Wikipedia:Teahouse

David Biddulph, 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! 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

giving a cookie

I'm really embarrassed that I can't find the answer to this question for myself, but I can't. I had occasion to give a cookie and didn't format it properly, and the person who received it doesn't know how to format {{cookie}} either. Is there a manual for formatting cookies? 67.71.2.203 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proving a book was never published in Britain?

Hi, everyone. While researching an American book that won a Welsh award I keep finding references to the fact that it was "never published in Britain", which I think is fascinating. However, how could I verify that it's still true as of 2012? Here in the US I could get a reference librarian to help me, but is there a source for British publishing? Any idea how I could find it if there is? Thanks for any suggestions you might have. Tlqk56 (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In theory, for any book that has been published in Britain copies should have been lodged at the various copyright libraries. You should therefore find references to the book in the COPAC library catalogue at http://copac.ac.uk. However, you couldn't use the lack of a reference in COPAC as a source. You'd need to use a secondary source that explicitly states that the book was never published in Britain. However, I'm puzzled as to how the book could have won a Welsh award if it was never published in Britain as Wales is part of Britain. Or do you mean that the book was never published in England? Dahliarose (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Dahliarose. The award in question, Tir na n-Og Award only requires that the book be published in English. A String in the Harp was a US book set in Wales. I guess I can't use my fascinating fact, as I can find it in several sources, but none of them are modern enough to prove it hasn't been published in the UK since they came out. Thanks anyway. Tlqk56 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor feedback

This question is for some of the guests as well as the hosts since the feature was created while I was away from the encyclopedia and is marketed to new users. There is a feature on Wikipedia, I forget what it is called, which allows new users to make remarks about their experience. I would like to figure out where I need to go to review those remarks and respond to those remarks. This would be particularly helpful in helping some editors who are having a bad experience. Is anyone familiar with this? Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Special:FeedbackDashboard. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ryan. My name is Riley and I am one of the top feedback responders. When replying to feedback make sure to check the users contributions to see if they have made unhelpful edits or other things (and talk page if you are on the welcoming committee.) If you would like a list of templates that you could use, go to User:Riley Huntley/Feedback! If you have any questions or are struggling with a certain users feedback, give me a shout or message one of the other responders.

Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   18:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Riley, may i suggest your using {{tlsu}}s for the list of templates on your /Feedback page? Just thought it might provide useful links for visitors who don't know what each of those templates are. benzband (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the suggestion! Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   20:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

me again--on contacting administrators

Sorry I keep popping up in here, but I'm worried about a potential edit war over this [1]. In case one starts how can I get the administrators involved? Guyovski (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If an edit war was too occur, you could report it to an administrator at the edit war noticeboard. If you have anymore questions, dont be afraid to ask! Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   02:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I investigated a bit and found a very useful article on dispute resolution. It was highly informative even if my Swiss cheese memory didn't retain most of it. But there might be another, unrelated issue. There appears to be a disagreement between me and a longstanding, highly experienced editor whose talk page suggests that he's been involved in some very nasty exchanges in years past, and has been disciplined for them. Am I permitted to take that into account in deciding when to seek dispute resolution? Guyovski (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Guyovski. When an edit war occurs between two editors, by definition both are at fault. My suggestion to you is simply do not fall into the trap of edit warring. Try your best to steer clear of conflict with editors known for "very nasty exchanges" and remember that nastiness can sometimes be contagious. I have 17,000 edits and have never had to go through formal dispute resolution, because I stay away from fights. Those who misbehave eventually get blocked or banned. Avoid those folks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not really tailored for the particular issue here (because the post you removed are quotes that are not attributed through inline citations, and thus patently properly removed pursuant to verifiability policy and here, WP:BLP) but more in the way of general advice. The best way I know to avoid edit wars is to slavishly follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and to remember while you're following it that the article will still be there tomorrow, so if the other person's edit remains for a few days while the cycle is ripening, Wikipedia won't implode. If there is no response to a polite talk page post about the brewing issue, then you revert while specifically leaving an edit summary that speaks of the un-responded-to, talk page discussion. If reverted again, keep seeking to engage, and if there is no response, you can ask for a third opinion, start a request for comment or otherwise act without warring. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's something to consider though: blogs can be used as sources when they only mention claims about their author, and there's no doubt that the material is authentic. I had a quick look and posted my opinion on the talk page. ʝunglejill 07:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Referencing one book that I read in another?

I'm afraid I just can't find how to do this, though I'm sure I've seen it go by. I need to use a quote from an out-of-print book that I can't get my hands on. The quote is in a second book I can read online. How do I write that ref? Thank you! Tlqk56 (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tlqk! Have you tried searching on [books.google.com Google Books] for the out-of-print book? Sometimes they have citation information for books regardless of whether or not they're in print. Then you can just cite it with the citation templates per usual; if you need help with that then please do ask! If you can't find it on Google Books, then you could theoretically cite the second book and put in a note (the parameter is |note=) to state where the quote was originally from. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! In addition to the above, you might want to consider asking for some help at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Someone there might have access to teh book you want. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, Bilby. Thanks. If I have to, is it like this:<ref>All the usual stuff about the book I can't find|note=All the usual stuff about the book I saw on Google including url</ref>? Does that require a separate section labelled notes? Tlqk56 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Using the style I normally use, it would be something like <ref>Gordon, Peter quoted in Smith, John (2008) "The Usefulness of References", Something Press, London, p266</ref>. You will need to refer to it having been quoted in the second work, as sometimes the quote is not quite accurate, but from your question I figure you already know that. :) (I've encountered this in some academic publications where authors rely on secondary sources for quotes, but the secondary source got it wrong). It is much easier if you use Harvard inline, but we don't tend to do that here. :) I'm not sure that there is a hard rule here, due to WP's habit of allowing multiple citation styles. - Bilby (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Having a hard time adding a reflist in Ukrainian Wikipedia...yes, that's right!

Oh Teahouse! You are our only hope! I am at an edit-a-thon helping a new editor work on an article and we are trying to add a citation to Ukrainian wikipedia. The article is w:uk:Біочіп (biochip). You can see we're having a problem, it's basically adding a reference list. Anyone who can help..we'd appreciate it. We're both having a hard time :) (Sometimes even if you can't speak the language you can figure it out...but we can't). We wanted to add a footnote but we had to resort to just a reference list. Any help is appreciated. Thanks Sarah (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I found the documentation for the reflist template in Ukrainian. It's here. From what I can tell with bad translation software, it seems that it's pretty much the same as en.wiki. Does that help? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

two totally unrelated questions

Is there an ibidum function in Wikipedia where you can input a code in order to have a reflist entry refer to a previously cited reference again?

Also, what is the proper template when a page doesn't really need Wikification but could use some cleanup in terms of its English (mostly because the author and editors aren't as proficient in English as they might be in other languages)? And does using that template automatically notify a project team?

Guyovski (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Sure, you can name a reference. See here wp:Citing sources#Repeated citations. 2) There is such a template - see Wikipedia:Template messages for a list of all template messages. The one you're looking for is probably under Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. ʝunglejill 18:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding a template doesn't automatically notify other editors, but it will list the page under the appropriate category. For example, if you put the {{copy edit}} template, we won't get notified at the wp:Guild of copy editors, but the page will be listed so that a bored copy editor can find it there. ʝunglejill 18:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought of something else - if the page is important, there are some Wikipedia groups that take requests. The Guild of copy editors is one such group, although we currently have a backlog. :) In other cases, if you want other editors to get involved, you can look for groups who are interested in the article's subject. I recently wanted more help with an article about an ongoing protest, so I put a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. A few days later someone came around and made a few improvements to the page. ʝunglejill 18:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jill, and thanks. The repeated citations paragraph confused me until I realized that the reference's name is inside the angle brackets containing "ref." (I don't know how to type that into an edit window without activating the reference function.) But now I understand it and it's simple enough for me to remember. As for the templates, the one I wanted was "copy edit" (again I don't want to type in the whole thing in case I accidentally put a copy edit template on this page :D ). But if I do put a copy edit template on an article, does that automatically alert the copy editing project or do I still have to go somewhere else and manually get them involved? Guyovski (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to help - please don't be shy to ask for more clarification. Here's a tip - if you don't want the template to be rendered, put this tag: <nowiki></nowiki> around it. That's what I did so I could show you the tag. :D This will work for any other wiki markup. To answer your question - once you put the {{copy edit}} template on the page, it will get listed somewhere, but no particular editor will be alerted. If you want to request a copyedit, put it on the Guild of copy editors requests page. You can also request a copyedit for articles that don't have any glaring problems, if you want to make them really good. But of course, if you are able to improve the article yourself, go ahead! Again, don't hesitate to ask further questions. ʝunglejill 21:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If the article you want copyedited is a short one, and you don't feel confident copyediting it yourself, put the link here and I'll do it. ʝunglejill 21:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll put the link on your talk page. Thanks. Guyovski (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ways to learn Wikipedia rules and procedures

