Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 152

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Advice for a newbie

Hi all,

I'm new to Wikipedia and a little overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of pages and options available to me. I don't really know where to start, to be honest. Can anyone point me in the right direction? What sort of thing does a new Wikipedian do to begin her journey towards Wikipedia expertise?

Thank you! Stara729 (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stara729. Here are some of my thoughts. What are your hobbies, your intellectual interests and your passions? Especially the ones considered a bit obscure? Take a look at the books you own - not the best sellers, but those on niche subjects you know well. You are prepared to edit those topics. Now, read the Wikipedia articles on those topics, and click the links to read related articles. Identify the weaknesses, and set out to improve them, summarizing material from those books you own, and referencing your additions. A good starting point is correcting typographical errors and copy editing. Read Referencing for beginners, and I also like The Primer for new editors. Come back to the Teahouse as often as you want, and thanks for volunteering to help improve Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Or, if you're looking for something a bit less involved to start, the Community Portal has some good places to start, like links to articles that need improvement. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the advice - I'll check out your suggestions and come back with other questions if necessary! Stara729 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Stara729! If you have an area in which you have a particular interest, you may want to visit or join a Wikiproject about it. Wikiprojects often have to-do lists and they all have talk pages which discuss new articles, recent changes, etc., on that topic. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

I created an article about Augustus Constantine, but I left his last name uncapitalized. How do I fix that? If I try to type in his name with the proper capitalization, it automatically redirects me to the article with the wrong capitalization. That prevents me from creating a new article with the right capitals and then just redirecting traffic to it.ProfReader (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, ProfReader. You change the title of an article by moving it, using the 'Move' button (which on the skin I use is hidden unde the down arrow to the right of "View History" - I'm not sure if it is in the same place in all skins). I have moved it for you. By the way, the article is well-referenced, but generally most of an article should be prose rather than a list. I recommend you find more information about him and add it to the article, and reduce the list of works to the most important ones: I would say no more than about ten. Yes check.svg Done --ColinFine (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

New entry

Hi there...I am trying to add an entry about my athletics club in Melbourne, Australia...we have had a long history and have had some famous Australian athletes compete for our club...we are looking to put alot of our history and successes in one spot for people to see...I have started a page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coburg Harriers.

Would be happy to take suggestions and advice to improve the page and suggestions for the future...thanks

Frosty67 (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Frosty. I've taken the liberty of turning your naming the page into a clickable link (by putting double square brackets round it: [[...]]). I'm sorry, but as the review says, the article does not establish notability. You have four references, but one is the group's own web site, and the other three are no more than listings. They establish that the group exists, but not that it is notable. You need to find places where reliable sources have written at length about the club. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

May I ask then how we are any different to the entry for Birchfield Harriers from the UK???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frosty67 (talkcontribs) 09:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You see, that is not a relevant question to your article, but as you asked, that article looks to be properly referenced. Of course, if you disagree, you can always submit it for Proposed Deletion or if that fails and you still disagree, then at Articles for Deletion. Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). -- Alexf(talk) 12:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

martial law

I want to ask that on which country was martial law first impelled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.53.222.120 (talkcontribs)

Hello. This is a page for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. For factual questions such as this, please ask at the Wikipedia Reference Desk where Wikipedia volunteers work like virtual librarians to help you find the information you need. --LukeSurl t c 11:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Features of a good fixatives

Characteristics of a good fixatives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.217.203.190 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. As LukeSurl replied to the question immediately above yours, "This is a page for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. For factual questions such as this, please ask at the Wikipedia Reference Desk where Wikipedia volunteers work like virtual librarians to help you find the information you need." Alternatively, you might go to the page fixative and then choose the link which corresponds to which meaning of the word you are asking about, and read that article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

New article

I think it would be a good idea if you can create a page about being bossed around. I know it's not the brightest idea. But I want to know the origin, definition, and suggestions on words that mean the same thing. I can't find it anywhere else, so I thought you can make it! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.47.83 (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! Bullying and/or Workplace bullying might have some of what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you downlaod an SVG file?

I do not know where else to ask, but I would like to download an SVG file onto my computer. Whenever I try to download the file, it downloads as a PNG. Here is the file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blank_map_of_Europe.svg MJVEDLMA (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Good question! In this case, [1]. in the bar just above the file, there is a tiny link "download" which links there at "file location". Asking questions here is always a good place :) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for you response. The download link only downloads the PNG files though. At least for me.

MJVEDLMA (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that the download link did bring me to the SVG file like you said, if I click on "Full Resolution" as opposed to the other sizes, but I see no way to save that SVG file onto my computer. What do I do? Do I need special software? I do have Inkscape on my computer, which is the program that was used to create the file.

MJVEDLMA (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I had to use another browser to download the file.

