==A reference as something other than a published article==
==A reference as something other than a published article==
I am writing an entry on a well-known business person that is supported by at least two dozen reputable sources, including major newspapers and two best sellers. In addition to helping change the way global business was done in his industry and leading several high-profile initiatives that are well-recognized by the average person, he was involved in an under-the-radar (but critical) government program for which no press coverage was pursued. At its conclusion, he was sent a thank you letter from a Secretary-of-State, a PDF of which I was considering using as an illustration/picture. Can I do that, and (if yes) how do I direct readers to the image as a reference for the brief paragraph about it? Thank you, Joe [[User:Intimeagain|Intimeagain]] ([[User talk:Intimeagain|talk]]) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am writing an entry on a well-known business person that is supported by at least two dozen reputable sources, including major newspapers and two best sellers. In addition to helping change the way global business was done in his industry and leading several high-profile initiatives that are well-recognized by the average person, he was involved in an under-the-radar (but critical) government program for which no press coverage was pursued. At its conclusion, he was sent a thank you letter from a Secretary-of-State, a PDF of which I was considering using as an illustration/picture. Can I do that, and (if yes) how do I direct readers to the image as a reference for the brief paragraph about it? Thank you, Joe [[User:Intimeagain|Intimeagain]] ([[User talk:Intimeagain|talk]]) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
: Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. When you are asking Questions here, its usually good to be specific so others know exactly what you are speaking of. You probably meant [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marcio Moreira]] here. As you have already said, this article seems to be supported by several reliable sources and will pass.
: As for the illustration, I believe you were talking about "Shared Values". Since you are talking about a PDF here, it will fall under the purview of files.
:* So '''Yes''' - You can absolutely upload the file and use it in your article. [I think an image will be a better upload than a PDF though]
:* But make sure the image you upload follows our image uploading policies. We are very strict on these issues, and your image could be deleted if you do not follow it. If your image is under a Creative Commons license, you can upload it directly to "Wikipedia Commons", from where the image can be used on any language Wikipedia. If not, then you might still be able to upload it on English Wikipedia under "fair use".
: For more information, please see our image uploading guidelines and how to upload a file. <small> Other hosts, please link to the relevant pages too. I cant find the particular pages right now</small>
: Hope this helped. If you have any further doubts or questions, feel free to ask again. [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 19:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
A reference as something other than a published article
I am writing an entry on a well-known business person that is supported by at least two dozen reputable sources, including major newspapers and two best sellers. In addition to helping change the way global business was done in his industry and leading several high-profile initiatives that are well-recognized by the average person, he was involved in an under-the-radar (but critical) government program for which no press coverage was pursued. At its conclusion, he was sent a thank you letter from a Secretary-of-State, a PDF of which I was considering using as an illustration/picture. Can I do that, and (if yes) how do I direct readers to the image as a reference for the brief paragraph about it? Thank you, Joe Intimeagain (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. When you are asking Questions here, its usually good to be specific so others know exactly what you are speaking of. You probably meant Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marcio Moreira here. As you have already said, this article seems to be supported by several reliable sources and will pass.
As for the illustration, I believe you were talking about "Shared Values". Since you are talking about a PDF here, it will fall under the purview of files.
So Yes - You can absolutely upload the file and use it in your article. [I think an image will be a better upload than a PDF though]
But make sure the image you upload follows our image uploading policies. We are very strict on these issues, and your image could be deleted if you do not follow it. If your image is under a Creative Commons license, you can upload it directly to "Wikipedia Commons", from where the image can be used on any language Wikipedia. If not, then you might still be able to upload it on English Wikipedia under "fair use".
For more information, please see our image uploading guidelines and how to upload a file. Other hosts, please link to the relevant pages too. I cant find the particular pages right now
Hello, I am Marina and I hope I will be able to contribute to our community. Could anyone tell me whether all pictures found o Google images have free license?--Martina Moreau (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Marina, welcome to Teahouse! This should have been asked at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and I will copy it there so others can learn from the answer. This page is for asking questions about the Teahouse itself. No worries! Most pictures on Google images are not of a compatible license with Wikipedia. I hope this answers your question. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
inserting pictures into new article
I am having trouble viewing pictures i am trying to insert into a new article. On the preview, it has a link to the picture, I think. I have uploaded the pictures through wiki commons, yet i still dont think they are on the page i am creating. Any help? Caseywhittington (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the minimum criteria for an article to meet the notability standards
First of all, it should be said that I am comically novice when it comes to wikipedia in general. But- I have fixed up the Stephen Kellogg and the Sixers wiki page and noticed that any link to "stephen kellogg" brought you to "stephen wright kellogg" who is not associated with the group. I wanted to make the most basic page for the "stephen kellogg" who is the founder of "stephen kellogg and the sixers" so that anyone looking for him would be able to find the correct person- and link that page to "stephen kellogg and the sixers" where the researcher would find the information they were looking for. What is the least amount of information i need to put on the page so that it isn't covered in flags? THANKS Cousinskunk (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How to move my article?
Hi all. I wrote my first wiki article and would like to know how can I post this? I've read that I'm not allowed to move it but others can. What should I do to ensure that the article will be moved? Thx
Bzfsolpex (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any maximum number of times a reference can be cited? The most I've seen is cite note a, b, c.... All the way till ch. Forgot what page that was. Bicholim Conflict? Anyways, yeah, back to my question. I ask this because it would seem reasonable to cite a source which devotes all its content to the subject in detail many times... But what's the limit? Zz? BonkersThe Clown(Nonsensical Babble)12:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well zz gives you 676 uses of the same reference by which time, you'd be dealing with a very long article. But if you got anywhere near that I'd be questioning how the reference was being used. If it's a book then the pages should be referenced so you might have umpteen uses of the same book but only two or three to any particular page and the system used for referencing should reflect that. NtheP (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How to have an article created about my organisation
Hello
I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia and despite reading a lot of help and reference pages, I'm still confused and would really appreciate some assistance.
I would like to create an article about the not-for-profit organisation that I work for. There are already pages about the subsidiary organisations, but I'd like to create an overarching page that links them all together.
I read the Conflict of Interest policy and it seems like this would be against that policy. Could someone please advise me of how to work around this problem to have the article created?