I have very spotty memory retention. Out of a 300-page book, I remember only two or three phrases that jump out at me. This made high school and college very difficult in the early 1980s. But I'd still like to be able to review the various Wikipedia rules and procedures and become familiar with them. So far I'm doing it on a case by case basis: as I need to know something, I either dig for it or ask someone. Is there a more efficient way? Guyovski (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guyovski! I'm very glad that you are interested in learning the rules and procedures. The first thing that I can tell you is that a lot of the learning will come from experience. In order to remember important policies, guidelines, and essays you should create a list on your userpage. If you like, you could hide the list, or make it a scrolling list if you don't want to have the entire list showing on your page. (I could help you with that) A good example of an editor who has utilized a portion of his userpage for helpful links is User:BarrelProof. Look at the bottom half of his page. You may even want to use some of those links on yours. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

On another note, I do run an adoption program and would be more than happy to take you on and help show you the ropes. You can take a look at it at User:Ryan Vesey/Adopt. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Guyovski! I found some articles that summarize the rules in a simplified way: Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset is an official policy. Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia:8 simple rules for editing our encyclopedia are essays. Maybe one of those works for you. For me, the most difficult part is remembering the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I use Ctrl-F to search through that article, but it still slows me down sometimes. I think Ryan Vesey's suggestion is great: keep a list of useful pages on your userpage. I have such a list on mine, but it's very short. Other than that, it depends what kind of learner you are. Are you an intuitive learner? If you spend a lot of time reading Wikipedia's best articles, at some point you might have an intuitive grasp of how to contribute. You could concentrate on reading articles in your field of interest. Also, here's a tip that took me a bit of time to figure out: to search Wikipedia project pages, place wp: before your search query. Good luck! ʝunglejill 14:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Took you a bit of time? It took me 1 year 3 months and 24 days. Thanks Junglejill! Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Guyovski. You already have great answers to your questions, and I'm going to follow down some of those links Junglejill mentioned. But I guess I do something a little different, so I'll throw it out, too. I was overwhelmed with info at first and I hated the time I wasted trying to find something I'd read before. So I keep a set of files on my laptop, just for WP. (I use Onenote, but any word processing program that let's you organize files would work.) I keep the program open pretty much whenever I'm on WP. (It's set up just like a three-ring notebook from school days.) I save info for my articles in it, but I also have one just for WP, with tabs like WP editing, MOS style, etc. WP editing is divided into sections like: Categories, Layout, Images, Templates. These sections have subpages, so I can go directly to any bit of info I need. If I find something I can't use right away but want to save, I just copy it in my notebook and Onenote save the link automatically. It has saved me a lot of time, and I'd probably cry if I somehow lost it. LOL You'll find a system that works for you, I'm sure. Tlqk56 (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guyovski! For a list of Wikipedia's policies (not guidelines), see the exotically named Wikipedia:List of policies. benzband (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for putting so much effort into being helpful. :) I had a look at User:BarrelProof and believe from experience that lists of long documents don't help me much because I still have to search through the documents. The suggestion is appreciated, but I've tried that kind of thing before and it didn't work for me. Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset does look like it could be extremely useful even if it doesn't cover every possibility a la Roman Law. I've bookmarked it in my Firefox so I can pull it up whenever needed. Taking notes would also probably help with memory retention (although I don't use Windows and therefore don't have access to OneNote). Other than that I'll be researching stuff as it comes up and hoping to remember how to do things--and the appropriate things to do--with enough repetition. Again, everybody's input is very much appreciated. Guyovski (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you got some help. I do find taking notes, even on the computer, helps me remember. Believe me, you are ALWAYS welcome to come back here and ask a question -- and no question will be considered too dumb. (I know, I've asked some real doozies myself.) Tlqk56 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

why was my edit a vandalism?

I added myanmar wikipedia link my:သေဆုံးခြင်း in quotes on Death , and it was reverted by OrenBochman. I tested on my sandbox, but I found no problem. Am I wrong or is he wrong?

Nyaminthar (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

He's wrong in this case, and I've restored the edit. I suspect that Oren doesn't have the right things installed on his computer to render the myanmar alphabet, so to him it will have looked like you were just adding a link of boxes.--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thank you so much Jac16888.

Nyaminthar (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How do I get an article reviewed?

Hi Heather

Many thanks for the invite I am about to put up an article on wiki, I have all the references and spent a long time doing it. I think its ready but want it reviewed. How do I do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryofMod (talk • contribs) 05:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mary. I have completely reworked your "homemade" citations to turn them into inline citations and made many other formatting changes. For future reference, please see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. As you can probably see, all of the citations you tried to link through urls at newsstore.fairfax.com are nonworking. You do not always need to supply a URL (citations do not have to be to online sources), but I cannot convert the citations into pure news citations, because what you are actually trying to cite are newspaper articles you accessed through that site, but you did not supply the names of the stories or other attribution information so I can't go to the website, find the article and convert because I don't know which articles were accessed through the broken search urls. So if you can retrace your steps and tell us, for example, that the 6th citation was to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled X, date X, at Page X, by author X, we can fix those citations (maybe even find alternative, stable URLs to supply). By the way, are you familiar with the National Library of Australia's Trove website? You can find tons of material there for Australian (and other) topics.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How to add an artists album artwork to a page?

I need to add 2 different pictures for 2 different albums for a band. How do I do that? The pictures are not mine, but can be use to describe the albums. NxOhMissFriedxD9 (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi MissFried! You can upload these images as Fair Use (#Images section). To do this, go to the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard then start the upload form:

• Step 1: choose the file from your computer;
• Step 2: provide a name and description for your file;
• Step 3: select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use", specify the article in which it shall be used; then select the rationale "This is the official cover art of a work" and fill in the drop-down form with the appropriate information.

Hope this helps, benzband (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Any way to accelerate the Articles for Creation Review Process?

Hi, I created a new article through the sandbox option but once I clicked submit, it seems to have gone into this black hole called Articles for Creation for a review. AfC seems to be severely backlogged so is there any way to get my article out of there and into article space? The article presently resides here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/M.S._Rajan I know it can be done through the move dropdown but I don't know if it's allowed plus I don't want to break anything in the process... Thanks

Sesamevoila (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sesamevoila! You're right that Articles for Creation is unfortunately backlogged. I took a really quick look at your article and thought it was fine, so I accepted your submission. Congratulations! Just so you know, you're always welcome to create articles straight away, without going through Articles for Creation. If you have a question about a draft or anything, please feel free to ask. Happy editing! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

referencing sources

Helloo and thanks in advance for any help.

I have 2 main questions at this point, if you wouldn't mind helping me:

(1) I can't find the sequencing for a newspaper reference. Is this correct?: e.g. Steel, Judy (May 21, 1982). "The big shakers at the corp". Globe & Mail, P. 10.

I am used to APA format where every period and comma and space matters.

Somewhere I say that the publication name needs to go first and started to change everything but then stopped to ask you.

(2) I have some newspaper references that I have marked with [2] They also can be found as an http so I have used ... with those right after the ref so that readers can just click into the article and read it on the spot. Is this correct?

Sofiabrampton Sofiabrampton (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sofiabrampton. I would suggest always using the templates described on Wikipedia:Citation_templates. It has some templates for different types of citations (including URLs). These go inside the <ref></ref> pair and automatically provide formatting per Wikipedia standards. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 02:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sofiabrampton!

(1) There are a number of citation templates available for properly formatting references ({{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, etc). In the case you mention, one would cite as {{cite news|last=Steel|first=Judy|date=May 21, 1982|title=The big shakers at the corp|newspaper=[[Globe & Mail]]|page=10}}, which produces:

Steel, Judy (May 21, 1982). "The big shakers at the corp". Globe & Mail. p. 10.

(2) For inline citations, you can surround the citation in <ref> </ref> tags. This will produce a superscript note ^{[1] [2]} which once clicked will take the reader down the page and highlight the corresponding reference. You can also surround the citation templates mentioned above in ref tags. benzband (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How to go from sandbox to article

I wrote my first article, probably really a stub. I put it in my sandbox, worked out all the bugs, and hit 'save.' So far, so good.

But it isn't an article yet, right? It seems to just be my sandbox. The title of the page seems to be "User:BThomascall/sandbox" instead of what I am writing about, the Wopmay orogen.

So my question is probably "How do I create a title that will actually appear?"

