Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Guest profiles »

Host profiles »

Question forum »

Dear new editors, no question is too basic for our Q&A board. If you need help, just click the link below! (If appropriate to your question, please link to a specific article using square brackets, i.e. [[article title]].) And if you have some helpful advice for someone else, go ahead: be bold! Click the "edit" button to the right of their question and start the conversation.

Ask a question

Creating userpages

Sorry to ask yet another question on here. I wanted to know how to create my own user pages for various articles that I'm working on so I don't have to have them all combined in the sandbox. And then when there finished I can just copy/paste them to start a new article. ThanksDounai (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Dounai, ask away, that's what we are here for. To create a new page in your own user space search for User:Dounai/new page name where new page name is the name you want to use. The search will come back with the message "There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, search the related logs, or edit this page" Click on edit this page and you're away. NtheP (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it worked. How do I add the page to my top right preferences (or drop down list) so I don't have to search for it or remember the name each time I want to edit it? Dounai (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dounai, you can go to your contributions page, located on the top-right hand corner or the page, next to "Log out" and "My watchlist". After that, you can scroll all the way down to a link bar, starting with your username. Next to your name you should see "Subpages". That link redirects you to all of your userspace subpages. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 15:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Another problem. I just got a notification that my own newly created userpage was up for "speedy deletion". Why would this happen if it is my own userpage? I thought this was my personal space that I could create new articles on. If I'm wrong is there a way to have multiple personal sandboxes, one for each article I'm working on? Also when I look under contributions and then subpages my newly created userpage isn't visible. Does it take a while for it to be logged and added or why would this be not present? Thanks Dounai (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The tag was completely unacceptable. I will be discussing this with the editor who added it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Woops, the tag actually was correct. You created it at Dounai/Western Corporate contributions to Chinese censorship rather than User:Dounai/Western Corporate contributions to Chinese censorship. I have moved the article for you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch..Didn't realize I posted it to the real wiki!!! How do I review your help? I tried to go to the link but it just had your contributions.Dounai (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There isn't actually a way to review other editors. (Unless I was under editor review, but I'm not currently). If you wanted to you could leave a message on my talk page or use the wikilove button. I have the review me button on my signature so other editors can review my contributions and see what I am doing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dounai, if you don't mind be butting into this conversation, I'd really like to suggest something. Edit your user space and create the article you want and make it as awesome as you can, but when you this it is decent enough to be on main wiki...don't just copy-paste it, or move the article. Rather, when your done, I'd highly recommend you just put up this code, {{subst:afc submission/submit}} on top of your userspace, i.e. the article you created in your userspace. What that does, it lets your userspace gets reviewed by a committee of volunteers, known as the Articles for Creation. Then not only do they review your article but they give you a rating also. The upside to this way is, if your article isn't that good on wiki, and you just move it directly, it might get deleted, however through this method, not only will you find out the areas you need to improve upon but also, you'll get the chance to improve upon then, without having to worry about it getting deleted before you get a chance to fix it. --Debastein (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcoming new editors

I'm not sure how your project works but I wonder if you could help this new user User:Lakshmi2510. She created an article and another editor immediately Prodded it. I tried removing the Prod tag to allow time to discuss the article with her and then the other editor immediately took the article to AfD. It's probably not an article that would survive an AfD but this does not seem to be a good way to treat a new Wikipedia editor. Do you have a welcome banner that can be added to a page? Dahliarose (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dahliarose, i just added {{welcome}} and a Teahouse invite. Would suggest familiarizing her with WP:NOTABILITY and finding reliable third party sources to support the article. benzband (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've discussed the article with her on the talk page so I'll wait for her to reply. Dahliarose (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There's an almost automatic response that primary schools are non notable. Unless there really is something exceptional about it, chalking this one up to experience might be the best way to go. NtheP (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

citing

if a line on wikipedia is cited, how do you add more info onto the line that is not from the cited website? HuntHello (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, HuntHello, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you want to add a second reference to the information or expand the information given but it's not supported by the existing reference? If it's the first then you can add a second reference in the same way that the first is added so it would look something like "this is the text.<ref>reference text</ref><ref>and this is the second reference</ref>" If it's the second case then you might need to re-order the text to ensure that it's clear which part of the text the reference supports. So it might go from "The moon is made of green cheese.<ref>Tall Tales book of moon myths</ref>" to "Although it is acknowledged that the moon is made of cheese, there is dispute about whether it's green cheese,<ref>Tall Tales book of moon myths</ref></nowiki> or cream cheese.<ref>The bumper book of things made up about the Moon</ref>" NtheP (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi HuntHello, and sorry for the confusion. What I think you are trying to say is this: A line says something, say "I have a dog (CITATION)", and that line is cited. You are attempting to add more information, say "...and a cat". In this case, you would leave the citation after dog, type in "and a cat" (or whatever you are trying to type) and put in another citation after the last word. Hope this helps. Buggie111 (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! It is a slightly tricky question. Adding stuff after the citation is fine. But it can get complicated.

Johnson went to Abadare and Aberdeen as part of his training.