Hi, 203. Having a conflict of interest does not forbid you from writing an article. It suggests that you get any edits you make reviewed, so if you create your article at Articles for Creation, that will be reviewed before it is published to the encyclopedia. Just make sure that the references you have are reliable sources and that you have enough referenced information to pass the notability standard for organizations, WP:ORG. Gtwfan52 (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question about WP:HW
Hi! Before I begin, I'm sorry if this is unrelated to Wikipedia and/or is not allowed. I know WP:HW states that editors will not do your homework for you, but I have a question if anyone is willing to help. My question is related to analyzing a statement for a debate. I can be reached by e-mail or on my talk page, but preferrably (I don't know if I spelled that right) my e-mail. I am also willing to e-mail/talk you. Thank you. JHUbal2701:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am part of a group working on content for a new Wiki page. I will not be submitting material but thought I should learn the editing process to be able to participate in refinement once a page is established. To that end I have been reading the edit tutorials and went to sandbox to get started.
Where in sandbox is there a "read/write" window on which to type? For example, to correct a typo such as a mispelled word, I assume word processing conventions are used such as those at work in this textbox. I cannot enter or select any portion of sandbox that accepts the cursor. I cannot make changes. On one page there is a phrase to the effect "edit below this line", bolow which the window is blank. Although I can type in this area, there is no text there to revise.
Hi Crodney, you need to open the edit window by clicking the "edit" tab at the top right of the screen. That'll let you play around in your sandbox. The save button is below. Sadly, using Wiki isn't as easy as using a word processor yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image stays at Commons. You use exactly the same code to display it whether the image is hosted at Wikimedia Commons or at the English Wikipedia. If you still have problems then please say which image it is and where you want to display it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How to replace/update an existing image without creating a new page? i.e. adds to chronology instead
This is to do with a problem with the graph chronology for next UK election. Note: when a small image appears, hover over it with your mouse to read the complete the sentence.
Ok, so this page has always had a chart but due to the continuous updates with the addition of new polls the chart needs updating every once in a while. This has meant that there are now an abundance of unwanted/out of date files on wikipedia, which should really belong in the chronology of the
. As you can see from the chronology all is well for the chronology of that page until it stops at May 2012, the final update.
The next image to be uploaded was a , this chart and the were used simultaneously for a period. That is until the data for 2011 and 2012 was updated to the 30px|talk page to accommodate the new format (due to the addition of UKIP's column). This is a recent occurance. I was the one that uploaded the new data a few days ago, I also created a to see us through until we could get a new version of the favoured chart to cover May 2010-Present Day.
A exists, this preceded my chart, it was made in error, I discovered the lines were too thick for interpretation, therefore this image needs to be deleted, as it is in effect a duplicate. I do not know how to delete this image, or suggest deletion, can someone help/delete it for me? I'll see to it that there are comments on that page.
Since my chart was uploaded, I have uploaded the data to the talk page, for User:Wavehunter to update the chart that preceded mine to include the data from 2010 and 2011. The reason for this is that Wavehunter's chart was the one that had consensus. In the meantime Impru20 has uploaded . Since then Wavehunter has uploaded his updated chart which is now (by consensus) the .
To summarise what I need help with doing/for someone to do for me:
All of these listed graphs need to be added to the chronology of the and not be as separate pages. In chronological order the follow should be added to the chronology:
(or deleted)
(current)
Note: Please do not include: the as it is useful on other pages and does not fit in the chronology (as does not include 2010or11!
I would really appreciate someone doing this for me, as I am likely to make a mistake with it being multiple edits and my 1st time doing this. Could you also leave a note explaining how to do this for future reference on the talk page for the benefit of myself and future editors.
I also want to know how to do this so that I can use my new skill on another page, I have another picture that I need to replace/update but I want to do it properly! So once I know what I'm doing and once someone has done this for me I will be able to see to things like this in the future.
Is it permissible to create a website which domain name is starting with wiki and says we are MediaWiki affiliates?
I want to know that is it permissible to buy a domain which is started from "wiki" like "wikiinfo". If it is permitted then tell me is it allowed to use the name of WikiMedia or MediaWiki on the wiki website to show the visitors that this information is true and authentic. And if it is permitted then tell me is it permitted to insult and provide fake information about a particular religion to show people that it is false and untrue on the same site which is using "wiki" in domain name and saying we are the members of MediaWiki. Kindly reply me it's a serious question.
Sanpatrick81 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the answer to the first question yes, WikiMedia does not own the Wiki- Prefix. For the second, without permission from the Foundation, no. And lastly, its your website, do whatever you want on it. §haun9∞76༆19:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point to where they say or indicate they are a "Mediawiki affiliate", use the name of Wikimedia or where they provide "false statements" on this issue? I looked but couldn't find any. The only thing I see is that they have a logo at the bottom of pages saying "Powered by MediaWiki", which is true—that is a statement of the software they run, the Mediaiwiki platform, which MediaWiki allows others to use freely.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify further from the above answers:
Wikimedia Foundation is an American non-profit charitable organization which runs Wikipedia and several other websites. You are not allowed to claim that your own website is affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Some websites contain false claims of this. They risk legal action from the Wikimedia Foundation.
A wiki is a type of website. Anybody is allowed to create a wiki and give it a name containing "wiki" (assuming the full name doesn't make infringements). Wikipedia is an example of a wiki. Many other wikis are not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. The wiki concept and word are older than Wikipedia. Wikipedia was given a name starting with "wiki" to indicate that it is a wiki.
MediaWiki is not an organization but a specific piece of software used to make wikis. There is also other software which can make wikis. MediaWiki is free. You are allowed to download the MediaWiki software and use it to create a wiki if you just satisfy the license conditions of the software. MediaWiki is made by the Wikimedia Foundation but this does not in any way imply that wikis using MediaWiki are affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Since MediaWiki is not an organization, it wouldn't make sense to claim you are a "member" of MediaWiki or "affiliated" with MediaWiki. Many websites correctly say they are "powered" by MediaWiki, often with a small image in the lower right corner like Wikipedia. This only refers to using MediaWiki as software to run the website. You are allowed to say that if you use MediaWiki. Wikimedia Foundation websites also have another image in the lower right corner saying "a Wikimedia project". This is not allowed for sites not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, but some sites falsely display the image.
Bart, if you talking about changing the size of images used in articles then the full syntax for image placement is [[File:Name|Type|Border|Location|Alignment|Size|link=Link|alt=Alt|Caption]] and the parameters you're interested in is |Size=. By changing this value you make images lager or smaller. You can find a full description of it and all the other parameters at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. NtheP (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Help with editing please
moved by Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. I have a section on my user page entitled 'articles I have edited/created,' but as I am editing more, the section is taking up rather a lot of space. Does anyone know what I could do to help make the space smaller? I see other users have boxes for theirs, could anyone tell me how to do this? Thanks for your help! --PrincessAlice13 (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PrincessAlice, welcome to the Teahouse. One way is to use {{multicol}} and put the entries into several columns across your user page like this
Markup
Renders as
{{Multicol}}
This text appears in the first column.