BThomascall (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey BThomascall. The article looks great! What you need to do is move the file to the correct title. See Wikipedia:Moving a page for information on how to move it. In order to activate the "move" function, you need to be "autoconfirmed". Getting "autoconfirmed" is easy: it happens instantly when your account is 4 days old, and you have made 10 edits to Wikipedia. Looking at your contributions to Wikipedia, your account is over 4 days old, but you haven't yet made 10 edits. Just make a few edits to a few more articles, or perhaps play around with your userpage, and the "move" function should automagically appear for you, allowing you to move your article to the correct title. If you have any more questions, or need any more help, feel free to ask! --Jayron32 18:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for a great answer. I am starting some edits now. And thanks for looking over the article and providing feedback. I really appreciate it. I'd like to ask another question: I'm mentioning a dollar amount in an edit. My wording is misleading, but I don't know how to fix it. I am trying to convey that the US government's contribution to a building project is going to be $400 million, but that the overall project is expected to stimulate the local (German) economy by a much larger amount, about one billion dollars. However, since many countries have a dollar currency, I tried to say that this reflects the value in USD, but then it comes across as though the US is contributing the entire amount. If you have any suggestions... Here is the actual phrasing as it now stands: "A new hospital would have several advantages over renovating the existing hospital and is expected to stimulate the state's building industry, with estimates of putting up to one billion US dollars into the local economy. In 2008, the proposal received approval for a $400 million project; the proposal is contingent upon congressional support for the funding." Thanks again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BThomascall (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What about something like "The U.S. is donating an amount of US$400 million, while other countries are donating additional amounts to bring the total investment up to US$1 billion" or something like that. Something that makes a clear distinction between the denomination of the currency and the source of the donations? --Jayron32 20:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I can now move the article, but it seems like it will take my sandbox with it? The instructions say that the old page, my user sandbox, will redirect to the new page. That's not quite what I'm looking for... BThomascall (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Once you've moved it you can blank the sandbox, which will remove the #REDIRECT [[ ]] code. benzband (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a great support site! Thank you everyone! I have submitted the article, and it is 814th in line for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BThomascall (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency in infobox fields running over onto two lines

In regard to infoboxes (tennis biographies in particular), I was just wondering why it was that half the time fields such as 'Australian Open', 'Highest Ranking', 'Current Ranking' etc run over onto two lines and sometimes they don't, regardless of how much info is filled in under these fields...? What can be done to make sure infoboxes look more like these: Magnus Larsson, Florian Mayer rather than these: Alejandro Falla, Onny Parun? Thanks. Asmazif (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2012 (GMT)

Hello, Asmazif, Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately I don't really understand infoboxes that well myself. I played around with the ones you linked to a bit and couldn't figure out the problem. I did, however, find a Wikiproject here: WikiProject Sports. If you go there and ask your question on the talk page somebody might be able to help you. Sorry I couldn't do more, I'm just a beginner here myself. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure exactly what you mean. But you can use the <br /> tag to force a line break, if that helps. Maybe there's a wiki markup equivalent, but I've certainly seen this used in such situations and it's even documented at {{Infobox company}}. -- Trevj (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Submission

Hi, Thanks to everyone who has been involved in helping me with this. Can you edit this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rising_Sun_Lodge_29) to meet the miminmum requirements of a submitted article? I'd just like to get it approved. I added a lot of info that came from archives of our lodge but not able to be substantuated. It's perfectly OK to just obliterate anything that is unnecessary since I can't "verify" alot of it. Cnhudson (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Cnhudson. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm pretty new here myself, but I looked at your article and I think you have a basic problem with establishing notability. You have a lot of sources, but the ones that come from the lodge itself don't count. Notability requires you to show that non-lodge related newspapers, books or magazines have written about it. It seems that unless a lodge is in an historical building, there generally won't be the right kind of references to get an article made. But you can try to find those references. On the other hand, if someone has been helping you, maybe they can give you some more ideas. Sorry I can't be more help, I've never worked on an article about an organization. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Is my change to Roaring Twenties: Simple English page okay?

hi again! Just checking that the changes I have made to the Roaring Twenties simple english page is okay? Thanks LilkidCC (talk|TB|) 23:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding Lilkid CC's question back. heather walls (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Kinda confused. What is this about? Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

simple:Roaring Twenties I'm sure you found it Gtwfan52, linking for anyone following along. heather walls (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the Simple English Wikipedia though I have dabbled there a bit and I think the sentences you added may be a little too complex. It is suggested on the main page to use shorter sentences and basic vocabulary. For example. I might change the first sentence you added as follow:

(Original) The term 'Roaring' applies here, as art, society and culture were rapidly improving and therefore 'Roaring'.

(Changed) The term 'Roaring' applies here. This is because art, society and culture were rapidly improving. They could therefore be described as 'Roaring'.

For the second sentence:

(Original) Products were being produced on a huge scale throughout North America, one example of these products is the 'Model T Ford', a car that was seen in every state of the USA.

(Changed) Products were being produced on a huge scale throughout North America. One example of these products is the 'Model T Ford'. It was a car that was seen in every state of the USA.

Note that for the second sentence, I think you needed a period where the first comma was placed, regardless of whether this was text placed here or there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse LilkidCC! I hope your question was answered. Good luck with your editing. heather walls (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How to edit a page, to add a language for the page. i.e: Simple English

hi, wanted to edit the roaring twenties page so that simple english is available as in some UK exam boards, the roaring twenties is a topic for GCSE students. please help?

LilkidCC (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi LilkidCC! Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. If you take a look at the left hand menu and scroll down you will now see the Simple English version of the article Roaring Twenties. We actually have a robot that goes around and plugs those links into articles, but for some reason the bot didn't add simple. The Simple English article sure can use some expansion, however. I hope this helps! Sarah (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice about a content dispute

Hey. After the brilliant move of choosing a current political event as my first commitment, I've involved myself in a content dispute in 2011 Egyptian revolution. I'm not making any of the edits - I just have an opinion. I tried to discuss it on the talk page - other than stating positions, no meaningful discussion took place. Put it up for RFC, then figured response might take a long time. The issue became an edit war, and I became concerned that this was hindering progress of the article, so I put this up at dispute resolution. I didn't realize that if the RFC remained open, the discussion at dispute resolution would be closed. Obviously, I would've closed the RFC beforehand if I'd known. Now I'm even more motivated to get this resolved, because lots of material about current events is being added to an already huge article. I really think this material should go in a new article, see on the talk page/dispute resolution discussion if you're interested. So I have a few questions:
1) Does anyone know how long RFCs take? The admin who closed the dispute said 30 days. That really wouldn't be helpful. I also wonder if it would even matter, since editors don't seem that interested in discussion.
2) Am I totally overreacting about this? Should I give up and let the other editors do as they please? I'm in the minority opinion, but I feel that a third opinion could change that, for content reasons but also because the article really needs to be split off.
3) I think it wasn't really cool of the admin to close the discussion and refer me to the RFC, when I stated clearly why I put this on the noticeboard despite the RFC. He could've bothered to let me know that I have to choose between the two. Should I say anything, or am I off the mark?
4) If anyone has an opinion about the issue, or suggestions for handling it, I'd love to hear. If you tell me I'm wrong and convince me to leave this alone, I might even thank you (kidding I guess.) ʝunglejill 20:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My thought is that it makes little sense to get into disputes about the naming of articles pertaining to rapidly changing events. In time, these things will settle out, and redirects can always be created for alternate names. Clearly, the events in Egypt of the past couple of years require a single overview article, with perhaps an increasing number of other articles describing narrower aspects of the revolution. I speak as an editor who rarely spends much time working on articles about current events, so please take my comments with a grain of salt.

I believe that English Wikipedia articles should be titled with the name most commonly used in reliable English language sources to describe the topic, rather than translations of Arabic (in this case) names less often used in English.

It can be tough to navigate debates about contentious current political topics. You have chosen to work in this area, so my advice is to tread lightly and work toward consensus whenever possible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks for the reply, but I think you misunderstood the issue. ʝunglejill 00:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain the issue more clearly. I can't get to the discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, since it has been closed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm always getting into these kinds of debates myself, and in the minority. It's good to frequently look at WP:Dispute to see what the most appropriate remedy is for any situation. And to let each remedy run its course on the same issue. If the main issue is naming, the above advice is good. When is a "revolution over"? First there's the rising up and throwing out of the bums. But when do new elections, constitution making, power grabs, etc just become part of the ongoing history?? Just one of those things you all have to consense upon. The main thing is to be patient and learn from your mistakes. The system usually works if you work it, even for a minority of one. It just takes a lot of time and patience. CarolMooreDC 04:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be helpful to read Wikipedia:Recentism. --Greenmaven (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Greenmaven, thanks for the link. Cullen328, the article's name is a side issue. The main problem as I see it, is that the article is at 190,000 bytes and has material about new developments added every day. The result is an unreadable, difficult to edit article, that mixes current events with events that concluded a year ago; if you only want to read about current developments, Wikipedia has no readable content. Carol, thanks for the encouragement. I've decided that because I am unable to fix the situation by myself, and because no one else is interested, I'll leave this alone and let the edit war about what date should appear in the infobox continue. Thanks for the replies. ʝunglejill 11:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

next steps for Notability/Noticeboard?