I want to add Arbroath from my own extensive personal knowledge of the subject as the second place he visited. The only way that makes sense is:

Johnson went to Abadare, Arbroath and Aberdeen as part of his training.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

References

Pendleton Whisky page

Thanks for the invite to this group! I have updated the Pendleton Whisky page which can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Whisky. Could someone please review this article and perhaps give me any pointers on what I should remove/add to get rid of the Wikipedia flags?

Thanks in advance! Cvargas1129 (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Cvargas and welcome to the Teahouse! I've looked over your article and I've spotted some areas in which you could work on. First off, your article needs more reliable sources, which are independent from the subject of article. Second, the article sounds like an advertisement. All articles need to have a neutral point of view, which means the article has an un-biased view on the subject. Lastly, the article might not pass the general notability guideline, which says the article has significant coverage and it has reliable sources not related to the subject. To sum it up, try looking for more independent, reliable sources to add to the article to get rid of the tags. Good luck! -- Luke (Talk) 21:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Cvargas1129 - and welcome to the Teahouse - the last chance saloon for new Wiki editors. P^) You are getting hit by the old reliable sources block. It happens to all of us. It's one of the biases that comes from the net. Pendelton has lots on note - but figuring out if it's "notable" - independent - and verifiable is the issue. Also there are a great many links to Cowboys and Rodea, which are not noted for high level net content. I see that there is no Wiki page for "Hood River Distillers" - and there you find lots on note. It may be an idea to look at creating that page and then the Whisky fits in there. Links to rodeo - charity links to "Justin Cowboy Crisis Fund" and all linked to Pendelton Whisky - the round up. I've left some links and ideas over on your talk page. Hope they help. Sometimes you need to look at things sideways to get a better view! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks as a source for citation source in wikipedia

Can wikileaks leaks such as the US State department files be used as a credible source for citation in wikipedia articles? Sesamevoila (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, that's a great questions Sesamevoila. My gut feeling is that they shouldn't be, as they are Primary Sources, and we look for secondary or even tertiary sources. The discussion came up before on the Reliable source noticeboard - and the general thought there was that they were primary sources and self published, we have no idea if the information is accurate or was ever intended for publication. There might be exceptions though - if you can argue that it's reliable, then I'd be interested to hear why you think so. I hope that helps, and I'm sure some other editors will have other thoughts. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, you can use the {{WikiLeaks cable}} template for linking/referencing to a particular cable. benzband (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've found it useful for compiling biographies since the many assessments on individuals contained in the cables carry precise information such as exact date and place of birth,places travelled to, etc presumably from passport information available with the concerned Embassy. I have always tried to verify this against more general info available in the public domain such as year of birth. If there's a template available for linking/referencing a particular cable, does that mean it's being done on a frequent basis? Sesamevoila (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You can see some of the instances of referencing {{WikiLeaks cable}} (if not all, some might be substituted I guess?) by looking at "What links here" in the toolbox of the sidebar of that particular page. heather walls (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

How to edit the very top of an article

Basically I need to know how to edit the summary box, there is something I would like to fix on an article. It would also be useful when creating articles. Calicoyoda 05:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicoyoda (talk • contribs)

I'm not really sure so as to what u mean by the very top and the summary box. If you are referring to the lead section of the article, you can edit it by using the edit button at the top of the article. If you are referring to the title of the article, you cannot edit it. You will have to move the page to another page with the name you want and delete the original page(or tag the original page for deletion). The summary box usually refers to the edit summary that you leave after an edit. Roshan220195 (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Calicoyoda. Good to meet you, I don't think we've chatted before. There's a couple of possibilities here. As Roshan suggested, there is the article "lead", which is the text above the table of contents. When you press the "edit" button, it's the first block of text that's there - but if you're having trouble finding it, try using Ctrl-F and typing a bit of text you know to be in that lead. The reason it's sometimes hard is that there is sometimes an "infobox" there. This uses some wikicode to generate the text box on the right hand side of the screen on some articles. You can edit that too, or scroll past it. If you're looking for more information about infoboxes, just let us know and we can clarify that. It might also be helpful to let us know the name of the article, so we can give you more accurate information. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Found it now! It was hidden away as that little tab. Thanks :D Calicoyoda 09:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicoyoda (talk • contribs)

Notability Problems

Hi, I'm quite a novice at all this creating articles game... Oh and thanks for the invite to tree house! I have a problem with an article i have written which was deleted within about 40 minutes of me posting it for lack of notability... So I rewrote it again, this time I submitted it to the articles for creation part. Basically I have wrote a brief history of an amateur rugby club (link here Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Egremont_Rangers_ARLFC) which play at the highest level of amateur rugby in europe, and have won national championships in their past, as well as competing against professional opposition regularly. And I have tried my best to link references, BUT every time someone comes along and says they are not notable enough for a page. I find this hard to believe when nearly every other club they play amongst has wikipedia articles which have absolutely no references to back up notability (Thatto_Heath_Crusaders, Stanley_Rangers and Castleford_Lock_Lane#cite_ref-0 just to name a few peer clubs). I just find this extremely hypocritical of wikipedia. Please can one of you wonderful people point out where I am going wrong and what those other pages are doing right? Thank you :) Fearsomemumbler (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