{{Multicol-break}}
This text appears in the second column.
{{Multicol-break}}
This text appears in the third column.
{{Multicol-end}}
If this isn't a way you'd like have a look round other users pages to see how they do it - you can look at the source and copy that. NtheP (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Alice. Another option is to use collapsible lists. For example, the following:
{{Collapsible list
|framestyle=border:2; padding:0;
|title=Articles I have contributed to/edited
|[[Princess Helena of the United Kingdom]]
|[[Lady Louise Windsor]]
|[[James, Viscount Severn]]
|[[Infanta Leonor of Spain]]
}}
I have made a page and it is telling me that A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (January 2013). I really don't know what this mean the link my page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Omega_Sigma
Hi, Daniel! Welcome to the teahouse. Since you have the exact same username as the article you were trying to create, someone assumed you are most likely a member of the organization and hence had a conflict of interest. I am not able to see the article you wrote, as it has been deleted, but you have to be very careful to stick to a neutral, non promotional point of view whenever you edit Wikipedia. This is especially important when you have a conflict of interest. You, unfortunately now have another problem. You have been blocked. Wikipedia accounts are only supposed to be used by one person, and since your name is that of a fraternity, it is assumed that was not your intention. Leave a note on your talk page inquiring on what you should do about that. I am pretty sure all you will need to do is change your username to get unblocked, but before you try again on an article about your frat, please read WP:COI. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings MarioNovi, I looked at your contributions and I think anyone who labeled you as a single purpose account would not be affording you the assumption of good faith that you deserve. Just continue editing and mostly ignore the comment. If you feel like you are being harassed, address your concern in a civil manner, and ask the editor what they are suggesting. If necessary, tell the editor that you are a single purpose account, telling them as well that your single purpose is to learn how best to improve Wikipedia. That was my single purpose when I began editing here. --My76Strat (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add another script you will have to talk to some technical folk, I think the Language Committee on Meta will be able to point you in the right direction. As well as the Unicode issue, though, you will probably have to show consensus on the new: Wikipedia for the addition. RichFarmbrough, 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
My article has been denied four times now after being reviewed by three different people. I've done what was asked of me, but it seems that someone is really opposed to the idea of free knowledge for everyone, as more issues are made up every time the article is reviewed. Maybe someone should have a talk with these people? I honestly don't see why they would want to hinder a brilliant project like Wikipedia. I don't even know what is asked of me anymore. I've provided sources, just as asked - refined them, and added a "Reception" section. If anyone wants to give a new user some actually useful advice, or even better: help me get this article on Wikipedia, then feel free to do so. Please leave your answers below.
Hi, Samotny Wędrowiec. Welcome to Teahouse. Will you please answer a question for me? Have you read WP:NBOOK? If you answer that for me, I will be happy to help you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samotny. First, starting on a side issue, since you must see that all of your inline citations are not working properly, I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. In short though, you have the citations in the form <ref>{{http://www.example}}</ref> which will not work. An extremely basic web citation format would be <ref>[http://www.example Name of Source]</ref>, though we really want much more information than just this. Since you used the curly brackets as if you were trying to use a template, let me give you the basic code for a formatted and well attributed web citation using one:
You can copy and paste this and then just fill in the data next to each equal sign. This will produce properly formatted, consistent citations with decent attribution. Back to your question.
What a topic needs to establish notability is substantive treatment in independent, third-party, reliable sources. To parse that, substantive treatment means not just a mere mention but real content about the subject. Independent, third party sources means that the sources cited should be completely unconnected to the subject. Reliable sources are those with a reputation for checking the facts, editorial oversight and accuracy – so not some unknown person on a blog, but published books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Notability, which is about sources showing that the world has taken note of the topic, goes hand in hand with verifiability, which is about sources existing from which the information in an article can be verified – since Wikipedia's content should not be about new things, but based on already published material. Do the sources you've listed meet these requirements?
Metro is not an independent, third party source, but exactly the opposite, a site promoting the product they are involved with. Fantlab is some kind of a blend of a blog and a wiki with user-generated content, per the Russian article on it, and thus very much not a reliable source (see WP:BLOGS). In any event, it does not provide any sort of substantive treatment. Looking at the rest of the sources, they all suffer from the same defects. The only source that appears to have a somewhat substantive write up is kawerna.pl and that appears to be a fan site, also with user-generated content. All this is to say, you need to find the sources we are looking for, which you have not provided (not yet). If such sources do not exist, Wikipedia should not have an article on this topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Samotny Wędrowiec. I looked over your article. Firstly, I fixed your citations. (not sure why you thought they had to be enclosed in curly brackets, but they are gone now). Secondly, I removed your overlinking. You only Wikilink the first instance of a term in an article and you don't Wikilink common terms (like Polish). Then I evaluated your article as best I could, considering all sources are foreign language. You have plenty of citations to websites that are selling the book, but those only show that the book exists. No one is trying to say otherwise. What you need is something to show notability. Wikipedia only publishes articles on subjects that the world has noticed (hence, the term, notability). You show this by citing articles about the book in reliable sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles. Blogs and most other internet sources (other than websites associated with newspapers or magazines) are not considered reliable sources. I hope this clears things up. I hope also that someone translates the series into English, as it appears to be pretty interesting. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! If you boldly disagree with other editors, then you are allowed to accept the article yourself. However, I am not recommending this. JHUbal2720:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all very much for taking the time to reply and thank you Gtwfan52 for clearing up the mess I made. As for showing the notability of the subject: I find that almost impossible to do. Metro 2033 is one of the biggest modern novels in Russia lately and it's very well-known in Eastern Europe. Due to that fact alone, the Universe of Metro 2033 series is also becoming more and more popular.
However, since Metro 2033 itself is the only book that has been translated into English so far, it is impossible to obtain any English sources regarding Piter. As such, I am limited to Russian sources that I mostly cannot understand and can only pick out bits and pieces of information from (or rely on Google Translate, which is far from the best option but it's the only other one) and Polish ones. Unfortunately, I have not lived in Poland since I was nine years old so I'm not aware of which magazines are popular there right now.
