of this article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/French_destroyer_Audacieux to include the L' before the ships name but how do I get the title page corrected? The information on the ships of this class is a complete mess with some sometimes having the L' or Le included and sometimes not.Lyndaship (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

To change the title of an article, you move it. (Please do not use external links to Wikipedia articles, but wikilinks.) It should probably just be moved to L'Audacieux without the "French destroyer". Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

there is a whole category of similarly named ships Category:Naval ships of France captured by Germany during World War II. But wouldnt they need the French equivalent of HMS Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) (Or is the equivalent French destroyer)? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Lyndaship:, there does seem to be a lack of consistency in the naming of French warships about whether to include Le, La or L'. I'd suggest raising the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. Nthep (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships from navies without ship prefixes "Some navies or nations don't use standard ship prefixes. Titles for articles about these ships have the form: <nationality> <type> <italicized name>". By this convention "French destroyer L'Audacieux" would be correct, I think. @Lyndaship, Robert McClenon, TheRedPenOfDoom, and Nthep: DES ^(talk) 18:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

But La, Le, L' are the French for 'The' and we prefer to not use the definitive article in article names. Nthep (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In general we prefer not to use the definite article in article names, but in some cases we do use it, see WP:THE. I believe that this is one of them. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We use "The" when it is actually part of the official title of the subject. See The Beatles, and more specifically L'Adroit. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the practice of the French navy may be, the US Navy has an official policy against the use of articles in or with ship names, with the single exception of USS The Sullivans where the article is part of the official name.

How can I find an available editor to help with updating an entry?

Hello,

I'm volunteering for the Committee on Sustainability Assessment (COSA) and have been asked to update and expand their Wikipedia page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Committee_on_Sustainability_Assessment. Based on review of the COSA Talk page, this is a project that was started several months ago by someone else, wikipedia user:COSAsb, who was working with another wikipedia editor who had no affiliation with COSA, CaroleHensen. I reached out to CaroleHensen in mid-October, but haven't received a response, so my bet is that she's unavailable. I also did not have the benefit of communication with COSAsb, so I'm not aware of any communication between COSAsb and CaroleHensen that is not reflected on their Talk pages. Another editor saw my post trying to connect with CaroleHensen on her Talk page and sent me the Conflict of Interest (COI) guidelines, so I understand that as a COSA volunteer, I have a COI for Wikipedia. Can you help point me in the right direction to find an editor unaffiliated with COSA to both review draft content and provide guidance on any appropriate procedures and etiquette? Many, many thanks in advance for any insight you can share. Thank you, K. Emanuele K.Emanuele (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, K.Emanuele. This is probably as good a place as any to ask for somebody. But something you can do in the meantime is that you are perfectly at liberty to suggest changes (preferably with references to indepedent reliable sources) on the article's talk page Talk:Committee on Sustainability Assessment. If you add the template {{edit request}} to your suggestion, it will put it on a list that some editors look at regularly, so somebody will in time notice your request and act on it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

K.Emanuele, you could also put a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment, which is the Talk page for the Wikipedia project for the environment (this article falls within the scope of that project).--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for such quick and specific responses. This is the exactly the type of information I was hoping for. K.Emanuele (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What are the rules?

It is my understanding that a reference cited must actually lead to a copy of the text cited. . It MUST be against the rules to required registration or purchase to view cited text. . I guess you are no longer the people's encyclopedia, but a shill for money making schemes. . I have lost all faith in your reliability and integrity. . pcGnome PcGnome (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @PcGnome:. The reference cited must provide enough information to correctly identify the source, but the source does not need to be available on line or for free. see WP:PAYWALL -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous proposal that we would not be able to use any of the major academic journals or historical archives of major news organizations as sources just because they are behind paywalls. And by utilizing them we are bringing the information that would normally be unavailable to much of the world to everyone for free. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Something seems quite broken here ...

moved from stand alone section to the previous discussion-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC) I clicked on the "edit" button for "What are the rules?" to continue my question and ... . The "edit" link goes somewhere else entirely. . In any case, I have decided that Wikipedia is of little practical use as the hurdles for participation are too great and recourse for non verifiable citations is non existent. . My suggestions are: . 1) don't allow quick deletion of edits without discussion or cause. . 2) create a "sister" entity where "new research" is transferred to pending valid citation. This way, all the contributed ideas of humankind will be extant rather than let it be destroyed on a whim. . 3) citing sources to gain commercial advantage needs to be discouraged. . . You cannot hold the view that sources need not be verifiable for free and still call yourself a "free encyclopedia". Free is free and commercial shilling is decidedly NOT that. . ... . Sorry, I probably should have just decided that your project is a failure and stop spending my time trying to participate. . pcGnome PcGnome (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

First, the way that edits are done at this Teahouse has quirks, partly self-inflicted because someone made the decision to top-post, and you may have run into one of those quirks. It isn't clear what you are saying was deleted without discussion or cause. I think that you are saying that your edits to this page were lost, but I am not sure. I think that you are spending more of your focus on your anger than on clarity, but I am not sure. It doesn't seem that you are complaining about speedy deletion of articles, which is a subject of some controversy. Second, if you would put restrictions on the deletion of edits, how would you check simple vandalism? Third, it does appear that you don't like Wikipedia. You are correct that you don't have to participate. It works better than other on-line encyclopedias. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@PcGnome: Your line of reasoning seems to be based on the premise that the most important thing is "all things free". At Wikipedia, however, the most important thing is "Encyclopedia". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Also relevant reading here is the linguistic issue of Gratis versus libre, i.e. free as in "free speech", or free as in "free beer". --Jayron 32 15:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)