Hi Teahouse! The Deborah Berke, Architect has been idle for several weeks; there is a comment from User talk:Waggers that says the "article you've written needs a fair bit of work, and you need to be very careful about conflicts of interest and advertising - but as far as notability is concerned I think you've done a great job at establishing that Deborah Berke has it." I am not sure if this comment means the article has passed the notability test, and I wonder if someone can elaborate regarding what kind of work the article needs? And what are the next steps? I wish to avoid a COI and am trying to follow all of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. I posted this question on the Noticeboard and on the User talk:Waggersuser page but so far have only seen this response: "oooooo im scared" (I'm not sure why or what that is about!) — Thank you Meredith at DBA (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Meredith. You are dealing with several challenging issues. It is very difficult for a new editor to write an article about their employer, (Deborah Berke & Partners Architects in this case), and if you were just starting, I would advise against it. But now you are in the midst of it. The best advice I can give is to defer to the opinions of more experienced, disinterested editors, and several have been working on the article. When a single editor such as Waggers expresses an opinion, that is just one person's opinion. That being said, Waggers is a very experienced editor and that usually carries some weight. No one has yet challenged the notability of the firm, and others who participate in that noticeboard have moved on to fresher topics, so you should just move on as well rather than expecting some definitive opinion from the powers that be. That often doesn't happen.

You should be aware that a person's own writings do not establish notability, but only what reliable, independent sources write about that person. I believe that it is best, when listing sources to show notability, to select a smaller number of the indisputably high quality sources that clearly devote significant coverage to the topic, rather than a very long list of everything but the kitchen sink, which few editors will have the time or patience to study thoroughly.

The "oooooo im scared" comment was added by an anonymous IP editor and should be disregarded as graffitti or mild vandalism. If it was my talk page, I would remove it. Let Waggers handle it.

As for improving the article, just do your best to make the article better. I think that it needs more sources that discuss the firm itself in depth, as opposed to those briefly mentioning its various projects and awards. It would be good to establish why this particular firm is particularly notable, as opposed to similar firms of similar size and age. Many (but not all) editors believe Wikipedia should cover distinctive and unique businesses, rather than every business that has won the routine awards given out by trade associations in every field. So, in the case of awards, I would highlight those considered most prestigious among architects. I hope these thoughts prove useful to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim User:Cullen328, thank you so much for taking the time to comment on my question regarding how to go from the Notability/Noticeboard to writing a biographical article about a living person. Your points are terrific and helpful, but the article in question is a biography of a living person, not about a firm. The article is here: User:Meredith at DBA/sandbox and also on the Deborah Berke, Architect. Thank you again for your time and interest. Meredith at DBA (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

how long for a nomination deletion to be resolved?

Hello there! How long does it take for a deletion nomination to be resolved either way? I have an article that has been proposd/nominated for about a month now, and i'm wondering how to please speed up the process? Thanks! Noeline1984 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A deletion nomination usually carries on until a clear consensus regarding the fate of the article is clear. The deletion discussion regarding your article does not seem to have reached a clear consensus yet. The only way to speed this up would be to have more editors to become involved in the discussion. Cheers, Hallows ^{Aktiengesellschaft} (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

They are closed one week (seven days) after nomination. If consensus is not clear by then, it is relisted for another week. After another 7 days it will be assessed again and either closed or relisted. This process may continue for a number of months. However, most discussions are closed in the first week. Rcsprinter (message) 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Noeline, I would like to point out that you can improve the article while deletion is being debated. You can add more references, including those brought forward by other editors during the debate. It is not at all uncommon for an article to be significantly improved during this process - so much so that editors who started out recommending "delete" change their minds and switch to "keep". If there is no consensus, the article will be kept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are at WP:RELIST. At (or approaching) the end of the current round of 7 days, such discussions may be closed or relisted again. -- Trevj (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Isobel Waller-Bridge

Hello there. I recently created an article for an emerging composer, Isobel Waller-Bridge but it has been quickly nominated for deletion. One comment was that she has not worked much, but only done short films, when there is evidence on the internet that she has worked in theatre, film (as an arranger) and radio, and has had commissions from orchestras and ensembles. I created the page because i think she is an interesting artist. What's more, i feel guilty now that i've created this page about her and now there are these deletion nominations and proposals which she has nothing to do with! I read that the deletion proposals would be resolved within a week, but it has been at least one month now? I think the person/article is valid, particularly as there are a lot of people out there who have achieved much less and are present on wikipedia! I am grateful for 'Trevj' who has sourced more information about this artist, and i will happily keep updating the page when its appropriate. Any advice is welcome. Many thanks Noeline1984 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Noeline! The biggest issue with any new article is that there is adequate evidence that the subject of the article has been written about extensively in reliable, independent sources. That is, in Wikipedia, "notability" of a person is not measured by what a person has done, but what people have written about a person. If people have not written about Isobel's life and work, then the information that you might put into a Wikipedia article cannot be properly verified, an as such, there really shouldn't be an article at Wikipedia about her. If such sources do exist, then you need to make such source material clear. You may find Wikipedia:Notability to be a good place to get more information about this concept. Good luck, and if you have anymore questions, feel free to ask! --Jayron32 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Confusion over married and pen names, Japanese contacts

Hi there. I'm working on two articles, one about an author who was married and used her married name in her personal life and for her adult books, Elizabeth Gray Vining But her children's books were published under her maiden name. When I work on the article about the kids' book, Adam of the Road, should I use the maiden last name, as that's what's on the book, or should I explain that she was really married and then refer to her by her married name?

Also, she tutored Emperor Akihito for four years when he was the crown prince. I've found a couple of sources from Japan, but I'd love to have more. Is there a way to find out if anyone on WP who speaks/reads Japanese and has access to their sources would like to help out a bit? Thanks for sharing your know-how. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I can help you find a Japanese user. User:Tomo suzuki is a great option. He may not respond right away, but you could leave a message on his Japanese Wikipedia talk page and ask him to comment here. If you find navigating your way around the Japanese wiki difficult, here is a link to his edit window. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse, Tlqk56. There is a self-organising group of editors interested in Japanese topics over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan who may include someone with the skills you need. I suggest that you post a message to their talk page. I used Wikipedia:WikiProject China in this manner when I recently wrote Trial of Xiao Zhen. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I second Stuart about contacting the Japan Wikiproject and from personal experience, when I was writing Masako Katsura, I received wonderful help after posting there—especially from User:Oda Mari. Regarding the name issue, how about a footnote (not an inline citation but a note with its own section before the references). You would set it up like so: right next to her name type {{Cref2|note 1}} (with no preceding space). Then you would create a section, right above the references section called ==Notes==, and place there the following code, with note text like:

{{Cnote2 Begin|liststyle=upper-alpha}}

{{Cnote2|note 1|Although this books bears the author's maiden name, Gray was married at the time of its publication, and she used her married name, ''Vining'', in her personal life and for her adult books.<ref>source</ref>}}

{{Cnote2 End}}

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. I'm sure the Japanese Wikiproject will be helpful, I'll definitely contact them. And thanks Ryan, for the English link. I lived in Japan for several years and barely learned to recognize Tokyo on the signs. :) Fuhghettaboutit, I like your wording for the note. Would you put it right after her name in the first paragraph, maybe, to avoid a notation in the lead? And how does your notation differ from {{Reflist|group=lower-alpha}}? Are they interchangeable? Thanks again to each of you. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As for the name issue, I would explain early in the article that she used two names as an author. The best known name should be the name of the article. The other name should be a redirect to the article, so if someone searches under the less known name, they will end up at the proper article. That's my recommendation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I got deleted

I was trying to post an article for my boss and it got speedily deleted. Not only did the article get deleted but so did our user page. And if I'm not mistaken, now I can't post on a talk page because I don't have a usetr page anymore.

I don't even know why it got deleted as there are other similar articles on Wikipedia. My page was called Barry Stuppler. The person's page that is similar to ours is called Michael R. Fuljenz. He's in the same business as we are and has many of the same links and references. Help! What can we do/change to keep it from being deleted?? BarryStuppler (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Barry. One thing about Wikipedia is that it isn't intended as a means by which to promote your business, or that of your boss or the like. Wikipedia isn't a directory of businesses or a place to post a resume, it is an encyclopedia, and contains encyclopedia articles. Encyclopedia articles need to be based on reliable and independent sources. That means the information you write at Wikipedia needs to have been published elsewhere first, and be published by someone other than who it is about. Also, Wikipedia has rules against editing under a "conflict of interest", which means that you should not write about articles where your interest (in promoting yourself, your associates, or your business) may be in conflict with the interest of Wikipedia (which is to be an encyclopedia, and not a place to post advertisements). Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information. If you have any further questions about how Wikipedia works, please feel free to ask. --Jayron32 22:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have a lot of references of TV and radio shows that Barry has appeared on, published articles that he's written. Are those not considered reliable sources? BarryStuppler (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the information about his life needs to come from independent and reliable sources. That is, him talking or writing about himself isn't really independent. For example, the article on George Washington isn't written by George Washington, or any of his friends or associates, nor is it based primarily on Washington's own writing. It is based on books written about Washington by people who researched him and who are considered well-respected historians and journalists. If Barry is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then people will have done similar writing about Barry. If only Barry has written about Barry, then we have nothing to use to help us write a Wikipedia article about him from. --Jayron32 23:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying. But I have hundreds of numismatic articles referencing Barry (that were not written by him, obvs.) that I can list. Like this: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1948&dat=19891112&id=HEsjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=T88FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2965,442940 and this: http://www.coinlink.com/News/gold-silver-bullion/gold-silver-political-action-committee-pac-formed-to-support-rare-coin-precious-metal-community/.