MJVEDLMA (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to know how to save a file in your browser then say which browser it is. You can usually right-click an image and choose save. Many browser versions still in use do not support svg files. Our software gets around this by automatically converting svg files to png files when they are displayed in articles and on file pages. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blank_map_of_Europe.svg displays a png version. Click it to get to the original svg file https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Blank_map_of_Europe.svg. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

xLinkBot , an anti-SPAM / anti-COPYVIO / anti-WP:RS bot, has been down for two weeks

The programmer of the bot is on wiki-break, and although I left a note about the problem on the bot-owner's page (different from the programmer but not that involved with maintenance of this particular bot maybe), nobody has turned it back on. Typically, it reverts about 100 external links per day, so wikipedia has well over 1000 spam-links or otherwise inappropriate links in it since October 10th when the bot went out of commission. What noticeboard should I complain to, that will be able to get the bot turned back on? Thanks. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome! Try Requests for administrator attention for spam and copyvio reporting, the bot is probably temporarily turned off just for now. ///EuroCarGT 03:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
From what I can grok, it is still turned on -- the setting says revert_on=1 , and nobody has edited the settings recently.[2] Are you sure we should just assume the bot is supposed to be off, i.e. down for maintenance or whatever? It got turned off just when the programmer went on wikibreak, perhaps by accident when they were turning off their notifications and watchlists and such to avoid a pile-up of old news when they returned. I would have thunk, if the bot was turned off purposely, somebody would put a message on the bot's talkpage to that effect. "Out to lunch" or equivalent. Is there a special page that says what bots are on/enabled/active, and what bots are off/disabled/testing? Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to follow the suggestion to move the CP-6 article into the UTS page. I got a few sections moved, but somehow I have managed to delete most of the originalCP-6 article. Is there some way to retrieve it from history files or other backups? I am sorry to be so fumble fingered,

GEdwardBryan (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

When you have multiple references to the same reference in the reference list, how do you make intext footnotes with the same number? I have been using the following format. Intext: [1]. Then when I want to use the same referene again [2] In reference list:

  1. ^ blah blah
  2. ^ blah blah

Raldenwebeck (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The process is described at WP:REFB#Same reference used more than once. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured it all out in the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raldenwebeck (talkcontribs) 04:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How do I give a reference when I am editing an existing article?86.158.232.238 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How do I insert a reference when I an editing an existing article?86.158.232.238 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse 86.158.... The easiest way to create an inline citation is with a footnote. You can create a footnote with Wiki markup, by adding ref tags around your source, like this:
<ref>Your Source</ref>

Manually adding references can be a slow and tricky process. Fortunately, there is a tool called "RefToolbar" built into the Wikipedia edit window, which makes it much easier - just view the tutorial below

This screencast walks through how to use the various features of RefTools.

-- hope this helps -- Moxy (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Article creation question

I am a volunteer at the Jennifer Diamond Cancer Foundation, a nonprofit cancer support center, which has been recognized by local media. I have created an article for the foundation in my sandbox. I know I can't post it myself due to conflict of interest, but I'd like to know if, 1. the foundation meets Wikipedia standards to have an article and 2. it's a suitable draft for anyone else to submit. Thanks. Jenniferv240 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse Jenniferv240. To nominate an existing draft or user sandbox for review at WP:Articles for Creation, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or sandbox page. To see more about this and others ways to make an article live see Wikipedia:Article wizard. -- hope this helps if not please come back here. --Moxy (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I think what Moxy is trying to say, is that WP:COI does not prevent you from nominating the article for creation. It *does* prevent you from pushing for creation, and in particular, from logging in under a bunch of usernames, and voting in favor of creation, once the article in nominated -- but it sounds like you already know all that stuff, congratulations! (Wikipedia sometimes seems to have five bazillion policy pages.) As for the sources, *sometimes* local media is enough, but especially when there is a possibility of WP:COI or WP:SPIP, it may not be. Local itself is not problematic... as long as the topic is not *trivial* coverage, see WP:TRIVIALNEWS. There is probably a note in the local paper, that they city council meets at the rec-building of some local church, in some town. The church building is *not* therefore notable, because the coverage is trivial, and because pretty much every town has a church, and pretty much every city council meeting happens in some community building, and so on. Whether your foundation is Notable or not, depends on whether your multiple independent reliable sources give you non-trivial coverage. It is a fine line. It will help if you have been covered for multiple years, or in multiple states. It will help a lot if you've gathered millions and millions of dollars in donations, of course. Anyways, I'll visit your talkpage with more specific comments, but that's my handy-dandy overview.  :-) Thanks for helping to improve wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate Page Titles

I know that wiki pages cannot have the same name, but do you have any suggestions on a page that I authored...

I created ENVIRON, the Company name is always used in all caps ENVIRON, and since I created the page title that way (my only option), the only way to find the page is to type it in with all caps. If you type it with any other combination then you get this page Environ which is a page that was created in 2007, has no sourcing, no citations, almost no copy and hasn't been edited since.

What happens in circumstances of companies having the same name when it comes to searchability and locating the correct page? Any suggestions on what I can do to help users locate the page since most don't type in uppercase? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!

Caswivel (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a link to ENVIRON from Environ (disambiguation), but I think you ought to read Wikipedia:Disambiguation. At the very least there should be hatnotes at the top of the two articles, but probably the titles should be changed, and maybe the disambiguation page should be moved to Environ? - David Biddulph (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
In this case you create what's called a disambiguation page. It is essentially like you typing a word into Wikipedia and Wikipedia saying "oh sorry, can you be a tad more specific? here's a list of articles that include the word you typed in. which one did you mean to look up?". This should heklp you out: Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts, while this is the official Wikipedia page about disambiguation pages: Wikipedia:Disambiguation. This is more complicated example of the sort of page it will look like once its completed: Diamond (disambiguation). Hope this helps. :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Caswivel. I agree that the record label shows no evidence of notability. I have proposed deletion which means that if no-one objects, the article will be deleted in 7 days. In general, I think the disambiguation page would be the best destination for anyone who types in "environ" as it's use as an abbreviation for "environment" is the most common use of the word. --LukeSurl t c 16:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
After a bit of thought, I've moved things around so Environ (disambiguation) is what users will hit if they type in "environ". --LukeSurl t c 16:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the clarifications on the disambiguation page, adding hatnotes, etc. I greatly appreciate everyone's comments...especially as I continue to read other articles and assist in the editing process, becoming more familiar with the wiki procedures makes it easier to understand why things happen a certain way. Thank you again.