The book has certainly been "noticed by the world", but only a part of it and that part does not speak English. I'm trying to help people who only speak English with finding out more about this book series (mostly for English and American fans of Metro 2033 and its video game adaptation). I wanted to follow this up with another article on Towards the Light (another novel in the series), but I don't think I will considering how much hassle I had to go through with the article for Piter and it's still not accepted.
Why are the sources provided unreliable? They do more than show that the book exists - they support the facts given in the article. Everything you see is user-generated. Wikipedia is user-generated, if you haven't noticed. What else is it supposed to be? Robot-generated? I don't understand.Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You hit the nail on the head. The problem is that the sources you are using are user generated. Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Reliable sources are generally fact-checked, like newspapers, magazines and books. You find very few books about books, so that leaves you with newspapers and magazines. I really don't know how to tell you to go about finding newspaper and magazine articles written about a foreign language book, but the source being in a foreign language is not a problem. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears your article got some attention from the article rescue squad today. It appears they added a reliable source, so you are getting much closer. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No question. Cracked.com. Consistently the smartest humor site on the internet. John Cheese and Dan O'Brien are my favorite columnists, though there's lots of good stuff all around. The "After Hours" video series is great. The site is solid. --Jayron3201:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How to align a previously existing Wikimedia page with a Wikipedia article if they have slightly different namespaces ?
I have recently created an article about Gutenberg Castle in Liechtenstein. However, I found out (too late) that Wikimedia Commons already had a page with some copyright-approved photos of the castle. Trouble is, the WC page with the images uses the namespace "Burg Gutenberg", while the article made by me uses "Gutenberg Castle". Though I've tried, I'm not really sure how to safely link to the WC page from the main article on the castle (you know, with that Wikimedia link added to the bottom of the article, between External links and Categories). Can the link to the existing WC page be created as a redicrect ? Or is my only hope asking permission to move the WC page to a namespace identical with that of the article ? Thanks in advance for any tips. ZemplinTemplar (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ZemplinTemplar! Thanks for dropping by, I'm assuming you are referring to {{commons category}} which allows you to give a link to the commons category. There is functionality to allow you to link to a commons category of a different name than the article. In this case you should use the code {{commons category|Burg Gutenburg|Gutenberg Castle}}. I don't know how much you know about templates, but the vertical lines separate things known as parameters. In this case, the first unnamed parameter of the template (a named parameter would be one that uses a name= in it) defines the name of the commons category. The second unnamed parameter defines how it should be displayed. It's a bit of a confusing issue, but you can see the documentation at Template:commons category or ask me any follow up questions. RyanVesey21:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that worked wonderfully. :-) I'm still a relative newbie to most of Wikipedia's functions, including templates, but I'm learning quite quickly. Thanks again. ZemplinTemplar (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AFC or create article?
General question concerning best practices for creating an article. Is there a rule of thumb as to when the Articles for Creation process is favored over simply taking the bull by the horns and starting an article outright? Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, CoreTApple. Simple answer is no, no rule of thumb. Articles for creation (AfC) was initially a place for ISP editors with no account to develop articles. The {{subst:submit}} template came later as an easy way to submit an article for newcomers who feared moving their article to article space (I goofed the first time I did a move). Because of the backlog at AfC, I suggest you develop your article in your sandbox, then move it straight to article space. The New page patrol will still have a look at the article.
You can help with the backlogs at AfC and new pages. I feel obligated to review at least one or two each time I submit an article or make a major revision. It's considered courteous to do a GA review whenever you nominate an article for good article review and to do a review of another editor's nomination when you submit a Did you know. No requirement to do those reviews but doing so is part of Wikiculture.
Hi DocTree - thanks for your thoughtful comment alluding to some best practices within Wikiculture. I'm new to the game and want to pull my own weight. Your comment was the first I've seen about reviewing New Pages etc. as a way to contribute. I'm working my way up to creating a page but I want to hold back a bit until I can get a better feel for how to operate. It seems maybe remaining active in the New pages thing might help - but I need to read more about Afc and the reviews, etc. Laurenlinn (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really if you create an article that establishes notability (WP:NOTABILITY) and is not a copyright violation (WP:COPYVIO), or some other legal problem it should "survive". Of course all sorts of other things can be wrong with it, but if you are reasonably competent and follow similar pages for style, and so forth, it's likely to be a good contribution. AFC is supposed to protect new editors from being super-speedied, but sometimes it seems that it merely prolongs the agonies, or results in articles being abandoned. RichFarmbrough, 00:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Referencing mess
Hi,
I've been working on the Chalcogen article, and the references there are sort of a mess. Is there anything I should know about how to standardize the references there? Thanks
Hi there, King, and thanks for dropping by the teahouse. Folks can have opinions about referencing style, so you might want to discuss what you'd like to do on the talk page first. The Periodic table article doesn't have nearly so many problems and if you're specifically emulating that style I don't think you'll have too many problems. I've found template:citation to be really helpful. Good luck! GaramondLethe02:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How to get a third review of an article in creation
It has been decined twice because of missing references. I have now added references but the 'submit-again' button has disappeared. How do I get someone to view it again? Kunstasa (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This question inspired my question above, about whether it was better to simply create an article outright, as is permitted by the rules. Isn't it sometimes better to just take the bull by the horns and create an article, and then work with the community to improve it? Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! In response to Coretheapple, I would say maybe. The two things that get new articles deleted the most are lack of notability, and being written in an overly promotional way. If you feel completely comfortable with the nuances of notability, you are just fine creating the article on your own. There are many nuances to notability, however. By the time you get through AfC, you will have an article that will stick. It may take a month, but it should stick. If you create an article straightaway, you run the risk of it being speedy deleted. It is a trade-off. Brand new users should stick to AfC; once you have some experience, just go ahead and create it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How to put bullet points in two seperate columns?
How do I make a list of things using bullet points but with two columns? I saw this list of items and I thought that it would be presented in a better way by using bullet points. I thought that the list would be too long, so how do I split the list into two columns using bullet points? Koopatrev (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vinay, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes you can keep articles from wikipedia on your website. This is because all content on wikipedia (with the exception of some images) is licenced under a Creative Commons licence which means you are free to do with it as you wish as long as you comply with the Terms of use and attribute where you got the information from. NtheP (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot my password and didn't add an e-mail?