When I looked over the article yesterday, it didn't appear to me as if the subject was notable. However, it appears a precedent was established with other articles, so I apologize for the decline. However, there were other issues that I noticed. The article doesn't appear to have adequate sources (see: WP:42). What I mean by this, is you say the team has "10 players with over 25 international honors", but there's no accompanying reference(s) to verify that. Add sources and inline citations. If you need help, see WP:Referencing for beginners. Also, you cannot use Wikipedia as a source. You currently have a Wikipedia page listed a source for the article. I'm not sure if this was your intention though. Remember, that if you want to link to an article in an article, you can simply just put [[ ]] around the article title (e.g. [[article title]] OR [[article title|the text you want displayed instead of the article title]]. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. AndrewN ^talk 18:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that the existence of other unsourced articles is not any reason to make another. The articles you point out are truly dire and are not doing anything right. It is just that nobody has got round to cleaning them up or getting rid of them.--Charles (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with you Charles that the ones I pointed out are dire, but I didn't realise that I never referenced properly. But is the one I wrote as bad as those? Also I have made lots of edits on the article and hopefully got my references up to scratch. Got some good ones from the likes of The Guardian newspaper website. Thanks for the link to the referencing page Andrew, I think I've learned a bit tonight. Heres the link to the new article which I've just submitted for review again to Articles for Creation Submissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Egremont_Rangers_ARLFC. Also if anyone could give any extra tips I would be very grateful. Fearsomemumbler (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Fearsomemumbler (What a great name with Northern Overtones - love it). Been Looking at your work and you did ask for tips. I was looking at a link to "The Whitehaven News" and spotted that the source is from 2005 - 7 years ago. That may be a problem. Not the source - it's ""age"" in Internet Time.

Given data protection laws, combined with Business Practices over net storage space, my betting is that it will be deleted soon. One way to preserve the page is to use http://www.webcite.org - they take a snapshot and archive it... and it's free. Doing that also guards against what is known as "Link rot". You can then use the link from webcite.org to maintain the source for longer - possibly indefinitely. It also helps with other web pages, as they can be moved, changed or deleted at the click of a mouse button.

I did notice that some of the sites you have referenced are a little scrappy - and my betting is it's some chap in his back bedroom running the website on old technology - he gets a new system for Christmas and the website gets a makeover - and all the links are broken - whoops, all your sources are no good, and if too many of the links break you van find your article pending deletion. It could even be that his whippet hits the delete button by mistake!P^)

You will still need to improve the citations from newspapers, as there are no publication named or publication date details. If you provide them ""and"" the link from webcite.org it's belt and braces! When you're editing - if you look at the top bar of the edit window you should see the word "cite" - click that and you get the citation bar - and on the left hand side there is a drop down selection of templates. Choose news - fill in the blanks - Jobs a Goodun'!

It looks like you have been using the "cite web" template, which is logical, but not when the webpage is from a newspaper. Silly aint it? .... and, as for some thinking the article is not notable? Flipping Heck. They have no idea just how important men running round a field every weekend chasing after funny shaped balls is to the Culture and Heritage of the UK. Some countries they need padding and helmets. Wusses! P^) Above all else remember Wiki Land should be fun! Off to walk me Whippet Now . TTFN. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving my article draft from my sandbox to a specific user subpage

Hello, I'm still learning about how pages should be build, and from what I understand it would be better for me to build the page I'm working on in a dedicated user sub-page rather than in my sandbox.

I have not yet been a registered user for 4 days, so I don't think I can move the page myself, but I did not want to simply copy-paste the information into a new subpage.

How can I move this page?

The article in progress currently: User:Jemmera/sandbox

Desired Page to move this project: User:Jemmera/T&M

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide!

Jemmera (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Jemmera, welcome to the Teahouse. Happy to help you here and I've moved your sandbox page to User:Jemmera/T&M as you requested. Any problems, please come back here and leave another message. NtheP (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jemmera, in the future you can go to Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page once you can move an article. -- Luke (Talk) 13:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help; much appreciated! Jemmera (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Persondata for user pages

Are user pages supposed to have persondata? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back AutomaticStrikeout! I don't think so, because I think the template puts users into a category. Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Persondata they should have a better answer. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi - this is an absolutely brilliant question, the best yet on Teahouse. The idea behind the {{Persondata}} template is to provide metadata to other computers or programs. Therefore having one on your userpage (if you want it) will provide that information about you. Most users I suspect will not want to provide their date of birth etc. for reasons of identity theft but they are at liberty I think, to use the template if they wish and add as much data as they wish. The only categories it uses are those which report empty fields, it would be easy to suppress them for user pages. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

tastefulness of picture

One thing I forgot. I also added a picture of dogs being butchered (no blood, or graphic detail, kind of sterile) will this be flagged as inappropriate or derogatory? Because it happens in China and is a real life thing. Would it be like posting pics of a life birth, we know it happens but not many people want to see it :-) ?Whoisgalt (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Whoisgalt, I can remark on this, sorry that I need to run and don't have time to do a full review of your other question; although, the same issue doesn't appear for me. Wikipedia is not censored so images are (almost) never removed as inappropriate. Your image should be fine. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan..Actually right after I posted the message I found the "dog meat" page and saw several dogs on platters so then I knew it would be okay. Mine will just add to the already heavy mix of pics.Whoisgalt (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As long as the image makes sense to have in the article and isn't misrepresentative/makes no sense/etc then it'll be okay. It usually gets controversial when it's sex/porn related. Sarah (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Pictures from commons pages