Caswivel (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Correcting the Display Title

I have created a page but the display title needs one of the characters changed from lower case to upper case - how do I do that? Davenutts (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The move instruction is accessed via the down arrow button to the right of the watch (star) button at the top of the page, but it may not be available to you yet as you are not autoconfirmed, so I have moved the page for you. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Uploading photos

Hi,

I would like to upload photos to my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tameletjie

What's the easiest & fastest way to do this? My photos are self-taken (not copyrighted), related directly to the article in question.

Thanks. Duncan GROUP 2 TEAM TIGER (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Duncan. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!
In order for us to use your photos, please upload them to Wikimedia commons, via the Upload Wizard. This will mean that all Wikimedia projects can use your images, including Wikipedia's in other languages. When following that process, you will be asked to declare a free license for the work. Please be aware this will relinquish your commercial rights to the images.
Once the image is on commons, you can easily use it in an article. Instructions on this can be found at Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Commons. Please feel free to ask more questions here as well if anything is unclear. Happy editing!
--LukeSurl t c 11:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have uploaded pics and included them in my article, although I didn't know the descriptions would be included. How can I edit them after they have been uploaded to Wikimedia?GROUP 2 TEAM TIGER (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
In the article you have used (twice) the link: [[File:Tameletjie4.JPG|thumb|A tameletjie is a homemade sweet and features predominately within the Afrikaans and Malay cultures of South Africa. The sweet is made from sugar and water and boiled until caramelized and then rested to cool to form a hard sweet. There are many variations to the sweet attained by adding almonds, pine nuts or coconut to the recipe. Tameletjie is sometimes made by dads for their children on special occasions.]]. The part after the final pipe (|) symbol is the caption for the photo, and you can shorten that as much as you like, so could use just [[File:Tameletjie4.JPG|thumb|Tameletjie]]. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, although I did intend on using two pics, there are 4 of them, all slightly different from the other. GROUP 2 TEAM TIGER (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
If you want to shorten the description in the image file in Commons, go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tameletjie4.JPG, and click on the [edit] link against the Summary section heading. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GROUP 2 TEAM TIGER (talkcontribs) 13:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Why were the pictures deleted?

I am helping the Wikipedia:Student assignment of Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013), which in 2012 was at User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro. Chemoreceptor trigger zone was an article from 2012 but I see the pictures have since been deleted. Why were they deleted? (FWIW, please reply here but I plan to copy and paste replies here to Education Program talk:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013) for future reference.) Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The red picture links at the article only lead one to the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, which doesn't link to any deletion discussion or deletion rationale, if any exist for people to learn from. I want to help the classroom know what to do correctly, so their contributions improve Wikipedia, per WP:ASSIGN. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Biosthmors. The reason for the red links is because the files existed at Wikimedia Commons, rather than on Wikipedia itself.
These files were deleted from the Wikimedia Commons because they were lacking the necessary information to show that they were free content. jZadksz,afosfnadog&type=delete&user=&page=File%3AChemotherapy_induced_nausea_vomiting.jpeg&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= For copyright reasons, Wikipedia can only normally use images which are under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License (or a more liberal license). When someone uploads an image, commons has a robust procedure to make sure copyright is all OK. It seems for these images this procedure was not followed, resulting in doubt over the images' copyright status. For legal reasons, Wikimedia is very cautious about copyright violations, so where there is doubt images are deleted.
If you would like to re-upload these images, please go through commons:Special:UploadWizard, which has an easy-to-follow guide for making sure our copyright duties are upheld. --LukeSurl t c 10:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks LukeSurl. I don't have a copy of the student's work from 2012 (as I'm just a Wikipedia Ambassador to the class). I wonder about this now: why do those links not take one to commons, such as the link you provided: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=File%3AChemotherapy_induced_nausea_vomiting.jpeg&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= so one can automatically see the deletion rationale there? Might that be something we could change? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

difference between subpages and sandbox

I wrote an article in my sandbox. I read that the sandbox is only for practising how to write an article. I actually want to submit the article when i perfected it. I tried to move the article but when i click "move" it does not tell me where it will be moved. Can I submit an article straight from the sandbox? Or do I need to move the Article first? What is the difference between Subpages and the Sandbox? Thanks for your help! Nelelemke (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Nelelemke. No, it's fine to develop an article in your sandbox, as you have done. You may have many subpages, and when you use one of them to develop an article, or to try out somethig, we refer to it as a sandbox. Normally when you think a draft article is ready you would may move it to mainspace: in this case you would move it to Taekwondo. However, we already have an article on taekwondo (follow the link in the previous sentence), so I'm not sure why you are trying to write a separate article.
Your draft article has two big problems that would prevent its being accepted as an article in its current form: 1) it contains promotional language: "one of the most systematic and scientific" is promotional, even though it is not for a particular product. Wikipedia articles should not contain any evaluative language, unless that is directly from a referenced source. 2) Even more important, it contains no references whatever. An article which contains no references does not establish that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's special sense, and so is liable to be deleted.
I would suggest that instead of trying to write a new article on an existing subject, you work to improve the existing article Taekwondo; or choose a different subject and use the Articles for creation process. --ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the teahouse Nelelemke. I just wanted to add a bit more to answer your question "what is the difference between Subpages and the Sandbox? " because it's one that took me a while to figure out as well. To sum it up there isn't much of a difference. Your sandbox page is just one of possibly many User Pages. This article wp:User pages will explain all about user pages. Essentially, the sandbox page is just a user page that is there by default for you and that the UI is set up so that it is easy for you to get there quickly. But as the article describes you can set up other user pages if you want to and even have them linked to each other, to Wkipedia articles, etc. RedDog (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, is it against the rules to keep this in an article?