I guess that wasn't a smart decision, but I checked the "remember login info on this browser for 180 days" box. If I forgot my password after the time is up, do I have to create another account? But I like my username! What can I do? Thanks. JHUbal2703:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't remember it and you don't have an email account, then yes you would. You could then move the talk and user pages of your old account to your new one. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If your account is logged in right now there should be no problem.
Click here: Special:ChangePassword (this is the link provided under Preferences at the top of every page → User profile tab → Basic information → Password: Change password).
Once you do that:
Click here: Special:ChangeEmail (this is the link provided under the same page of Preferences under "E-mail options → Set an e-mail address").
Yes, but you would have still needed to know your old password to do either of those things. Had he not (as indicated below) remembered it, he would have been screwed when the 180 days expired. --Jayron3220:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Unisonreading! To do this, you can surround your text in nowiki tags (which are like HTML tags, if you know what those are), so that it looks like: <nowiki>''Text''</nowiki>. If you type that into the edit screen and save it, the nowiki tags (which are the things between the angle brackets) disappear, and the text between them will show without any formatting. Does that help? Writ Keeper⚇♔21:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hey Unisonreading, and Welcome! If you wish to use double quote marks, use the double quote character,: ", don't hit the apostrophe twice. Using multiple consecutive apostrophes is what causes text two be formatted at Wikipedia. One apostrophe does nothing: 'like this'. Two apostrophes causes italics: like this. Three apostrophes causes bold like this. Double quote characters don't do anything: "like this". See the difference? Does that help? --Jayron3221:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just type them. ' (single quote) and " (double quote) both work fine. The problem begins with repeated single quotes, as these indicate wikimarkup for italic or bold. Don't use them, use the character for a double quote instead. "Curly quotes" are discouraged by the Manual of Style (WP:MOS). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, using a straight quote(s) is preferred. If you live in the United States, or are on an English language keyboard, they should be the keys right next to Enter, to the left. It'll have the " and ' on the same key, and you use the Shift key to switch between the two. For example, pushing SHIFT+' produces " (the double quote). In the wiki editor box, they'll show as ' and " due to the different font used, but the double quote will still look normal once you save the page. gwickwiretalkedits21:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Glamour (Presentation) "A glamour photograph of Michele Merkin."
Though the term Glamour is subjective, by as many means as its meaning defines; The trends of the times that this reference image represents; In my opinion, is better suited for use in soft pornography, and has no place among the Wikipedia family as such.
The times as it were, have come to an obvious degradation, or diminished tolerances, according to modesty, and ethics in journalism, and this is apparent among all forms of public media, without a caption indicating most specifically this idea, I reiterate, a nude model revealing her physical persona, perhaps best defining modern sexuality, as opposing the origin of that which tradition has defined "galmour" to be among as may renowned Hollywood celebrities, I am appalled to have found and noted such a common lacking of ethics in dutiful management of our base responsibility, to the world we serve. Which in fact is accurately defining the nature of the terms, ideas, and considerations, that comprise the spoken language, and all that it represents.
If ethics in journalism is dead to the trending times, than there's no reason for any future generation to have hope, and as much as try to maintain this ideal, but to exceed it in degradation, by modelling our example.
Regardless of my place among the Wikipedia community, I do not feel that it is my place to edit this entry, without the agreement of the local authority, who may very well possess a greater ability than my own, that any such action not offend the contributor, that originally determined that any such image has any place among a modern encyclopedia, without the strictest consideration for the youthful or sensitive minds it may offend.
Please see that this image is removed, or properly described for what it is, where it is located?
Upon notice of any such questionable materials within any Wikipedia page; I'm sorry but I will not be party to any such guilt, supporting as many ancient scrite prophetic suggestions, that the times we share would fall to any like lacking in ethical judgement.
I suggest that any reading this correspondence, consider my words, and take care in your own contributions here, that if none other chooses to maintain that which as many have spent lifetimes to preserve, we not be guilty of failing the responsibility, of the legacy entrusted our generation's contribution to history.
I add a final consideration here for future reference:
If you believe that this comment is excessive in any capacity, than I submit that before any man is permitted to contribute to the content of Wikipedia, that he be made to prove that he has taken the time from his busy life, and schedule, to read any selection of that which has been prepared by our nation's founding fathers, in correspondence among one another regarding such important issues, and I do not mean the most common documents of establishment, but simple correspondence among our US founding statesmen, in negotiating the simplest of terms of agreement.
I intentionally do not leave references, that it become the responsibility of others to define such works, that in the finding, any such individuals are permanently marked with the genius, and intellectual certainty that we as like representatives now possess in responsibility here.
Hi, Maya`Tae Heno. Welcome to Teahouse. I am sorry you were offended by an image you found on Wikipedia, but you need to know that Wikipedia is uncensored. There are settings on your web browser you can use to block images you find distasteful, but you cannot remove them from Wikipedia. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the UK perspective on "glamour" does not reflect an international view of the subject. Apparently (at least as far as Glamour photography is concerned) it has become synonymous with "softcore porn". Perhaps the lead/lede needs some clarification (?). ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have an article that has been declined a few times now and the lingering issue is for it to have a more "encyclopedic, neutral tone".
The article is about a living person, and all of the notable sources cover achievements from the individual. Everything mentioned is fact so I am unsure how to improve the article.
Thanks, AshleyAmmitchell (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the article. I have been told in live chat this it is notable. I have improved the ref, list.
Welcome to the Teahouse Ammitchell. I will take a look at the article and get back to you on your talk page about what can be done. Generally though, it has been declined because it has failed some point of WP:NPOV, but I will be better able to advise you once I have taken a look at it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent five years researching the sinking of the Arandora Star and its aftermath in Ireland. We re-discovered from 1940 newspapers that dozens of bodies had been washed ashore and buried in unmarked graves. This information was of great interest to the families, particularly those in Bardi whence came one in 10 of the victims. We also made a video which has had more than 5000 visits on Youtube.
The work has no commercial intent and in fact has been quite expensive, but has brought scores of appreciative mails from the families for whom it was carried out. I spent some time adding this info and a link to the video. This has been removed. Why, please?
OK but the Youtube video contains info which I researched rather than being the source of such info. You might like to remove the first two links as they now refer to a (Japanese?) product.
I would still like to know why the text and corrections which I provided has been removed. Some of your existing copy is wrong: eg casualty name is Cesare Camozzi NOT Ceazar as appears in Wiki. [source: his granddaughter, and his headstone]. Luigi Tapparo is NOT buried alongside John Connelly, there is about 50m between the graves; and the body of il signor Tapparo was removed by relatives for home burial. [source: Termoncarragh burial register held by the parish priest].