I mentioned the article titled Michael J. Fuljenz. He's a friend and colleague and basically does the same thing Barry does. Why is his page listed and ours isn't? Most of his links under references don't even work. Thanks for your help on this! BarryStuppler (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source I think there might be a chance of notability here. There aren't a ton of sources, but they exist. I particularly like the piece about the bid for the Berlin Wall. Since you have a conflict of interest, and your name should probably be changed before you do any more editing, I might start an article at User:Ryan Vesey/Barry Stuppler and you can give some suggestions and sources. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, it would be great if you could find biographical information that can be verified. It doesn't need to be available on the web as long as it is in print somewhere. If you have assistance, it would be great if you can add them to User talk:Ryan Vesey/Barry Stuppler. In addition, since you cannot use a username that is an actual name that isn't you, I suggest that you go to this page to request a username change. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done pretty much all I can do for today and actually moved it to Barry Stuppler. You have quite an interesting boss. It would be great if you could take a picture of him and upload it to commons so it can be used in the article. (Please note that pictures taken by a professional photographer are not eligible). Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As a note to other hosts, it would be great if someone could review the article and then remove the tag. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice work Ryan! Sarah (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I took care of it for you. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both of you. I actually might nominate it for DYK. I'd need to review another DYK first and I would like to have some biographical information and possibly a picture by then. I would mark it for shared credit with you, User:BarryStuppler, however, I think a name change will be necessary before that happens so it would be great if you could try to do that within the next day or two :) How does "...that Barry Stuppler served as President of the American Numismatic Association and helped make the California State Quarter?" sound? Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoa. You guys are blowing my mind right now. I have no idea what happened overnight as I find this Wikipedia stuff to be super confusing, but YAY! WE HAVE A PAGE!! So, I can go in and add all of the stuff I was going to originally put on his page? THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ON THIS!! BarryStuppler (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, your first step should be to have a username change using the link I provided earlier. The second thing is since you have a conflict of interest it would be great if you made your requests on the talk page and then I could include them for you. Every addition to the article should have a supporting link. This is for your own interest too. I plan to get your boss featured on the main page in a week or so which will only happen if we edit the article in this manner. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're saying about the supporting links. I'll try to figure our the user name change thing right now. Thanks again!BarryStuppler (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC) I think I did the username change thing right. The new username is MintStateGold. Now, could you help me out with uploading the photo? Thanks again for all of your help!BarryStuppler (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! There is one issue with your username and I left a note on your talk page. I can certainly help you with uploading a photo, but I would like to remind you that you can only upload this photo if you own the rights. If someone else took the picture you should't upload it. If you do own the rights, follow this link and it should walk you through the steps. Once you have done this, I can help you add it to the page. If you are unsure of whether or not you own the rights, let me know and I can help you find out. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

So, I changed my username, but now I don't know how to log in so that I can upload that picture. I tried logging in with the old Barry Stuppler info, I tried logging in with my new username but old password. Nothing worked. BarryStuppler (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

When is an author "notable"

I submitted an article on an author that was rejected because she was not deemed notable, despite that fact that her book won multiple awards, was an account of a Titanic survivor and was published 45 years after she died, all of which seem to me to indicate some level of notability. Other authors with articles on Wikipedia seem to be "notable" just because they're authors. cf Paul Cleave, e.g.

Who decides these things?

Thanks. John Burlinson. Jburlinson (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You've taken the wrong end of the stick, so to speak. Being a minister of WP:AFC myself, you just need more sources to verify the information. Mdann52 (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello John. Sorry you've run into a patch of trouble. Just to expand a bit on what Mdann52 is trying to say: Wikipedia wishes that its articles contain only trustworthy information. As such, all information should be based on sources which are both reliable and independent. That ensures that we can trust the information in articles at Wikipedia. If, outside of Wikipedia, there doesn't exist extensive sources about the subject of an article, then there isn't any way to write a trustworthy article about that subject, so the article shouldn't be written. That is what is meant by "notable enough". The idea is that something is notable enough if enough people have noted (i.e. written about) it in reliable sources. It is expected that people who write new articles for Wikipedia are able to provide extensive, reliable, and independent sources: we need to ensure that there's enough good reliable writing out there in the world, so we can base the Wikipedia articles from that good, reliable writing. Without it, we can't write the article in the first place. There's more information at Wikipedia:Notability. If you are trying to establish that a new article is about a notable subject, you need to provide substantial sources which show it: books about it, magazine articles or journal articles about it, stuff like that. If no one has written about the subject, or if all of the writing is short, trivial, or only has a passing mention, or if all of the writting is self-published or dubious, then there can't be an article. Does that help explain what notable means? --Jayron32 20:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse, Jburlinson. The notability criteria for auhtors is at WP:AUTHOR. The notability criteria for books is at Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria. The essense of both is that reliable independent third parties need to have written about them in detail. The references that Mdann52 refers to are the evidence that this writing has occurred. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As I was the person who turned down your article at AfC, I thought I'd better chip in! As others have said, if an author's work receives significant critical attention, in reliable publications such as newspapers, it usually means they are notable too. I suppose some people would consider that winning a couple of awards might be sufficient evidence. But because Spedden is a very unusual case, having died 45 years beforehand, I felt I needed more convincing before I accepted the article. Wikipedia is not an exact science, you see. It would certainly help your case if you can place more emphasis in your article about her book and cite a few reviews of the book if possible. I realise this is more difficult for events that happened in the 1990's, but wish you luck with the next review! Sionk (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thanks for your feedback. I think I'll try to re-do the article focusing on the book instead of the author. I've had an offer of help from Tlqk56, for which I'm very grateful. I'm very much in learning mode, so all guidance and correction is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jburlinson (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jburlinson, Welcome to the Teahouse. I write articles on children's books and authors, and I'd be glad to help you. I've run the book title through my "usual suspects" and found several good sources already, ones that should help out no question. Give me some more time and I'll contact you on your talk page with more information. Hope it helps. Following up, we can definitely get the book in. Major reviews and references and uses in Canada, US and England. I'm not so sure about the woman, I've never worked with establishing notability for an author before, the one's I write about are shoe-ins due to awards won. I'll read up. Any suggestions welcome. I will be out tomorrow, though. :( Tlqk56 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good. Maybe the book would make for a better article than the author, with some of the author information included as part of the book article. I'll wait for your guidance -- I'm such a total newbie I don't even think I qualify for full newbie status. Is there a category of "probationary newbie"? Thanks for your help.Jburlinson (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

voting news

A few days ago I found a page on Wikipedia to vote the candidates for news. But unfortunately now I cannot find it since I did not add it to my watch list. Can someone write me the page? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Egeymi! Maybe you are looking for Wikipedia:In the news, a section of the main page (which you can nominate articles for)? Or Wikipedia:News, which deals with news about Wikipedia and Wikimedia? benzband (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Benzband for both your answer and reminding me the exact terms. Egeymi (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Splitting an article

Hello Teahouse. I have a question about splitting an article, and want to know how to do it by myself or ask someone to do it. I proposed a split at Talk:Japan-Korea relations, and think I have enough support for my proposal. Could anyone tell me what to do next?? Many thanks! --PBJT (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to TeaHouse PBJT. Start by checking you've read Wikipedia:Splitting. On the talk page where you alreayd have a discussion, you need to propose (A) the two new names and (B) where the current page name should point (either to one of the new pages or to a disambiguation page). Personally I like disambiguation pages, but it's a matter of taste and judgement. Then you following the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure, and do a lot of editting to get the pages into shape and fixing all the links. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Need help with resubmitting new article (notability)