Hello,

On the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page, I wrote a paragraph that began with this sentence:

In August 2013, the Kitt Twins received particularly significant worldwide media attention, with their work being featured on several television channels, including American local stations WGN-TV and WKRC-TV, located in Chicago, Illinois, and Cincinnati, Ohio, respectively, in addition to Spain's nationwide Antena 3, as well as Russia's country-wide stations Channel One and NTV.

However, another editor wiped out the TV channel references. Was that necessary? I provided solid sources, in my opinion (the websites of the TV channels, showing the TV features), and I believe this information is notable. Here are the two Russian features, to better illustrate the situation:

http://www.1tv.ru/news/other/239169

http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/641058

Both the visual and written features are brief, but must they be wiped out? Not every "non-famous" musician or band is broadcast in some way all across the Russian Federation, among other places.

Many thanks in advance for your help and for your time... Dontreader (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Dontreader, I've added this suggestion to the list on the article talk page. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello and welcome to the Teahouse both Dontreader and Lesser Cartographies of whom I've seen neither here before. I've gone through the list of requests on Talk:Camille and Kennerly Kitt and made my suggestions. The specific things mentioned on this page seem fine to me as verified with primary sources in an article otherwise evidenced as notable with independent reliable sources. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Technical 13, for your help! I had completely lost hope that I would get a reply to my question! Thanks for your explanations regarding the sources and notability. I myself expect to be on Russian TV soon... NOT! ;) Have a good night. Dontreader (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. And I forgot to say that I appreciate very much your input, Technical 13, on the Camille and Kennerly Kitt talk page! Again, good night... Dontreader (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"Closing" Talk page consensus discussions?

Is it appropriate to sometimes "close" a Talk page discussion (archive a section by putting a header box of some kind around it?)? I'm thinking that this can, in some cases, tie a ribbon around the discussion, and encourage conversation about article improvement beyond the narrow scope of a topic to go on in a new section on the Talk page.

The specific situation I'm thinking of where a proposal has occurred, and after some days of discussion, with weigh-in by several editors, no consensus has been reached. It seems I've seen this done before, but cannot find a guideline or essay on it, nor find the wikicode to do it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You might like to gain consensus first, and then where a decision has been reached, hat it to signify this. If you attempt to artificially gag discussion on a contentious issue, you will most likely meet resistance from other editors, notably those holding views contrary to your own. --Pete (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
To whomever in the Teahouse might help me with my query, let me offer a bit more info since the comment by Skyring/Pete may create some confusion.
  1. My question above, was asked in good faith, and I would very much like an answer in good faith as well. I think I might have even done it once or twice, but that was thousands of edits ago, and I do not recall how to do it as of now, or what policy/guidelines exist for how/when it might be appropriate.
  2. I am genuinely interested in the answer to that question as a general matter, for many occasions on which it might be useful in future discussions on many different Talk pages where consensus either is, or is not, reached after a reasonable period of time. But, yes, as Skyring/Pete implies, there is also a current situation that led me to ask the question today. More on that below.
  3. The specific Talk page section where I think this may apply now, and may be appropriate now, is Talk:Lynx_(spacecraft)#BRD:_.22concept.22_or_.22spaceplane.22_in_the_lede_sentence. However, given that Skyring/Pete has taken the position he has (if you can call it that) in his comment above, I will specifically (now) not make any attempt to close off that particular discussion, even though I believe it to be incontrovertibly the end of a valid discussion, in which both Skyring/Pete and I were involved, and in which not a single editor of the several who joined the discussion supported the Skyring/Pete position.
  4. Should another uninvolved editor choose to do whatever might be an appropriate closing process on that particular discussion, should you deem that the situation warrants closing, I would very much appreciate it. But if not, Wikipedia will be fine if that section continues on into other discussion topics, and remains either confusing or messy for weeks to come.
  5. Full disclosure. To my knowledge, I've never run into Skyring/Pete before our current bout of drama on the Lynx (spacecraft) article Talk page over the past week or two. In the past week, however, editing has been rather seriously disrupted on that article by the actions of Skyring/Pete. He has gone WP:FORUMSHOPPING on two different noticeboards, and nominated the article for deletion. To date, I'm unaware of a single editor who has supported any of his substantive positions, and the AfD was a unanimous keep with some half dozen or so uninvolved editors weighing in. Take this background on the comment made by Skyring/Pete with whatever grain of salt you think appropriate, since I am an involved party. But I did feel that, now that Skying/Pete has come over here, I needed to disclose the messy background.
Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@N2e: Hey N2e. It is certainly appropriate in certain situations. But for article talk pages, discussion is normally left untrammeled and allowed to peter out. Where you usually see this is to quell a shouting match or to stop discussion entirely unrelated to improvement of the article (like "fan chat"). A discussion should almost never be closed by a person involved in it. See generally Wikipedia:Closing discussions. For mechanics of closure, see {{hidden archive top}}/{{hidden archive bottom}} (mostly people use their redirects at {{hat}} and {{hab}}); {{collapse top}}/{{collapse bottom}} ({{redirects {{cot}} and {{cob}}); {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}} (redirects {{atop}} and {{abot}}); {{discussion top}}/{{discussion bottom}} ({{dtop}} and {{dbot}}) and {{polltop}}/{{pollbottom}}. There are even more expressly directed at specific pages and processes, such as {{RM top}}/{{RM bottom}} just for closing requested moves discussions. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit! That is exactly the information I was looking for. Will allow me to both know how to do it in the future, as well as have the guidelines on process for keeping the whole thing as clean and civil as possible. I appreciate your help. N2e (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the creation of articles