Hello I've been adding some pictures to commons and then using some of these to beautify pages and for several it allows you to click on them one time and get the larger version but most won't allow a 2nd click for a whole page version. It says it can't be displayed because it causes errors and then it gives a blank thumbnail outline. Has anyone run into this problem before or no why it's happening. You can take a look at Port_of_Dalian. Any help would be greatly appreciated.Whoisgalt (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem fixed. Not sure if it remedied itself or someone behind the Oz wiki curtains did some majic..But thanks it works nowWhoisgalt (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Issues and Content

How can I improve an article when there is no relationship between the issues and the content? Vibhabamba (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vibhabamba. I am not sure what you mean by issues. Can you tell us which article you have in mind?--Charles (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Problem with Original Research and Interpretation

Thanks, Heather, for the invitation to Teahouse. I've been editing an article about Robert C. O'Brien's 1974 novel Z for Zachariah, and the rule against "original research" threatens to make the project pointless. The issue seems to me a quagmire with potentially farcical consequences. An article is supposed to be based on "reliable" sources, and I've read on this page that what is important is "verifiability, not truth." But what does this mean for articles about fiction? The text of the story itself is the most reliable source of information about it.

In Z for Zachariah, a first-person narrator provides all the information about herself and her antagonist, so possible narrative bias is an important issue. Yet most readers and reviewers accept the reliability of the narrator's viewpoint uncritically--even to the point of ignoring and misrepresenting facts of the story. For years, Wikipedia had only a highly biased and factually inaccurate plot summary, and I think there were no notices questioning verifiability. These inaccuracies at times were ridiculous. There was also no citation in earlier summaries of either the novel or other sources apart from a link to a site with collected reviews. When I recently revised the entire summary to make it scrupulously accurate, a note was rightly posted that the new summary was too long. So I shortened it to a length similar to that of some other novel summaries. So far, the notice about it being "excessively detailed" remains.

On my talk page, I explained that I intended to write a strictly factual summary and make separate sections about interpretation, including notes about the narrator's possibile unreliability. An editor then politely warned me of the problem of including original research, stressing the need for reliable third-party sources. But what if the third-party sources are wrong? Shouldn't it be more important that statements in the article are verifiable with reference to the story rather than with reference to reviews about it? If a published review states that the protagonist acts from pity but the actual text describes a self-interested motive, what should the article say? If the answer is that published reviews carry more weight than the story itself, the result is likely to be garbage--a confused mix of unsupported and maybe inconsistent interpretations rather than facts. Also, any article about fiction surely has to be written by someone who actually knows a story enough to distinguish facts from interpretation and explain how interpretations relate to the text. Judging from what's been written, though, it wouldn't surprise me if many people just read reviews and guess what the story is about, or just skim through it and look to reviews for interpretation.

Another thing is that any article about a story is going to reflect something of the writer's personal understanding of it (or lack thereof). But writers are not equally objective, self-critical, and honest. Some are aware of the distinction between facts and their own interpretation. Others confuse the two and assume their own interpretation is a fact. The previous summaries on Wikipedia were flawed in this way, blithely confusing interpretations with facts of the text. I am trying to write an objective article with a factual summary and separate sections on interpretation, including conventional views and an unconventional one supported by the text. Readers of the article can distinguish fact from interpretation and refer to the story or other sources (e.g., Millay's poem) to verify facts and claims.

Yet, if a claim about interpretation is my idea and more accurate than what is stated in reviews, it seems I'm not supposed to include it. Rather, it's more acceptable to write blatant falsehoods in reviews that are unsupported by the novel itself. Perhaps the only recourse is to try publishing my views separately first and then pretending to be someone else in Wikipedia so I can quote myself as a "reliable" third party. Some ideas about what makes an interpretation reliable might be what's unreliable. I think people who write short reviews of novels for newspapers or magazines do not usually study a novel with great care or refer to scholarship. They seem to read quickly and write mostly superficial impressions with very little specific reference to a text. Or there might be one quote taken out of context and given whatever interpreation the writer pleases. Are these sources deemed "reliable"? Well, they are all that's easily available online, so I've had to refer to them also in writing about characters and the theme--at least until I have time for better research.