This is my first time submitting a new article, so I could use some help. It's on Infinity Cat Recordings and was denied because "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability." I added about 5 new references, but I'm not sure if they're good enough. Any advice or pointers in the right direction would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! Madelgado45 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Madelgado. The concern of the person who declined your article is that most of the citations just mention the label but don't talk really about the label - but talk about perhaps the bands on the label. For example, the lede states that the label was voted top 10 indie by Billboard, but the citation you have for it is a press release (which isn't a reliable source and it doesn't mention that fact at all. Or, others just say "oh JEFF the Brotherhood is on the label" but it doesn't talk about the label. While I have no doubt that the label is regionally notable, for the article to be accepted it needs to have what we call 'depth of coverage" in reliable sources. For example: secondary sources (like newspapers, magazines, etc) talking about the label specifically, not bands on the label. You might even have to remove all of the "barely mentioned" source material, except citations stating that a specific band is/was on the label. It might make the article shorter, but, without quality reliable in depth coverage the article will be shortened by someone else or nominated for deletion. I know this is a little rambly, but I hope it helps! Sarah (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I could only find one article that seemed to have indepth coverage (and it's not enough to warrant them notable): [2]. It looks like the bands are more notable than the label, right now. Keep in mind blogs (unless very reliable major blogs like the New York Times or something) don't count. I'm sorry :( You just might have to wait at this time. Sarah (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm a bit of a newby too but thought I'd maybe chip in here as I've been doing a bit of reviewing for AFC so am starting to get the hang of all the policies. There's just a few things I'd add to what Sarah has said already. The first thing is that there aren't any specific criteria (yet) for the notability of record labels, but there has (by the looks of things) been a lot of discussion and debate about it, so it might be worth asking your question on the WikiProject Record Labels talk page as someone there might be able to give you some expert advice. The second thing is that I looked up that 'Top 10 Billboard' reference too (before I saw you'd already written, Sarah :)), as that did seem like a good basis for establishing notability. The reference you're looking for is here: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/indies/billboard-pro-s-d-i-y-50-indie-labels-part-1005317562.story. However, there are a couple of problems with it. Firstly it's for Billboard.biz (which is an extension of Billboard but not Billboard itself and therefore maybe not as notable - I'm not sure...). The second is that the article actually lists Infinity Cat as one of the best 50 indie record companies, not number 10 (the article specifically states that the listing is in no particular order). Still, top 50 still sounds pretty good to me (!) though that's not necessarily to say it's enough for notability. I can't figure out the relationship between Billboard and Billboard.biz and that seems the crucial determining factor really... The third thing is that - if you do decide to have a go at re-submitting the article, now or later, it would probably be wise to rework it in a couple of ways. The first thing is that your lead (first paragraph) sounds quite a lot like advertising, especially as it is taken from a non-neutral press release. Really you want to keep your writing to neutral, plain, statements of reported fact as much as you can. Rough Trade's article is actually a pretty good example in this respect. And the other thing is that, as a general rule of thumb, you don't want to write anything that can't be verified, so in some ways, the the shorter the better, or at least the-less-superfluous-information-that-you-can't cite, the better! And my last thought was - it seems like you've turned up quite a few good sources of info on JEFF the Brotherhood, so maybe you could have a go at improving their article with the research you've done if this one doesn't work out?

Hope that's helpful,

Loriski (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

can someone fix the incorrect dates for the article on Owsley County Ky?

The citation says an individual was a judge from 1782-1862, as well as being Governor in the 1840's. Clearly the dates were entered incorrectly. I have no expertise on the subject, but it looks quirky.166.67.66.8 (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm kind of new myself, but I'll try to help you out. Thanks for spotting the error in that article and not just shrugging it off. The way Wikipedia works, if you have a source that shows the right dates, you can just change it and note you source. If you don't have a source, you can go to the article's talk page by clicking TALK in the top left, and leave a note like you did here, for someone to fix it. Since you brought the problem here, I'll do some research and try and fix it. If I can't find anything, I'll leave a note on the article's talk page for you. I hope that helps. If you decide you want to learn how to edit articles yourself and run into any questions, please come back here and ask for help, OK? Tlqk56 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Turned out it was his birth and death years, just put in the wrong spot. An easy fix. Tlqk56 (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

anchor links on navboxes

I've read several guides but can't find any info regarding this. Is it true that you can't put anchor links on navboxes? Thanks in advance. Krystaleen (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry but I've no idea and haven't read every guide relevant to this. You could try it out in a sandbox to find out. -- Trevj (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being clear, by "can't" I mean "not supposed to". I added some change to this template but my changes got reverted because it had anchor links http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infamous&diff=497220630&oldid=497174657. I just want to make sure this is really not allowed because I've seen other templates using anchor links. Krystaleen (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Krystaleen! That did seem like an odd occurrence. They may have been removed because the navbox would have more than one link to the same page. I am inviting the user who removed them to weigh in here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I usually remove anchors, nonlinks, redlinks, and such because of WP:NAV. Navboxes should link to exactly one instance of one article and that instance should not be a redirect nor a section link. While it's an essay, it's pretty persuasive to me. --Izno (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think in this specific instance, the multiple links may be useful. The page says "avoid repeating links to the same article within a template". The term avoid usually has exceptions, and I think this may be one of them. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I honestly can't think of a case where you would want to anchor link. Especially given that in this specific instance, the two links would be a pair of spinoffs.... Consider this: If it's an anchor, is it really useful to attempt to send users to that page? What would that do to a template such as Template:Transformers? You get to the point where you're basically recreating the main page's table of contents... which is already automatically generated by any given article. That's just not worth the effort of maintenance and of making an inconsistent UI experience (the bolding of an article versus not-bolding of an anchor link). Again, I think the essay says all this much better, and provides further clarification. Don't get stuck on words like 'usually' when it's a point of UI consistency, if nothing else. :^) --Izno (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this, very informative to me :) I'll be following this discussion. You're supposed to bold a link to an article if an anchor link is present? I didn't know this. Krystaleen (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In regards to bolding, what he means is that when you are viewing a page, the link to that page in the Navbox is automatically bolded rather than linked. The anchor links won't be bolded and will still appear as links. It could be confusing to some readers if they followed the anchor link and ended up on the same page. This is a very valid point, and it appears to be the reason that having anchor links in navboxes isn't desired; although, I still believe they would be appropriate in an instance where the entire page isn't linked in the navbox. Thank you Izno for clearing that up and for the very friendly and logical way you went about it :) Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Krystaleen. I suggest a different track. What is your objective? To help readers find information on the spin-offs? How about creating redirects for them? Redirects are common when a topic isn't notable enough for a separate article during an articles for deletion discussion. The information is merged into a main article and a redirect points to the section in that main article. To make the redirects, put the title like inFamous: Precinct Assault (2009) into the search box. The returned result will start You may create the page "InFamous: Precinct Assault (2009)", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. Click on the red and you get a blank page with that title. To create the redirect, just insert #REDIRECT [[Infamous_(series)#InFamous: Precinct Assault (20090]] and save the page. An option to consider. Take care, DocTree (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey, ah I get it now. Kind of confused. As for redirects, I thought that's not allowed either? Krystaleen (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirects are allowed but not preferred, per WP:BRINT (which is guideline I think?). If you're redirecting to an article which is already in the template, then you're duplicating the link unnecessarily. If you're redirecting to a section of an article already in the template, see above. If you're redirecting to an article which is not already in the template, then the redirect should be replaced. --Izno (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

User unfriendly site after first edit attempt

Is it just me, or does anyone else find that having placed a rejected first edit, and receiving 3 e-mails with links to an encyclopedia of information, which may or may not have eventually helped me to place an acceptable edit, I then try to ask a question on Teahouse, and cannot find any way of "submitting the question" or posting it. I assume that I need to type in my name then the 4 tildes, or is my signature automatically identified from my having "signed in" ? I'll try adding my sig - Ah - by trial and error I see the pop-up has appeared "ask my question" I can now get back to my initial problem. I tried to edit the Concentration Camp Inspectorate page, para "Inspectorate from 1935 to 1945" to add that According to "The SS. A New History" by Adrian Weale, pages 106/107, the CCI moved to Oranienburg in May 1934 (not 1938 as stated in Para 2) and that Sachsenhausen Camp started in September 1936. It would have been more helpful if I had been told where I had gone wrong, rather than pointing me at the possible solution to every possible problem. Any guidance please, how to do that edit ? Will give it another go. THanks StanPS StanPS (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse, StanPS, I apologise for your negative experience. Learning the ropes on wikipedia is a steep learning curve, not helped by some editors being less than optimally helpful and friendly. We have a policy about it at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, but it tends to get overlooked. Holocaust-related pages unfortauntely attract trolls and vandals like flies to a midden, which tends to lead to lead to an even more adverseral atmosphere than usual. Now to your question: to how to make the edit. In this case I suggest that you add the material to the talk page (start a new section using the + sign in the top right corner). You'll probably want an ISBN number for the book too (if it's a modern one). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL. You should cite wp:DNB right back at them. I agree with Stuartyeates, you chose a difficult article for your first edit. It gets better, like learning a new language - after a while you become more literate regarding the various policies and procedures. ʝunglejill 09:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replies !! After some more reading/time I seem to have added my "new information", but will go back and add the isbn #. Once again I find (my) ignorance is not bliss ! :( StanPS (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

images from findagrave

Can I upload images from findagrave, are they in the public domain? (Libby995 (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Libby! It doesn't look like images from Find A Grave are in the public domain, according to the disclaimer. All of the images belong to their respected copyright holders. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 02:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (Libby995 (talk) 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Your right they are not, in fact many of the images and content in Find a grave is a copyright violation. If there is a certain image you are wanting to use and wouldn't mind providing a link to it we might already haev it or one like it or we might be able to get it somewhere else. Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

resubmit page after donating content

Hello, I submitted a page that had copyright infringement and the author of part of the infringement agreed to donate the content with the Creative Commons License. Now the rewritten article is in talk:Heart Pine and I don't know how to resubmit it or if I shouls have it approved somewhere else first, sorry totally new hereSpringmata (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. A question could then arise as to whether or not the donated content may be an infringement itself. Therefore, it's probably safest and easiest to rewrite the content, as already suggested. I hope that makes sense. -- Trevj (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Trying to replace a main image that updates the female subject of the article.