Sorry to bother you yet again, but I was wondering what the best way to go about creating an article is. I have already created a few articles, and in those cases I would work on them at my sandbox, then copy them over to the article space. For this one, however, I apparently created a page specifically for the article's development; after which I submitted it for review. I was then informed "This may take over 3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 1320 submissions waiting for review." which seemed a little long (maybe I'm just hasty) compared to the length of time it took me move the articles I previously created from my sandbox to the article space. Is it worth going through the reviewing process? I suppose it may further trouble reviewers if one bypasses the process, because all new articles need to be reviewed whether or not they are submitted, though bypassing it certainly seems easier. Does it matter how one does it? As the Crow Flies (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi As the Crow Flies. Awesome work 'chickening out', thank you for that. The short answer is to feel free to move the page just in to mainspace. The Articles for Creation process has a couple of aims. One is that it provides a slightly saver environment for new users to try and create an article, without it getting deleted too quickly for not following best practices, and get some feedback on what they are doing. The process is completely optional, and you don't have to follow the procedure. I quickly (very quickly) looked over your contributions, and they easily meet the criteria for articles for creation, so I don't think a review there would offer you much. I'd advice to either keep following the procedure you're following now, creating in userspace and moving when done, or create straight in to mainspace if you're comfortable with that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response! Since I have already submitted the Modern Langshan article for review, I think it's better if I leave it there. In the future, unless I doubt the topic's notability, I'll probably move articles I create straight to the mainspace. Thanks again! As the Crow Flies (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Guidence for submitting Wiki article

I have submitted, maybe a bit prematurely, an article for submission called barbecueology. The study of the different definitions of the word 'barbecue', there are currently about 16.

It was rejected due to neologoism (misspelled-sorry). So, is the next step to request it to be included into another article? Or do I develop it further?

I am convinced that the numerous of studies of a various bodies of knowledge and the detailed accounts of the different uses of the word 'barbecue' warrant a separate entry.Reillyranch (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Reillyranch. Every Wikipedia article must be based on material which has already been published in reliable sources (such as major newspapers, books from reputable publishers). While the word "barbecueology" gets some hits on Google, they all seem to be chatty websites, where people are using it as a joke or a nonce-word. Unless I am wrong and it has been written about there may not be a Wikipedia article on it. If there is indeed published material on studies of different kinds of barbecue, it would seem that information about them would belong in the article Barbecue, and you are welcome to add it, with citations of reliable sources. But take care that Wikipedia does not allow Original research; so while you can say that Dr. X observed that in Colombia a barbecue has this characteristic (with a reference to Dr. X's book) and that Dr. Y said it has this other characteristic, you may not put any argumentation or conclusion which is not in a published source.
I'm not sure whether I've managed to answer your question. Please ask again if not. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I just make sure I understand what Wikipedia articles are about. For example, if Dr. X did discover something new (a drug, a dinosaur, or whatever) they would not submit an article here until their findings were published somewhere else first. Then they could submit an article here, referencing their article published elsewhere, providing that the other publication was a creditable source. In other words, no new information is available on Wikipedia, all information can be sourced elsewhere.

That being said, if the word 'barbecueology' is referenced in a national magazine, major newspaper or best selling book then it could be reviewed again for submission. Any additional information would greatly appreciated, thank you.Reillyranch (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You got it exactly right. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, nearly right. First, Dr. X would be strongly discouraged from writing a Wikipedia article themselves, because they would have a conflict of interest which might make it difficult for them to write neutrally. Secondly, in both cases, a single mention in a reliable source is probably not enough to establish notability: we usually call for multiple references. And a passing reference is not enough: there would need to be at least one, and preferably at least two, articles that discussed barbecueology in some depth. --ColinFine (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How to rectify tags on articles

Hey all. Right, sorry if I've not got the terminology on this correct, I'm new, bare with me and all.

So, right, the big reason I wanted to get involved in wiki is because I stumbled across the page for one of my fave tabletop RPG games, Wraith: The Oblivion and found that the page was pretty much a mess, with two big exclamation mark notices on it signifying work that was needed.

I put a few days work into fixing the page up, removing the in-universe phrasing and giving it a more 'out-of-character' tone, and presenting it all in a more critical, analytical manner to cut down on the 'advertisment' feel to it. In general I'm real happy with the result, but it's not a high-traffic page so hasn't had many people help out in years.

For that reason, the two exclamation mark tags remain, as nobody has come along to re-examine the page. How would I go about arranging for this to happen? I'd really like the article to get a green light, because it's a damn good game and should have a good wiki article to support it. I don't want to just delete them, because that's hardly impartial at all. Any ideas?

Many thanks. Justin.Parallax (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Justin! The article already has "the green light", as you put it, and the exclamation points just mean that it would be better to change that, but it will not be deleted. If you feel like you fixed the problems, feel free to remove them yourself; it's what being bold is all about. Of course, someone else could be bold and re-add them, but that's what Wikipedia is really about. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Trusting Wikipedia

Heading inserted by ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC): I think this is a new question, separate from the one before
ok um guys im new hereso bare with me . i donnt no if i should ttrust wkapedia or not. if i can plz send proof bcz i USED to trust this site alot.