Sorry about the length of this post. I'm just not sure what to think about the editing process and if it is a worthwhile effort. Cheers. --Seoulseeker (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Seoulseeker, welcome to the Teahouse. That's quite a question; I'm gonna try to address a few points that stood out to me individually, but I may have missed some in your question, so please let me know.

For the plot summary section of an article about a work of fiction, you would indeed be able to use the work itself as the source. After all, there's no real way to get around it.

But for other sections that aren't stating plain facts about the book, particularly an interpretation section, you will need independent, reliable sources. The question that arises from your desires about the interpretation of the author is: how do you know what his interpretations are? If you've read about his interpretation somewhere, then that's the source you use, but if it just came from your reading of the book, then I'm afraid that is original research, and thus not allowed.

You don't have to use a source that you think is incorrect. Verifiability is a necessary component of any article content, but it's not a sufficient component; just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it has to be in the article. Furthermore, any source that does take quotes out-of-context would probably not be considered reliable. After all, not everything that's online is a reliable source (including Wikipedia!). If you think you're more correct about the article than the other sources, and you're in a position to get something scholarly about it published, then by all means, go for it; we can then use your paper as a reliable source (and you don't even have to pretend that it came from someone else, as long as you're not using it for self-promotion or self-aggrandizement). But without your interpretation backed by independent, reliable sources, then yes, I'm afraid it would be OR to include them.

If the sources are already used in the article, you can take them to a place like the reliable sources noticeboard to get outside comments on whether the articles are reliable or not. But again, be prepared to explain why they're wrong, and arguments without any support from other reliable sources aren't likely to go far.

I'm sorry to give you what might be a disappointing answer, but the content of Wikipedia can only be as good as the reliable sources that support it. One of the reasons for this is that we can't tell who's behind the usernames for certain; we don't know if people are an authority on the subject matter they're editing or some average joe with some crazy ideas, so we just can't take their word for it. The only way we can be at all confident of our material is if we can show people a reliable source and say, "Here. See for yourself." It's the nature of the beast for any tertiary source (like encyclopedias) in general, and Wikipedia in particular. I hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Writ_Keeper for your thoughtful explanation. Not wanting to be a Randy, I'll try to give interpretations reliable sources. Still, it is quite challenging to write about this story factually by limiting descriptions of characters and themes to what corresponds with customary views, which almost universally go against obvious facts of the text. I think people's almost universal misinterpretation is mainly due to a great underestimation of the novel's complexity and a moralistic reaction against the antagonist's behavior later in the story. Maybe further research can uncover a more rational analysis. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seoulseeker (talk • contribs) 07:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Seoulseeker - nice to meet you. I was a bit surprised when I saw mention of Z for Zachariah because I remember it well. In many ways it was ground breaking when it was released. It became a standard school text in the UK for age groups 13-16. It introduced so many ideas of literary criticism in an accessible way. There was great debate about it in the teaching professions. That is why the TV film was made by the BBC no less. Sadly quality writing for teenagers has been lacking for a long time. In researching sources you may find looking at Teaching Practice and theory a good hunting ground. You may need to bias that to UK sources too. I know there was great debate and much writing of guides and additional material. There was quite a debate about three writers as suitable for kids - Zindel - Cormier - and O'Brien - and O'Brien won out. The Chocolate War series are great, but were restricted access even in the UK. I Am the Cheese was not an issue, but a little too cerebral. Zindel was fascinating, but the cultural references rather heavy. Zachariah won out, as it had cultural and social references that did not get in the way. Literally every UK secondary school student was reading the book in the 80's. That valley could be anywhere on the planet and the events would still fit. All the best and I have to say well done for taking on one hell of a challenge! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Media-hound-'D 3rd P^. I'm pleased to meet you, too. Thanks very much for the load of information about reception of the story in the UK and useful resources. If there was much debate, I hope it included recognition of Ann's fallibility. I noted of the BBC drama that it interprets her as completely innocent and sensible despite the story's portrayal of her as small-minded, self-centered, hysterical, paranoid, and delusional--to say the least. One telling detail is that only Loomis carries a gun in the drama, whereas Ann does so before him and more often in the text. I'd like to hear more of your views on a Talk page if you're interested. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seoulseeker (talk • contribs) 17:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging two articles?

Hi there!

I'm wondering if the article Pagwa (festival) (which is an orphan and a stub) should be merged with the article Holi? The article on 'Pagwa' - which is, I'm pretty sure, an alternative spelling (or perhaps a misspelling) of Phagwah - seems basically to be a duplicate of the article on 'Holi', possibly created because the article on Holi previously made no mention of Phagwah as an alternative name, even though a search for Phagwah is automatically redirected to the Holi article, as are other entries for Phagwah (e.g. those on the Culture of Guyana and Culture of Trinidad and Tobago pages). I added 'Phagwah' to the list of alternative names on the Holi article yesterday. So should the Pagwa article be merged, or deleted? And if so, what's the best way of doing this?

Thanks!