If you are basing the text solely on the video that you sourced, then it could well have been removed because the source itself wasn't notable. As to the question posed by User:74.60.29.141, this page may be of interest if you want to try and upload the video here. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to get some clarification. In Wikipedia:Tutorial/Wikipedia links, under "When to link," it states, "To avoid excessive links, you should normally create a link in an article only where the first occurrence of a word or phrase occurs." I can understand that, but was wondering about an article which may be very long and has a certain word or phrase occurring perhaps near the beginning that's a wiki link. Then a new section or additional information is added much farther down in which the same word of phrase is used. Is the first occurrence still the only one where a link should be created in the article?
K828 (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi K828, welcome to the teahouse! The Wikipedia manual of style says much the same thing, although I think it is worded slightly more weakly. Personally I agree that only wikilinking the first occurrence is not necessarily sensible as a hard and fast rule. I don't see anything wrong with wikilinking a second time, if the second mention is a couple of thousand words further down the article. So it's fine to put a second (or third...) wikilink in if you think it's needed.
Other editors might change it back, but that's fine too! I think most copyeditors and reviewers generally recommend a maximum of one wikilink in the lead and then another the first time it's mentioned in the body of the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was thinking that as well. The thing is, in really long articles, a reader may only go straight to one particular section that may be of interest, and it may be quite far down the page from where certain words may have been first wikilinked. K828 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue (also supporting this) is that the lead section of an article is supposed to summarize the article's content, and the body and the lead should be able to be read entirely separately—one for a precis and the other for detailed information—which is a way many people do read articles. Thought about in this way, it is eminently sensible and even necessary that properly linked items in the lead should be duplicated upon their first mention in the body, and vice-versa.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At first it was being refused due to the "lack of reliable sources". Now it's been refused twice due to its "lack of notability". I've edited it as much as I can but am stuck now for the correct format to be accepted. Can anyone help?
Yarandd (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yarandd, and welcome to the Teahouse!
It seems from your situation that you might be getting frustrated, which is certainly understandable. It can take a bit of patience to get an article suitable for inclusion to Wikipedia; and there are many times that a subject simply is not suitable. This is not to say that your article necessarily falls into this category, it is just that in its current form, it is difficult to evaluate the notability of the subject. It would be helpful if the inline citations were fully formatted. I have taken the liberty of changing the 1st reference as an example.
Hello :) To further his comment on the inline references, if you need help, there's a great template you use ({{cite}}, which in turn is broken into {{tl|citenews)),{{citeweb}}, and others). This is explained in more detail at our referencing for beginners page, which should help with any other questions you have. It even has pictures (which is good for some visual learners). Sorry it takes so long to get used to! gwickwiretalkedits03:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References for notability of subject
Hi, an article I submitted yesterday for approval via my sandbox was declined and the reason stated was, "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability." I double checked each reference, and they are all independent, third-party, and well-respected trade publications in the 3D printing and rapid prototyping industry. Each reference refers directly back to the subject of the related sentence. The editor suggested that I read the "guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule," which I did, and each reference in my proposed article adheres to all of the requirements stated in the guidelines and golden rule. Any suggestions? The article is called Mcor Technologies Ltd and is located here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mcor Technologies Ltd#ReferencesJulieAsarkofReece (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Julie. Welcome to Wikipedia! I read through this, and I don't actually think most of these sources are very good for establishing notability. Some of them (Fabboo) appear to be single-authored blogs. Others (efunda, rapidtoday) may be well-respected trade publications, but they're still trade publications. Consider this section of the business notability guideline.
"The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."
On the other hand, the coverage in Wired online and DesignNews might be good enough to save the article, since they're both at least professionally written and edited, and they play to a more general audience. So an article like this one is a borderline case, in my opinion: it could just squeak by on notability grounds, or it could be rejected. Not surprisingly, several veteran Wikipedians decided it didn't make the cut. If I were you, I might follow up with the editor who most recently rejected the article, and ask him/her why the designnews and wired articles weren't enough to establish notability. If that doesn't get the result you want, wait a few months or a year for the company to generate more mainstream press, and then try again. The article will be right where you left it, in your userspace, when you return :) Cheers, - J-MoTalk to MeEmail Me18:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Counter editing of my brand Wikipedia Page
Hello,
I recently updated my profile with links to each of my brands social media profiles, to ensure that users of Wikipedia are given all of the relevant links to their social properties (should they wish to visit Facebook, Google+ etc.
To my frustration there appears to be someone who has revisited the profile within the last 24 hours and made an amendment to remove the links I previously included.
Is there any way at all to prevent this from happening - as this is extremely frustrating.
Hi guys, if a film were to be released in two parts (note: Not a sequel, just that the film was split into two parts due to time constraint) should there be two separate pages about it or is one article be enough to encompass info both parts? I tried to take clue from Kill Bill, but I'm still not sure what to do with the content I have. If I were to merge/ split into a separate article, it'd be very difficult due to the amount of content (which could be potentially swamped then). What should I do? If you're wondering, the page in reference is Ah Boys to Men. Cheers. BonkersThe Clown(Nonsensical Babble)12:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked to see if we have a guideline on this, but my assumption would be that it depends on the sources. If you have sources that specifically discuss Part One without reference to Part Two and/or vice versa, then we should have two articles. If pretty much all the sources treat both parts as elements of the same film, then we only need the one article. That's just my 2¢, though - as I said, I don't know whether we have a specific policy or guideline on this or not. Yunshui雲水13:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How to change user name and how to prepare an acceptable article
hello, I am the only one using my account but since i have been told that the name is not right i wish to request a change of name. Again I wish to continue with my article and solicit your help to make it acceptable on wikipedia.Manowar.ng (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Manowar; welcome to the Teahouse. You can change your username fairly easily - first, check that your intended username isn't already taken by searching for it at this page. Assuming that it isn't already attached to another user, fill out this form (there's a handy checklist at the top to help you) and someone will rename your account for you (this can take a few days, depending on how many other rename requests there are at the time).