RoseAnn Blacksotne__________________________________________

173.15.239.225 (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello RoseAnn. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but I'll try to answer. Are you talking about trusting that the information in Wikipedia is correct, or about something else?
It is true that, because Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it may contain mistakes, and sometimes even deliberate errors or nonsense (we call these vandalism). So in one sense, you cannot trust the contents of Wikipedia; but people do, all the time. This is because there are so many people working to improve Wikipedia that most of it, most of the time, is correct. But you cannot be sure whether or not the bit you're currently looking at is right.
The approach that Wikipedia takes is to ask that all information in all articles (unless it's common knowledge, like "the sky is blue") is referenced to some reliable source. In practice, there are many articles which are not to this standard, which is a pity. But where an article is referenced, you should be able to follow the citations and find somewhere that the information came from - and it should be from a reliable source, such as a major newspaper, or a publisher with a reputation. It might or might not be on-line, but you should be able to get hold of it through a public or academic library.
I'm not sure what you mean by "please send proof" - what are you wanting proving? If the article you are doubtful about has references, you can follow these. If not, there's not a lot you can do except 1) search for information yourself, or 2) look at the article's history and find a Wikipedia user who has made a major contribution to the article, and ask that user on their talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a really great answer to a fairly vague question. Top stuff! Melbourne3163 (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
See also Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Proof of Authorisation

Hey there!

Now I have been working on this wiki for quite sometime now and I've contacted the developer of this game I'm making a wiki article on. And I asked him if I could use his logo of the game He said yes and would happy to help me Now, If I upload this on commons then it will get deleted right? what should I do how do other people get logos and what license do they use?

One more thing like I said the game what I working on is a really good game and there are many people playing the game, Now when I published it, It soon got a Speedy deletion warning! Please help me! The games really good and it is viral among some people and im really sure that people will search for a article on the game (I did) (and I will be citing it and working on it), Please comment on the speedy deletion or remove it if you'll can

Thank you in advance,

15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdcdigital (talkcontribs)

Hi Gdcdigital, thanks for looking to contribute an image! The first important thing to realise is that Wikipedia is a free project. That doesn't just mean for free to access, but also free to reuse, remix, sell for money, print in a book, just do whatever you want with it, as long as you say where it came from: that's what wikipedia is all about, and is explicitly allowed in our license. This also goes for our images. It is possible that the creator of the video game will allow this, and that would be really nice, but it's also quite possible they are not willing to release an image under that license. So let's start out with the happy case where everything is perfect: the creator of the video game is willing to release an image under that license. If that's the case, the can sent in this release form; there are instructions on that page on how to use it. If the creator is not willing to it, we do allow some images that don't comply with our license, but we have a set of quite strict rules that dictate when exceptions are allowed. In this case, it looks like they might be met. In that case, Commons will not accept it (they will only accept free images), but you can upload it though the upload form on Wikipedia itself. If you are going that route, you will have to choose that you are using the image under fair use, and follow the steps of the wizard closely. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

How to provide proof of Authorization to work on the Copyright Holder's behalf

Awdhesh15 (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Awdhesh, you can't really work on behalf of someone else, you are always editing as yourself. If someone wants to donate copyrighted materials, you can point them to this guide. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oldest pages needing copyediting

Hello once again, I like to hang out here, [3] and do what I can, when I can to shorten the list. I know it is not usual to write on the talk page of a list page. However, I am wondering whether it would be ok and maybe useful if I could put a very brief note to myself and others who come along on the talk page to remind me if I looked at a page and thought it was impossible to copy edit or needs someone else to look and so on. and thanks once again, Myrtle the unsure. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Myrtle, and thanks for helping out with copyediting! I like to say nothing is impossible to copyedit, so leaving a note might not be very useful to others. If you want to keep a list for yourself, the best place is probably a page in your own userspace. You could for example use User:Myrtlegroggins/copyedit notes. If you click that and start editing it, it automatically creates the page. You can also get a lot of help at the WikiProject called the Guild of Copy Editors. They will gladly provide you with feedback and assistance. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks, Martijn. That is a great idea. I'll use it. Regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Does a Wikipedia rule say that this is biased editing, please?

Hello!

I sometimes contribute to an article that someone accused of looking like a press release, so yesterday I decided to make the following edit:

Huffington Post arts reporter Mallika Rao praised their Game of Thrones duet electric harp video, stating: “Yes, there have been other attempts to cover Ramin Djawadi's haunting tune before, but this one is now the only one.”

My controversial edit is specifically the word "praised", which was reverted because it was considered non-neutral (or biased). But honestly, isn't Mallika Rao praising the video? I think that's an objective way of putting it. What if she had said, "This is the best video I have ever beheld, and it brings immense joy to my heart." Would it still be wrong to write that she "praised" the video, even if it's obvious? Does a Wikipedia rule ban such words like "praised" for such situations, forcing the editor to use neutral words such as "wrote", "expressed", "said", etc.?