Loriski (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Loriski. Thanks for coming by here. I think the best solution here is to make the Pagwa (festival) page into a redirect to Holi. There is nothing much to merge. Normally this would be proposed on the talk page with merge tags added to the article. In this case however I think you can justifiably go ahead and boldly do it. To do this the text on the page is replaced with #REDIRECT[[Holi]]. Leave the categories and the talk page as they are. I hope this helps.--Charles (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Charles - hugely helpful! I will go ahead and do that right away! Loriski (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Why all the fuss?

No need to reply to this further, thanks >>>

Why does the article about "Stuart Ashen" get deleted so much. I find it unnessesary. Ashen is a famous youtube personality. There is no need to delete his article that many times! Reply to, me, drt2012 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Hello Dannyboy1209. Not every person who has ever been born merits a Wikipedia article. In order to merit an article, a subject has to be written about extensively in reliable sources. That means that there have been extensive books, magazine articles, newspaper reports, etc. etc. which cover the life of a person in sufficient detail that we can use those other sources as references that we can cite to verify the facts about their life. If reliable, extensive writing about a person doesn't exist, then Wikipedia doesn't have an article about them, because we don't like having articles with information we can't trust. It doesn't matter how many YouTube hits they have, what matters is what information about their lives we can find in independent, trustworthy sources. If we can't find enough information to write a good encyclopedia article from, we don't write that encyclopedia article. You can find more information about this concept at the page Wikipedia:Notability. Does that help explain what is going on here? --Jayron32 17:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC) I'm sure that deleting once is justifyable, but 6 times! Why so many anyways. Just stop deleting it, okay! I am the Emperor of admminship, his imperial majesty, drt2012 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC). I'm not an expert, but something tells me that posting an article six times does not NECESSARILY make the subject noteworthy. By that theory, when somebody vandalizes a page six times, the vandalism becomes legit. Uporządnicki (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC) And ANYWAY, deleting the article as many times as it appears is JUSTIFIABLE if the article shouldn't be there in the first place. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Inter-Wiki-Link in Sidebar (english/german)

Hello, i wrote an article, which now is in draft. I searched, but didn´t find an answer to my question: how do i make the link in the sidebar to the adequate wiki-article in another language (german)? Thanks, Kommerz (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Kommerz, welcome to the Teahouse! Infomration about interwiki links can be found here; the quick answer is that you'd write [[de:(german wiki article title)]]. So, the help page I linked has a [[de:Hilfe:Interwiki-Links]], which creates a link in the sidebar to the German version of the help page. You can put this interwikilink anywhere in the article and it'll still work, but the convention is to put it at the bottom of the article. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your welcome and your very fast answer. I tried this one, but it writes the Link at the bottom of the page (not in the sidebar). Don´t know if i explain myself, here´s the article. (Can it be, that this doesn´t work for arctiles which are in creation?) --Kommerz (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's because it doesn't work on talk pages. AfC works by putting the draft article in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace (which is why your draft has "Wikipedia talk:" at the front of it), so the software thinks it's a talk page and doesn't make the sidebar normally. When your article submission is accepted (i.e. moved into mianspace as a real article), it should work. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your help! --Kommerz (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You might also want to look at {{Expand German}} and {{Equivalent}}. Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

how to request a review of a wiki page

hello everyone. i authored a wiki page: Stav Shaffir which was accepted a while ago with a clause that reads: This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. I have since added a whole bunch of references for things that weren't referenced before. Is it possible to get a new review of the page? I want to do everything that's needed to remove that clause :) thanks.

Idoshlomo (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Idoshomo. Your page will come within WikiProject Biography and will be assessed by that project in due course. It may take a while but you can make a request at that project for it to be assessed. Adding the template {{Wikiproject Biography}} to the talkpage will make it part of that project.--Charles (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

hey charles - thanks very much! i did both things - added to the project and posted a request. from the request page it seems that it takes a while to attend them. i hope it happens soon! thanks again :) Idoshlomo (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Idoshomo, you can also leave a note on the talk page of the person who tagged the page. From the History page of your article this appears to be User_talk:SarahStierch (14 May) --Wolbo (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

hey wolbo, i did that already but she seems very busy so i thought i'd try something else. maybe ill try her again in a while :) thanks! Idoshlomo (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Same old picture trouble

Hello Editor!

I keep getting this type box instead of the photo showing on my article page. What am I doing wrong? How can I fix it? I've uploaded the photo twice with the same result.

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

Thanks a lot. Marilyn Nix (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marilyn, nice to see you again! Believe it or not, capitalization counts with these wiki links (like the file of the image). I've capitalized her name and now it seems to work, check it out. heather walls (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Heather, thanks so much for fixing/tweaking that picture--should be able to handle correctly next time. Appreciate the TeaHouse scene.

Marilyn Nix (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism?