Hello Pratyya, thanks for coming to the Teahouse. Do you mean additions or advertisements? Truthfully I can't answer your question either way, but if it's about making advertisements, we only answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Best! heather walls (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to try my hand at translating an article for the first time and took one from the Spanish Wikipedia called "Escudo de Sax," or "Coat of arms of Sax." However, when I tried to make the new page in the English wiki, I couldn't get the Sax in the title to come out capitalized (since Sax is a location and thus a proper noun). How do I convince it to do that? Reinana kyuu (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Reinana kyuu and welcome to the Teahouse. I just moved the page to the correct title. Just in case, here's a screenshot of how to move a page. By the way, thanks for translating the article! It's always good to have bilingual/multilingual users that can translate from other language Wikipedias. ¡Gracias! The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are getting redirected then, at the top of the page, under the title, there should be something along the lines of "redirected from <name of page>". If you click on the name of that page then you should be taken back to the blank article and you can remove it with a simple edit. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect use of quotation marks in many articles?
I have edited many Wikipedia articles to fix various punctuation errors. In many articles, I see what I believe to be an incorrect use of quotation marks. For example (at least in the United States), when the last word of a sentence is within quotation marks, the ending quotation mark should come after any other punctuation mark that ends the sentence (period, question mark, exclamation mark, etc.), not before. An example of this error is in the second post directly below this one, at the end of the second sentence from user Kanasnick. The ending quotation mark after the word "essay" should come after the period, not before. I wonder if most other knowledgeable editors of English would agree with me and, if so, if there is any way to correct the incorrect quotation mark usage in the millions of articles!199.250.3.71 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, 199! There is a way to do that automatically, but that's not actually how we've decided to do things. The Manual of Style for Wikipedia recommends logical quoting: punctuation should be within quotes if it's part of the originally quoted material, and not otherwise. Even in American English, sometimes the punctuation goes outside the quotation marks: if a non-question quote appears at the end of a question, the question mark goes outside the quotation marks. Example: Did he really just say "bonerfart"? my creativity in coming up with examples is at an all-time low... So, yes it can be done, but whether it should be done is another question altogether. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)199.250.3.71, hi and welcome to the Teahouse and a further welcome to the whacky world of English grammar. In British English what you see as an error by Kanasnick is correct grammar and the punctuation marks go outside the quotation marks unless they form part of the quote (see Quotation marks#Typographical considerations). So how does Wikipedia go about managing these differences between American English and British English (with apologies to anyone using Canadian, Australian or any of the other XXX English variants)? Quite simply it accepts them all and the Manual of style dedicates a whole section to this issue calle WP:ENGVAR. Basically use the English that is most suited to an article so articles about American subjects use American English, article about British subjects use British English. If there is no national characteristic then stick with the variant English used in the majority of the article e.g. if I was the creator and predominant editor of an article on Duck egg blue and I've used British English then subsequent editors would be expected to follow suit and use British English. If it's not apparent which variant should be used article talk pages are sometimes tagged with a template from the Category:Varieties of English templates to indicate what variant should be. The same applies to spelling, don't change it unless it fits with the variant of English used. So if I had written "Duck egg blue is a colour . . ." I wouldn't be impressed if you changed it to color. So feel free to correct but only where the variant of English used is one that follows American English grammar.NtheP (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me Nthep but I think there's a confusing result of citing WP:ENGVAR, given the question. It is instructive but only be analogy as to the aspect of the question that appears to look to fixing English across all articles to conform to a United States standard in general. While it applies to aspects of spelling and grammar ("Pink Floyd is..." vs. "Pink Floyd are..."), in the specific context of the question of the OP, WP:ENGVAR does not dictate whether we should use logical quoting, the Manual of Style does that directly (regardless of national variety of English). Our house style is to use logical quoting in articles (as previously linked to its manual of style section by Writ Keeper), period. Punctuation, as distinct from grammar and spelling, is a house style issue; this is flagged in the ENGVAR section "(The accepted style of punctuation is covered in the punctuation section...)" but possibly not with the clarity it should contain.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. WP:LQ has never really affected me as it near enough follows British English so I've complied with it despite ignorance of it. My last sentence above struck out. NtheP (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Odd content dispute and talk page
A user has started demanding an article layout be changed according to his desire against the opinion of everyone else who has reverted the changes. It is really odd. I have no idea how to handle the situation. I feel this guy is bullying to get his demands. And is this type of thing a regular occurrence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_people_who_have_been_called_a_polymath
And what is this guy's thing with bullying? Telling me I am on my "last warning?" This is ridiculous, where do I report this guy for bullying? Bhalluka (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that on this as on many Wikipedia issues there is no right or wrong answer, but has to be resolved by what in academia is known as "collegial discussion." By the way, until reading this discussion I didn't know there was such a thing as a polymath! Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My article format: encyclopedic vs essay?
I am a NASA researcher, and at their behest I submitted an article summarizing my field to Wikipedia. Initial feedback was that the article was not "encyclopedic" but read like an "essay". I cleaned it up, kept objective and to the point, and I thought met all the Wikipedia published on-line criteria. But the feedback from a new editor has come back the same. I don't know what I am doing wrong, especially since other Wikipedia articles are formatted like mine. Help.
Hi there Kanasnick, welcome to the Teahouse. Well, your article is still very much written like an essay. While I don't think that should necessarily determine its acceptance, it could use a little more nudging to be aligned with Wikipedia guidelines. When you write things like, "Kanas has identified a number of psychosocial and psychiatric"... as the beginning of a section, it appears you are presenting Kanas' work more than the topic of the article. The article also seems to be very specifically about Mars, not general expeditionary space missions as it's titled. I would also recommend reviewing Effect of spaceflight on the human body#Psychological effects of spaceflight as suggested to see how your article relates. Perhaps some of the section could be added to yours and forwarded to from the Effect of spaceflight article. Hopefully someone else has a clearer way of explaining how to make something not present as an essay. Thanks for your contribution, and for not giving up on the more difficult parts. heather walls (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. Thank you for your feedback, Heatherwalls. My intent was indeed to review what is current about a new field of study, and in scientific writing, reviews are usually data- (i.e., investigator-) oriented. To me, essays are opinions, not facts, and my article (whatever it is) is very fact-laden and referenced, so it is hard for me to see it as an essay. If Wikipedia does not want reviews of new material, then I can see this as a valid criticism; the essay criticism still makes me scratch my head. What am I missing?
2. Not being a computer whiz, I find the formatting issues in Wikipedia a challenge. When I got rid of some subjective essay-like information in an earlier version of the article, the focus changed, and I put in a new title. However, I didn't know if I should (or even how to) change the lead-in title, since I was responding to earlier comments. What do you think?
3. Also, would it be appropriate to delete the psychologcal section of the Human Body article and refer to mine even before it is accepted? I don't know what the proper Wikipedia etiquette is.