Many thanks in advance! Dontreader (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For more background info, the quote was cherry picked from here and used in Camille and Kennerly Kitt. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Dontreader. The neutral wording is in general preferred, but there are times when a stronger word may be appropriate. I don't think this is one of them. Looking from a neutral point of view, it's important to read the whole source carefully and not take information out of context. For example, the same article calls the rendition "odd" and "sensual". My reading of the review is that the author thought that this was the most memorable rendition of the tune because it was an unusual treatment of the subject. When it's not clear, it's better to err on the side of caution. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks, Anne Delong, for your very clear explanation. I see why I made a mistake this time, but as you said, it's always better to err on the side of caution. I just regret that I'm being stalked by duffbeerforme even at the Teahouse, which is supposed to be a pleasant place. Please take note, Bgwhite and Lesser Cartographies (especially Lesser Cartographies, who recommended this place to me). Dontreader (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, aside from the word "cherrypicked", the rest of duffbeerforme's post was actually helpful because you forgot to identify the article that you were talking about, and he saved me from having to go looking for it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Anne Delong, thanks again for your kindness and for taking the time to examine both the Wikipedia article and the Huffington Post article, and for the very good explanation that has helped me understand this issue clearly; however, I did not include the Wikipedia article myself because it was a generic question. I simply wanted to know if "praised" and other non-neutral words were allowed or not while editing Wikipedia pages if the statement that is being quoted clearly justifies a non-neutral word outside of Wikipedia (assuming that the context is taken into account properly). When I visited a reliable sources board with a question because duffbeerforme had reverted one of my edits, he jumped in to answer my question, posing as an impartial editor, which caused Lesser Cartographies to scold him. I could say more, but I want to respect the friendly atmosphere of this place. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello @Dontreader:. I think the answer to your question about 'praised' is, like many questions about Wikipedia, "It depends". Certainly it could be editorialising, and perhaps usually would be; but there may be cases where the consensus would allow it. I think that is why people are reluctant to answer general questions, and usually prefer to discuss specifics. If you look through the archives of this page and the Help desk, I believe you'll find that where the questioner doesn't specify an article, they very often get asked for the specific article, as you were. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, ColinFine. I see your point. I will certainly provide specific examples in the future. Thanks again for your reply. Dontreader (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For Actor Role lists

Is there any kind of preferred way of listing an actor's roles? Are lists or tables better in these situations? KatCheez 14:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

How to indicate that a bio is poorly referenced self-promotion

Where can I find some sort of template for 'Concerned About the Whole Article' on grounds of poorly refed to non-existent / irrelevant / self-promotional links?

Details: Some IP has PRODed Van Badham on grounds of notability. I don't think the PROD is fair, despite that the article is very poorly refed, mainly by press interviews with the subject and dead links, and the whole article seems to be mainly self-promotion (and my POV is that VB is of little merit). What I want to do as soon as I delete the PROD is stick up a 'Concerned About the Whole Article' template.

BenevolentUncle (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. The tags you're looking for are probably something along the lines of {{BLP sources}} and {{POV}}, which will add notifications of needing more sources for a Biography of a Living Person, and that the article may not be written neutrally. You may also want to post on the talk page of the article and user who PRODed the page explaining that the article can be improved. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse BenevolentUncle! If the article has been PRODed, and you don't think that is reasonable as there is some non-promotional reasonable material there, you may wish to take down the PROD and send the article to AfD (Articles for Discussion) and let it be discussed as to whether or not it is appropriate content for an encyclopedia article. Most often though, if it is just promotional advertisement, it really is best to just tag it as {{Db-g12}} and let it be deleted. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Featured Images

Hello again, I recently visited the Australasian Grebe article, as today's featured image is from there. Needless to say I was surprised to find that the image was not there, in fact it had been absent for about twenty hours due to a surge of vandalism. Shouldn't featured images receive protection to prevent something like this? As the Crow Flies (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello As the Crow Flies. Welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism is something many articles suffer and we do attempt to keep up with it and have many editors dedicated to fighting it. But to protect the image would mean locking the article for the image alone and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, an encyclopedia anyone can edit.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting info due to vested interest. How to prevent it?

Someone keeps deleting info on UIDAI article due to vested interest. How to prevent it? I have provided multiple Citations to the updated paragraphs. It looks like politically motivated. Please help. Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. Take a few moments to read an essay here called WP:BOOMERANG. If you are involved in a dispute, try to discuss matters with the other person via their talk page. If they won't cooperate, seek dispute resolution. Finally, consider whether your own actions in the matter have been entirely blameless. BlackberrySorbet 13:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ravishyam, welcome to the teahouse. I looked at the article and the editor who reverted your recent changes requested that you go to the talk page of the article to work out any issues. (see his comment in the history) Each article has a talk page where editors can discuss issues, disagreements, etc. and hopefully work things out. The talk page for the article in question is here: Talk:Unique Identification Authority of India. FYI, wp:COI is a serious issue and if you have a vested interest in the article subject it is usually best to find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. RedDog (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Link rot (Foreign relations of Denmark)

Hi there, in this article (Foreign relations of Denmark) there are at least 16 links that no longer work (e.g. http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/6/36/00011767.pdf). I cannot find the correct links. Should I leave it as is or remove the links? Thank you!Munchkin2013 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Munchkin and welcome to The Teahouse. The short answer is that we do keep links that have expired because they were supposedly valid at one time. Sometimes we can find the same content using another link involving the same web site. Sometimes we can find the links on web archives, so keeping the links gives us a guide to finding them in that way. See WP:LINKROT for more.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Resubmitted saved article, but find no indication it's been saved or is in review...