As a kind of follow up to the question lower down, how do you go about reporting vandalism? I don't like reverting it without letting someone know what happened, but I don't know how to do that. (Keeping in mind there's a difference between making a mistake and deliberately vandalizing something.) Every time I've run into it it's been done by someone who isn't registered and doesn't have a talk page. Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Tlqk, welcome back. If a vandalizing user doesn't have a talk page, the first thing to do (before reporting them to anyone) is to give them a warning. You can do this through the various user warning templates, usually Template:uw-vandalism1 through Template:uw-vandalism4. Start at 1, then escalate to 2 if the user vandalizes again, then to 3, then to 4. If you're using Twinkle (I do), there's a "Warn" function that appears when you're on a user's talk page that's great for this. After a user has been given a final (level 4) warning, and if he continues to vandalize, you can report the vandal at WP:AIV, which is the admin noticeboard for vandalism. Please keep in mind that, especially for IP (unregistered) editors, all four warnings must be recent (like within a day or two), and there must have been vandalism since the final warning. (Obviously there are exceptions to this where the chain of 1-2-3-4-report can be bypassed, but they don't happen often at all, and virtually never with IP editors.) Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer, Writ Keeper. Where do you put the warning if they don't have a talk page?Tlqk56 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You can then create their talk page with that template. A link to a person's talk page should always be visible on any History of any article they have edited, as in this picture (i.e. where it says Example (talk · contribs)). The heading for your message on their talk page can be the date, i.e. ==MMM YYYY==. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought that those addresses, with only a series of numbers, changed every time a person logs on. So if I start the talk page and leave a message, the person it's intended for won't get it, will they, if they've already logged off? Or am I totally misunderstanding how those work - which is quite possible.Tlqk56 (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The addresses, known as IP addresses, are held for varying lengths of time. Some internet service providers switch a person's IP address regularly, others when they reboot their computer or their network, others still hold on to them permenantly as a "static" IP address. They're still worth warning, as they might be keeping the address for a while, and even if they don't the warnings can be taken into account for a "range block", where an entire range of similar IP addresses can be blocked. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Worm said most of what I was gonna say, but I'd just like to emphasize that dynamic IP addresses are the reason that warnings to IPs must be recent; if they're older than a few days, we can't be sure it was the same person that incurred the warnings, so we have to start the cycle again from scratch. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks so much for explaining that. It's great to know I can leave messages and the people at least have a chance of getting them. I really appreciate everybody getting back to me so quickly. My only worry is that at some point I'll feel I've been on WP too long to be a newcomer, and have to stop coming here for answers. Then where will I go? :) You people are great!Tlqk56 (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, maybe by then, you'll still be here as a host. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Bots

Where can I learn about all the bots on wikimedia? Vibhabamba (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Vibhabamba. The page Wikipedia:Bots will give you a good launching place to find anything you'd want to know about bots, including a link where you can find a list of all 1500 or so approved bots. Does that help? --Jayron32 02:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

....WOW. 1500 BOTS? Sarah (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, there's 2,697 "bot approved tasks", but only 296 bots currently carrying them out. Some tasks aren't being carried out at all, some bots carry about a number of tasks. By the way, do you like the sneaky use of the NUMBERINGROUP and PAGESINCATEGORY magic words there? For instance I can safely say there are currently 855 admins... Worm^TT · (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment here is a link to a page on magic words, in case you don't know what they are. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

how do I add a section to an article?

Hello, I am wondering how to add a section to an article. Specifically, I would like to add a section to the Phosphatidylserine article to describe its metabolism, but I don't know how. Also, I don't yet know how to add citations to an article. Thanks in advance, NathanaelKing (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello NathanaelKing. Equal signs are used to make a section, usually 2 at the start and 2 at the end of the section heading. More create sub-headings.--Charles (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Nathanael! Under "Help" on the edit toolbar, there is a guide for labeling headings. I hope this helps as well. -- Luke (Talk) 02:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nathanel. I'm new to Wikipedia, and usually come here to ask questions. But I noticed you asked about adding citations. Basically, you put this: <ref>last name, first name of author, ''Title'', publisher, date, pp. ##</ref>. (Or whatever info works for your source.) Place all of that directly after the part you are referencing, with no space after the punctuation. Then towards the bottom of the page there must be a section called References that looks like this:

==References==

{{reflist}}.

That section will automatically number and put the footnotes in the right order for you. There are special ways to reference web pages and to use the same citation over and over again without typing it all out, if you need them. It may be clearer if you click edit for an article and see how it's done there. Then practice it in your sandbox. If it doesn't work come back here and somebody will explain it more clearly. It's really easy once you figure it out! Happy Editing.Tlqk56 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

How do I merge two duplicate articles?