1. I have answered all questions twice (verifying I have permission to use the photo, etc.). Each time, the "upload image" tab at the bottom is grayed out. What can I do to eliminate the grayed tab?

2. If and when the system allows me to upload the image, what steps do I take to replace the older image after the new one is uploaded?

Thanks for your help, Claudia Fltola (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Claudia! If you are trying to replace File:Mary_Elise_Hayden.jpg, you will want to upload a new image at the Wikimedia commons with a different file name (your account will work there too and the "upload file" link is on the left) instead of to Wikipedia (this is good practice for any image you upload). Then you would modify the article here on Wikipedia to your to your new file name. In this case the image is provided in the infobox at the beginning of the article, in the "| image =" field which is currently "| image = Mary Elise Hayden.jpg". For an image in a template like this, you don't need to do the usual parameters, just give the plain name of the file as uploaded. Since you are replacing the image in a biography article, and it is a pretty good one currently, you may wish to discuss the change on Talk:Mary Elise Hayden before making it. The old image would not be deleted from wikimedia commons, which has a policy of keeping as many photos as possible unless there is a reason to remove them. The "upload file" button on the upload page should not be grayed out regardless of what you've filled in to that point. Hope that helps. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 01:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Claudi! Welcome to the Teahouse. Obotlig and I tried to answer you at the same time. :) I was just going to say I've had that happen to me, too. The grayed out box is a kind of fail-safe. It means there's a question you missed somewhere up above, and you have to keep looking until you find it. Once everything is filled in you will be able to click on the button. It can be frustrating trying to figure out what you missed, though! If you keep having problems, or something new crops up, feel free to come back and ask some more. The first few times can be tricky. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the new upload form may have some bugs. I uploaded an image through it last night (just to test it out) and every box and text field was ticked and filled but the upload button remained grayed-out until I clicked in already filled-out entries and suddenly it became active. So you might have done everything right and still been frustrated. Me and you does not a persistent bug make, so I won't do anything now, but if I see more reports about this I may bring it up somewhere appropriate, maybe WP:VPT. Anyway, just so you know, at the bottom of the upload page, there are options for "Alternative upload methods", including the old guided upload form and the plain form (which is what I normally use for uploads).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

disambiguation

Is it possible to change a disambiguation if it is seen at incorrect or misleading?Oldfirehall (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oldfirehall! Absolutely! Just be bold and fix the wikilink for the DAB (disambiguation in lazy wikispeak) that you think is wrong and hit save! Also, if you enjoy doing that, you might enjoying playing with DAB solver. It's one of my favorite ways to help clean up the immense backlog of DAB's! Sarah (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

i changed the link but the disabmiguation is still in the page title. in other words the DAB is now correct but i don't want to have to create a new article, i could redirect. but that is ugly. can you change the nae of an aritcle (at least the DAB part of it?)Oldfirehall (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oldfirehall! Is it this article: Thomas Harding (writer)? A redirect is usually the better option as far as I know instead of requesting a rename. It's so rare that articles get renamed, and you'd have to go through a process to request that (and have community input, etc). Is the current title okay? If not, what do you want it to be? Sarah (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Oldfirehall. I have moved Thomas Harding (publisher) (now a redirect) to Thomas Harding (writer). Does that solve the issue? I agree with you that based on the content, writer is a better parenthetical disambiguator. The move tab is one of the commands that is hidden in the current default Vector skin: it's under the little arrow down tab next to the search box at the upper right of the page. You can boldly move pages though it's a good idea to take a look at our article titling policies. For future reference, if you try to move a page and it won't let you (normally because the target of the move exists and has more than one edit to it), if you think the move is uncontroversial (as I would deem this one to have been) you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves. If you think it might be controversial, then follow the instructions to make a formal move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That tooltip template is cool, I never noticed it before. heather walls (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Neat, huh? It's pretty rare. You do see it in articles but mostly wrapped inside a pronunciation template to explain IPA (see the start of Copenhagen), or used to spell out what an abbreviation stands for e.g. c. in an infobox. I had to resist the temptation to pepper this post with them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

nice work! Oldfirehall (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

questionable gramar in one article

I do not understand this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nationalization&action=edit&section=9 78.2.81.149 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, 78.2.81.149, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not an official host, but I thought I'd jump in here anyway. Teahouse is really just here to help you with problems editing or writing articles, not understanding them. That said, if you are asking about the Croatia section here Croatia, maybe I can help. When I read a passage like that I like to break it down into pieces and put it into my own words. So I think it's basically saying that Croatia nationalized land and property, claiming it was finishing what had been started under communism. But now some of the land is being returned and the policies are being rethought. Does that help?

It's always tricky for experts who write a technical article to make it simple enough for those of us who aren't so knowledgeable. It's a fine line to walk, being accurate and thorough but understandable. Sometimes you might need to click on some of the Wikilinks, (those highlighted blue words) to learn more about the topic as you read. And I don't think there's anything wrong with leaving a polite message on the article's talk page saying "I tried to read such-and-such section and couldn't understand it. It would be nice if someone could rewrite it making it clearer." Later on, if you decide to work on some articles yourself, Teahouse is here to help you. Tlqk56 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the linked passage was incomprehensible http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nationalization&oldid=496669073#Croatia. It has been rewritten now though. Krystaleen (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Saving work thats not ready to publish

I am working on an article and wondering if it is a wiki violation to copy the coding of said article and paste it into my sandbox in order to save my work for later? I have had computer issues and just don't want to rely completely on saving to my computer. Is my sandbox a page that everyone can see or have access to? I am asking because I did copy some information previously that was left, via a message to me, on another editors wall (just because I feared they might delete the "unneeded" message) and my being very new with loads of advice did not want to lose the info they shared... coincidentally, I was corrected regarding my incorrectly copying and pasting the info to my talk page. Thanks in advance for your help Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 16:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a really good question. I'd like to know the answer to this also! Sarah (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is that yes, other people can see and edit in your sandbox. More experienced heads may be able to tell you some way to store and hide info somewhere in userspace, but I do not know how to do that. But, short of page protection, there is no way to keep others from editing anything anywhere on Wikipedia. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, again Ms Tattood. Based on my imperfect knowledge, copying a whole article to your sandbox to edit it and then copying the work back is discouraged because that can disrupt the Revision history of the article. Others may have edited the main article while you worked or could edit your draft in your sandbox. But bold and no rules apply. If no edits were posted to that article in the last few months or years, your sandbox work is unlikely to disrupt anything. If the article is divided into sections, copying a section or template or infobox to your sandbox is reasonable. Before pasting your edits back into article space, check the Revision history to see if another editor made any changes while you were working. If not, no problem. I mangled Herbert Friedmann that way; I'm not finished but I'm the only person working on it. Be sure the Template:User sandbox is in place and no one should object. Make sense? I hope so. Take care, DocTree (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC) PS: You did nothing wrong in copying from someone else's page except perhaps not attributing the source. Everything written by editors in Wikipedia can be used by anyone for any purpose under the CC-BY-SA_3.0 license. Might be impolite but not wrong. Only exception is copyright violations which are removed from WP as quickly as possible. You, the other editor and everyone else here agrees to that every time we click the 'Save page' button.

And to follow up on Doctree, I have seen somewhere that if you copy the article and cut and paste the new version in, somehow the two histories can be merged. But I figured that was way above my head, so I just thought "that's interesting" and went on. Also, I've seen WP pages that say you shouldn't cut-and-paste for the reason DocTree mentioned, and pages that say you should. I guess you "makes your pick and takes your chances", as they say. Tlqk56 (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the great question, Tattoodwaitress. I do think it is a violation of copyright to copy anything from Wikipedia then post it anywhere publicly accessible, including your sandbox. The easy fix to this is that that when you save it to your sandbox, in the edit summary write "content copied from ..." and post the link. Then you have attributed your source in a way that has precedent as satisfying the CC-BY-SA_3.0 license. See here for more information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

BINGO! And thanks, Blue Rasberry . A bit farther down at WP:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Userfication is specific with a sample edit summary to meet attribution requirements. The next section on that page deals with repairing insufficient attribution. Interesting question and comprehensive answer. My thanks to all involved, DocTree (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Declined article on Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery

Dear Teahouse,

I would like to ask for some input on how to get my article on Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery accepted since it has been declined twice. I revised it so it would be very objective and give information and not sound like an advertisement. I ten added the reliable sources I could find in the web and the best I could get was 2 articles from a daily news paper (a national circulation newspaper) and a government website. It was still declined because of reliable sources. I was wondering if you could point me to the right direction. Thanks! Raynald Torres Pscs.1972 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Raynald! One issue was that your references didn't actually appear on the screen, I fixed that issue for you. I want to get one more piece of information from you and then I can assist you further. You have a lot of information on that page. Did all of that information come from one of the three references? If not, where did you get the information? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ryan,

Thanks for the review. The information was taken from members and present president. The organization, though it has existed for a long time, has just started building its website and all written information in the internet has only been brought about thru some member's websites and articles in newspapers who consulted members of the organization as resource persons for cosmetic surgery in the Philippines. The Philippine Medical Association, the official medical association of the Philippines accredited by the government has listed in their website which is a government website. Aside form these things written in the net, other information I wrote down in my article was a writing down of facts from the knowledge of members from their records which is not published yet in the internet. At hand, these are the only verifiable facts I have that are in the internet. Let me know if there are things I can do to make the article notable.Pscs.1972 (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Pscs. The article itself shouldn't be made notable - it's the Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery that needs to be notable. I understand the desire to create an article about your own project, but please note that writing about yourself or your organization is usually discouraged on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or a simplified guide here. You can still do it, but you must remain neutral and follow the other guidelines mentioned there. Your article currently doesn't appear anywhere - you can use your sandbox to create a draft. You can ask the administrator who deleted it to email you the content. If put it on your sandbox and show us, we might be able to tell you if it's notable enough for Wikipedia. But please consider that you probably won't be able to use information from the knowledge of members - it needs to be verifiable to be included, so that any person could check the information is true. Good luck! ʝunglejill 17:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Where to report inconsistency?