Hi Kanasnick, I don't actually think your article is very far from what it should be. Much of it is excellent. However, things to watch out for are unsourced phrases like the following:
It is time to take this information and incorporate it in the planning for future expeditionary missions to a near-Earth asteroid or to Mars.
However, further work needs to be done on this phenomenon using controlled prospective studies and measures specific to the asthenization concept.
These are opinions, not facts, and opinions should never be stated in Wikipedia's voice. For a discussion of this topic, see Wikipedia:Npov#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view. As that page explains, the trick is to source such opinions, by citing a reference, and attribute them to the people holding them. In this way, the article does not advocate anything, but tells the reader who advocates what, and why. Also, it is often best to have a cited reference at the end of each sentence, so it is clear which source the sentence is based on. Hope this helps. Best, AndreasJN46603:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that most of the existing material at Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_human_body#Psychological_effects_of_spaceflight is completely unsourced ... is this material accurate in your view? Can it be sourced? Long-term, that section should contain a brief summary of what is in your article, together with a pointer to your more exhaustive treatment (for an example of such a pointer, see [1]). If there are any relevant sources cited in the existing section that you have not yet used in your article, it would make sense to include them.
I think it's also fair to say that what you see here, Kanasnick, is that writing a new article for Wikipedia imposes a higher bar on new contributors. You can enter unsourced material and opinion in existing articles without any problem, but new articles are scrutinised. It's a bit like a house that has chains and a big padlock on the door, yet has three of its walls missing. Also be wary of citing too much of your own work: Wikipedians are very mistrustful of that. Make sure you give a neutral round-up of the field's literature. Best wishes and good luck, AndreasJN46603:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Andreas JN466. Both you and Heatherawalls gave me good input, and I think I see what I need to do. So I think point 1 above is clear to me. Can either of you (or someone else) address points 2 and 3? Should I just make the changes and resubmit this as a new article with the correct lead-in title? Kanasnick (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Kanasnick[reply]
I have made a few changes to the lede of the proposed article, and to the first paragraph of the last section, as examples of what might be done to tone down the essay-like qualities, as well as to link key concepts to other parts of Wikipedia. Perhaps those examples will help with others improving the rest of the article.
I have also Welcomed Kanasnick to Wikipedia, and offered to help improve that article over time. That discussion is mostly on my Talk page. I think that article will be a good addition to the Wikipedia once the process is completed. Would of course be happy to see other editors take one paragraph and help out. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That does not quite help because I don't know what to put in there. A citing of where the picture is located ? or the name of the file from my computer ? if so, how to I upload it ? Mr.M.Ouellet (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mr Ouellet. Wikipedia cannot link to an image elsewhere: every picture in an article must first be uploaded, either to Wikipedia itself, or preferably to Wikimedia Commons (which will make the picture available to all the different language Wikipedias, and other Wikimedia wikis as well). But Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, so the pictures to be uploaded must either be in the public domain, or the copyright owner must agree to licence them under one of the free licences which Wikipedia requires. Please see WP:Uploading images for the first part, and WP:Image tutorial for the second. --ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Dissident Prophet's We're Not Grasshoppers, 1995.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Dissident Prophet's We're Not Grasshoppers, 1995.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Firstade (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, basically if We're Not Grasshoppers didn't use the file then it was deleted as unused. I think this is because of a typo "File:Dissident Prophet's We're Not Grasshoppers, 1996.jpg in the article. I'll ask for an admin to undelete the file. RichFarmbrough, 06:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I am trying to edit a section of an article. When I do a Preview, all the footnote numbers are changed and start at [1], as if there were no other footnotes prior to that section. I'm afraid to save it, not being sure of what's happening to the footnotes. If I do save it as is, will the numbers go back to their proper sequence?
K828 (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, K828! The answer is yes, the numbers will go back to their proper sequence. Whenever you edit a section and press preview, footnotes and references always start at 1, but if there were footnotes or references prior to the section, when you save it will go back to the proper numbering. This is just a little quirk of Wikipedia. Happy editing! öBrambleberry_ meow _ watch me in action00:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello K828. A 'trick' I use when editing in a section it to temporarily place a {{Reflist}} template at the end of the section, and then use the Show preview 'button'. This, apart from the numbering, will show the references as they will appear when you save (though they may then be in multiple columns). The real trick is to remember to remove {{Reflist}} again before you save! If not you may end up with two reflists and a garbled page layout, though that is easily fixed by removing the excess {{Reflist}} - 220ofBorg04:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Ps. I moved your sig to right after your post, otherwise it appears on the far left of the page, somewhat disassociated from your "Thanks!". Hope that is ok with you! [reply]
Is there a way that i can help on Wikipedia? I am currently working on Wiktionary's requests for photos, is there something i can do here? Venomxx (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Venomxx! Welcome to the teahouse. Pictures are very needed here, too, and if you upload them to commons they can be used in both places. Other areas that always can use help are copyediting and possibly AfC, if you feel confident enough to review new articles. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about black-and-white photos (I don't think we make requests for that) or simpler instructions or something else? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Venomxx, I too am unsure of what you are looking for. On Wikimedia Commons, the site that houses most of Wikipedia's images, there are a number of things you can do. For instance there is a list of images that need various cleanup, and a giant list of requested images from all the Wikipedia languages. Keep in mind that you would be working on what is technically a separate wiki, but all the images link and show onto the Wikimedia projects (you may already be aware of that). Another thing you could do if you want to donate photos, is to look around at articles you care about and see if they need an image, I have done that for a few things local to me. Good luck! And thanks for your hard work. heather walls (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse! That's a good question, however, this page is specifically for people who have questions about how to edit Wikipedia. I think it'd be great for you to ask your question as our reference desk which was created to answer questions just like this - about life, culture, science, technology, etc. Thanks again for coming by! SarahStierch (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
. As you can see from the chronology all is well for the chronology of that page until it stops at May 2012, the final update.
, this chart and the 
to see us through until we could get a new version of the favoured chart to cover May 2010-Present Day.
exists, this preceded my chart, it was made in error, I discovered the lines were too thick for interpretation, therefore this image needs to be deleted, as it is in effect a duplicate. I do not know how to delete this image, or suggest deletion, can someone help/delete it for me? I'll see to it that there are comments on that page.
. Since then Wavehunter has uploaded his updated chart which is now (by consensus) the 
.
(or deleted)
(current)
Rich Farmbrough, 00:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC).
The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Dissident Prophet's We're Not Grasshoppers, 1995.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