I've come across two articles referring to the same film but with slightly different spellings. See Mookilla Rajyathu and Mookkillarajyathu. How do I merge the two/delete one? Sesamevoila (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sesamevoila, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Good spot on seeing two identical articles. In case like this where they are near enough identical then the simple thing to do is to redirect one to the other. As Mookkillarajyathu seems to be the more common title I would redirect Mookilla Rajyathu by replacing all the content of this page with

#REDIRECT [[Mookkillarajyathu]] {{R from alternative name}}. This will mean anyone who looks for Mookilla Rajyathu will be automatically sent to the other page. before you create the redirect it is worth checking if there is any information worth transferring to the other page. Redirecting articles where two topics on the same subject only works if the content of the pages is the same. If it different then the pages need to be merged which is a bit more complicated. NtheP (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks,NtheP, now how about these two? Mazhathullikilukkam and Mazhathullikkilukkam. There is only a difference in the middle k but the spelling is the same in the heading and also when one goes to the edit pages

The one with a single k is already redirected to the other. You'll see that when you click on the link it takes you to the other and just underneath the title in small text says (Redirected from . . .) NtheP (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, by simply redirecting, the movie shot (included in the old version of Mookkillarajyathu) is now unused. It's probably worth reincluding File:Mookkilyarajyathu.jpg in the infobox at Mookilla Rajyathu - however, I'm not familiar with the guidelines for movies, which usually seem to include poster images in infoboxes and only screenshots if they're discussed within the text. Check the non-free content criteria. -- Trevj (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Referencing from one Wikipedia to another

In an article for the English Wikipedia, how do I reference an article within the German Wikipedia? Something like .de, but I don't remember exactly. HPaul (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, HPaul, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can do interwiki links by appending a colon, the abbreviation of the wiki, and another colon to the link, so a link to the main page on the German encyclopedia would look like: [[:de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite]] (at least, I think that's the main page; I don't speak German...) Anyway, hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just note that you cannot cite an article from German Wikipedia when trying to verify something at English Wikipedia. German Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Jayron32 23:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello! And one more note: if you translated something from the German wikipedia (or any other language) into the English language article, you should account for that on the English language article's talk page, using this format: {{translated|de|Hauptseite}}. Does this help? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Writ Keepr, Jayron32 and Rosiestep! But the translation remark in the talk page for "Ruth Cohn" looks funny. HPaul (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you would like the template to be the full width of the page like the other banners at the top of the talk page, you can add |small=no into the {{translated}} template. I've done this on Ruth Cohn as an example. NtheP (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Nthep! And how do I get rid of the "Stub-class" at Talk:Ruth Cohn? HPaul (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've re-assessed it as start class against the criteria. The change is by changing the |class= in the project template(s) on the talk page. This has also re-categorised the article categories at the bottom of the talk page. NtheP (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Nthep! HPaul (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Official press releases as references

Hey All, In my current article I find that many of the facts relating to a career progression can be verified by various press releases by institutions such as universities and granting agencies. I feel as though these fall into the 3rd party, somewhat objective source category. I would very much appreciate your thoughts, especially if you disagree. This my last point to verify before submitting the article. Thanks for you help in advance! Onamir88 (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Onamir, welcome to the Teahouse. The use of press releases tends to be frowned upon because anyone can do it, but it doesn't indicate notability just that an organisation felt like saying something. Perhaps what you should be looking for is reporting of those press releases in the press i.e. that someone else is taking an interest in the subject of the press release. You should also steer clear of most blogs, I see you have a reference to jewishsightseeing.com but that is reciting an article from the San Diego Jewish Times, you would be better by citing the newspaper direct.

Having looked at your draft article I think it reads too much like a résumé with too many bullet pointed lists and not enough prose. And that the lead paragraph refers to an as yet to be published book suggests that the article is trying to promote Lobel not present a neutral picture of her. Sentences like "For more information and access to papers see Lobel's SSRN page" also suggest promotion rather than the more neutral "Lobel is the author or co-author of over 20 published papers".<ref>link to SSRN page</ref>

Have a look at some of the articles in Category:American legal scholars to see how they are laid out, how they are referenced and what information they do and don't contain. NtheP (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! These are helpful points. One point to note with respect to press releases - it seems like your response confounds verifiability and public interest. If a non-profit organization announces their list of grantees, that is pretty much the best source to verify a statement of grant reception. It tells us nothing about whether the readers care about this particular point. Conversely, if a newspaper reporter thinks a topic is interesting to the readers, she or he may do a very poor job conveying the actual facts... (having been on the interviewee end of things, I have some annacdotes about this, even with careful papers such as the NY Times... :-) ). Thanks again, as I did find all of your comments extremely helpful in improving the article and its tone. Onamir88 (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Onamir88 - Glad to see you have been working so hard. I was surprised that your work keeps being turned down, but then again I have seen quite a tightening of Wiki standards all round. In many ways It's a good thing. I have been looking at your references and saw that there are a few gaps in the body of work published by Prof Orly Lobel - it's there and "SO" much of it referenced over at Google Scholar - in fact she is so well known and published she has her own User Profile - and that is notable! I would explore where her work has been cited and for what reasons. Her work seems to get cited and quoted often in a number of academic fields - Law and Economics - Behavioral Research - Intellectual Property - Employment Law - Regulatory Theory . By exploring that web you may find some further interesting references. It's hard work - but someone has to do it! ... oh and remember the source does not need to be on the web. Are there any journals - magazines - other none digital sources that have been talking about her and her body of work? They are just as valuable as web content - and possibly even more so! You may find a few leads by exploring http://www.issuu.com . She gets mentioned in magazines and publications they cover. I aint done the reading so I don't know why. Over to you and All the best. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Will do. Onamir88 (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)