Also, in "Review," only first ~100+ words or so of the complete coded text appears.FromTighCalan (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are talking about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Appthority? There are a number of problems. The reason that you are not seeing the latter part of the draft is that you opened a number of <ref> tags, but didn't close them with </ref>. Remember that <ref/> is not the same. I see also that you have included in a number of cases the internet URL for Wikipedia articles. Please read how to use wikilinks. Other problems will doubtless be fed back to you if you submit the draft for review, but please read the various links which I have included in the welcome message on your user talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Photo layout

On the entry for "List of College of William & Mary alumni" there is a row of three portraits of the College's presidential alumni. They used to all appear in the same row, but now one of them is bumped to a second row. I can't figure out what edit caused that change, and I can't see how to fix it. Can anyone offer a totally jargon-free explanation of what is causing that and how to get them all back in one row?ProfReader (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

They appear alongside each other for me? Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The portraits are in a row for me too, which suggests that it's probably some setting on your computer or web browser that's causing the issue. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Old odd article needs direction (Agha Waqar's water filled car)

Hello! I have been working on some of the oldest articles needing copyediting. This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agha_Waqar%27s_water-fuelled_car needs a lot of help. The topic is adequately covered by this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car Should 'Agha Waqar's water filled car' be deleted? Should it be renamed to 'Agha Waqar' because he is a, let me say, um, 'interesting' character in Pakistan? Any guidance on what should be done and how to get it done would be most appreciated. (Or should the article just stay in the 'too hard' basket?) Thanks and kind regards to all, Myrtle :-) Myrtlegroggins (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Myrtle here again. Between then and now, I re-wrote the article and tidied the references. The article still, I think, needs some thought. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Myrtlegroggins and welcome to the Teahouse. Given the amount of coverage in the Pakistani press, a separate article may be justified. As this is a fringe science topic, it is very important that it reflect what mainstream science says about this notion, and not be edited by advocates to state or imply that the claims are true, based on fringe or popular press sources. This is a tough job, but if you are willing to do the work and watch the article diligently, I commend you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen. I'll battle on with it. :-) Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I just checked and the article has been reverted without any consideration for the work I did. I give up. I guess my work is there if anyone else wants to give it a go. I have the energy to copyedit but not to argue over such a stupid page (IMHO) - and yes I did take the copyedit seriously. Hmph. I need some tea. And a chocolate biscuit.

Disappointed, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You have discovered an unnamed law of human behavior! "The more unbelievable an idea is, the stronger the belief of the people who believe it". You will see a lot of it when working around articles on radical and fringe ideas. You should see what fun the 9/11 conspiracy articles, or the Kennedies' assassinations articles are. :) Be of good spirit, Myrtle, and enjoy your tea and biscuit. Thank you for what you can do, and of course no blame for what you can't. If only all Wikipedians were as cheerful as you! Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2013

(UTC)

Myrtlegroggins, please stay the course. Your recent changes were reverted by an experienced editor who may have been working too quickly. I have contacted that editor and asked them to take a closer look. Please be prepared to discuss your changes on the article's talk page, and please continue your efforts to improve this wonderful free encyclopedia. We need editors like you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much Cullen. I am going to work on not being frustrated easily. My tendency is to think I must have done something terribly wrong. Perhaps other editors have the same problem. Although I do think it must be worse to be an author of a page and have someone come along and edit all your hard work.

regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

How much citation and reference is enough?

Hello, I've made a few updates to citations and references on a BLP page trying to get rid of the warning box at the top. Is it a matter of deleting the {{Multiple issues|} lines? I don't want to do this and fall foul of rules. Thank you. LarryT42 (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Larry! Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for stopping in at the Teahouse! Those boxes at the top of the page, which you have correctly identified as being made by the templates you mentioned, were manually added by some editor at some point identifying a problem with the page. They are generally referred to as "Maintenance templates" and just as they are manually added, they need to be manually removed when the situation is addressed. You could do that yourself, however, in this particular instance you shouldn't. The article (Andrew Oswald, for anyone interested) was tagged for additional citations and you added additional citations. However, all the citations you added were to works by the subject of the article. That really does not improve the referencing of the article at all. What is needed is references to independent sources, talking about the subject of the article and his work. The information you added is valuable and useful, but it does not improve the referencing of the article as a whole. So, good edits, but not what was needed to improve the referencing. Thanks for joining the corps of Wikipedia editors and if we can be of any help with anything in the future, don't hesitate to ask! Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Larry. Don't worry about that: anybody may remove a maintenance tag if they genuinely think the issue has been addressed. As long as it's clear your edit is in good faith (which you can make likely by using an edit summary) the worst that can happen is that another editor disagrees and puts the tag back again.
But if you are talking about Andrew Oswald, don't go removing the tag yet. There are not nearly enough inline citations: there are whole paragraphs which have no references.
In fact, I don't think you have understood the purpose of references in Wikipedia. (Most of the references you have put in belong in a bibliography, not a reference section.) Since Wikipedia may be edited by anybody (including vandals, but also people who are well-intentioned but mistaken), there is always a possibility that information in its articles is wrong; so we require that when information is inserted it is verifiable: it must cite reliable sources which the reader can go to if they want to check the data in the article. There are twelve separate claims about Oswald in the lede (first paragraph) as it currently stands. Ideally, every single one of those claims needs to be supported by a citation. There don't necessarily have to be twelve separate footnotes: it may be that several of them can be supported by a single source. For uncontroversial factual information like this, non-independent sources such as the websites of the various institutes would be acceptable, but in general sources independent of the subject are greatly preferred. And so on through the article.
Because of the lack of real references, the article does not at present establish that Oswald is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense - that he has been written about, in some depth, in multiple reliable sources independent of him), and is therefore liable to be deleted. You need to find books or articles in major newspapers or journals (or websites with a comparable editorial policy to major newspapers and journals) which are about him or his work, and cite them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Much to think about here. Many thanks. LarryT42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)