These two pages List of best-selling girl groups and List of best-selling boy bands were AfD'd and while the arguments for deletion were exactly the same, the consensus was different. I strongly believe this is inconsistency, as per this guide. Since both pages are identical in concept I think both should either be kept or deleted. Where should I report this incident?

This is the link for AfD discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_best-selling_boy_bands and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_best-selling_girl_groups Krystaleen (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Krystaleen, welcome to the Teahouse! You wouldn't report the inconsistency per se; what you should do is try to fix it, by either nominating the one for deletion or the other for deletion review; whichever you think is more appropriate. I would probably nominate the one for deletion; "girl group" and "boy band" have a connotation beyond just "bands that are made up of girls/boys", and I don't think you'd be able to define that connotation rigorously (and verifiably) enough for any kind of objectivity on the composition of the list. But that's just me; it looks like you'd disagree with that, so do what you think is right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No, actually I don't mind. After thinking about it more I kind of agree, although the argument that "Sources used to support the sales figures do not classify or rank any of the bands in this manner" is kind of flawed imo because it applies to List of best-selling music artists too as no source cited in that article has presented the bands in that manner either. How would you go about nominating the girl band article again after it survived such a thing not too long ago? Or if I were to nominate the other for deletion review, what are the chances I will be back to square one with it still deleted and the other still existing? Thanks for answering by the way. Krystaleen (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you are right in that it's not really cool to re-nominate it for deletion so quickly. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what you should do. I'm not overly convinced by the keep arguments in the girl-group AfD, and it was closed by a non-admin (not that that is necessarily an issue, but it's a smidgen less credible than otherwise). I guess my first move would be to ask an admin who is active in closing AfDs to look over the girl-group AfD and article and see what they think of it. Perhaps Phantomsteve, who closed the boy-band AfD. Not that I think they would unilaterally overturn it, but they could give you more guidance on whether a new AfD would be inappropriate. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you believe a page was kept incorrectly, it should also be taken to deletion review. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally not sure what action should be taken. I'm not sure whether that boyband page was deleted incorrectly or it's the girl group page that was kept incorrectly. The only thing I'm sure is that this is inconsistency. I'm new here, what do you guys more experienced editor think? Has the girl group been incorrectly kept? I've talked to phantomsteve back then but he just said that he was only following the consensus and told me that should I choose to bring one of the pages to deletion review I can't say anything about the other page (i.e. but that other page was kept/deleted!). While I understand the reason behind this I think this one is a valid case like the one explained in the guide I linked earlier. And I think if I don't point out that this is inconsistency by presenting the other article I'd be back to square one. I won't even mind if you or some other editors take over this case, I'm not experienced enough to handle this but it doesn't seem like many editors are aware of this. Krystaleen (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Editing

Last time i edited an article titled HYNU, but it was soon deleted for lack of reliable sources and probably appearing like an advertisement. Then i was wondering what kind of sources do i need to provide and how to provide it. I need your help now. Thank you! XLC pierce (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, XLC Pierce. Welcome to the Teahouse. Hengyang Normal University (HYNU) is certainly notable and an article about HYNU will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. I and others will help you create the article. Write the article in your sandbox. Just click on 'My sandbox' at the top of the page. Copy the information on your User page to a file on your computer to use later. Your User page should tell other users about YOU.

A good method for writing a new article in the English Wikipedia is to use another article as a model. Look at the article University of Texas–Pan American (UTPA). HYNU and UTPA are similar; both are public universities of moderate size. While looking at the University of Texas–Pan American article, click on the 'Edit' tab to see the wiki-code that determines how the information is viewed. It is confusing at first but soon you will learn and use the codes easily and well. Also read the college and university article guidelines.

Reliable sources are documents and articles written about HYNU by other people. Searches using Google.com and other Internet search engines help find articles but articles about HUNU in newspapers and magazines that are not on-line are acceptable. Those articles do not have to be written in English. I found some using Google: Listing in the European Union university directory web site, HYNU Delegation visit to UTPA, an abstract of a scientific article published by the HYNU Key Laboratory of Functional Organometallic Materials and the Universal Second Language program at HYNU.

When you need more help, come back to the Teahouse and we will help. DocTree (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Teahouse, my new Article is here...

Hi, all. I just had to let you know that, thanks to all of you and especially LauraHale and Fuhghettaboutit, my newest article, Incident at Hawk's Hill, can be found here, Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on June 12, working its way to DYK status. What fun! To everyone who answered any of my MANY questions, or will answer the ones I haven't come up with yet, a great big THANKS! Tlqk56 (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That is WONDERFUL news! I can't wait to see it on the front page. After it's up for 24 hours you'll (or we will help :) have to check to see how many views it's had! Sarah (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you and I look that will be two. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Creating a new wiki/ the need for a wiki solutions/problems

I was wondering if there is any initiative among editors to create a wiki for page for educational problems and solutions. I'm wondering if anyone is already working on a wiki that provides problems and solutions to students- I know there is a wiki proofs and a wiki books, but I am wondering if there are any wiki resources that are devoted to problems with known solutions(also I doubt wiki proofs includes general proofs for chemistry problems[PV=nRT for example]). Is there wiki for proofs, problems and solutions? Is there any initiative to start one? TheKaramanukian (talk) 11 June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKaramanukian (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse, TheKaramanukian. I don't know of any specific wiki for "proofs, problems and solutions," but some wikipedia articles contain proofs and many contain links to proofs and calculators. For example the Ideal gas law example you use contains links (right at the bottom) to a very useful-looking calcuator and a page of alternative derivations as well as links to the orginial articles with the proofs. If you're looking for explicitly educational content, you may be better off starting at Wikiversity. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, TheKaramanukian. Perhaps Wikiversity] might be suitable. That wiki is somewhat neglected. Wikipedia is of higher importance to the foundation but the other wikis are available. Take care, DocTree (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Stuartyeates (talk) and DocTree (talk). I saw wikiversity for the first time today. Although wikiversity and wikibooks provide the conceptual material, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to provide practice resources. For example, what if practice problems and solutions were provided along with the conceptual material? Although this is usually beyond what wikis provide, I believe it could be very helpful. What do you think? I know that to provide resources for every subject would be an enormous undertaking. It would also be difficult to adjust the design of the wiki to accommodate resources. What if we were to provide released AP or SAT test prep material or similarly formatted practice material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKaramanukian (talk • contribs) 07:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What happened to my last edit page after saving it?

When I tried to save the article from the sandbox, a split screen flashed -- A red note appeared stating that a "blacklog" ref was used for a cite in the article and needed to be deleted -- Then when I tried to go back to the sandbox to edit the cite and delete the ref I lost the entire document already formatted for Wikipedia. No entry of my latest edits appear in the history contributions logAngelandlinda (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Angelandlinda, welcome to the Teahouse! Your description of the screen flashing doesn't ring a bell, but the article looks to be present at User:Angelandlinda/sandbox. You will want to be careful about using the browser's "back" key. It's better to go "forward" to what you want to see, by bring the article link up from your WP:WATCHLIST, or after finishing an edit to the article. Please note that if you only do a "show preview" of the edit, it is not saved until you do a final "save page". Hope that helps. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 22:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think what happened was that you tried to save the page with a link that is on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (see also Wikipedia:Spam blacklist) and probably got the message seen at MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. I hope you hadn't written too much before losing this edit (so frustrating, but at least it wasn't a term paper or something of that sort), but there is a lesson to be learned: Always copy to your computer's clipboard—highlight selected text (or (ctrl+a to select all) then ctrl+c to copy—before hitting save when you make any big edit, and for a really big edit, maybe actually copy and paste into an offline wordpad/textedit document). It becomes second nature after a while.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wooooww! Back to square zero since I had already built the article in the Wiki format and was ready to post for edits (:-( At least I still have a little bit of energy left to redo it while trying to remember all the changes I'd already made to the original document in the sandboxAngelandlinda (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Angelandlinda - I've been reading your work, as I do have an interest in the field. You have done a great job, from what I was able to read. It looks like you lost all of your references and other work - and we all know how time consuming references can be to get right. I wish I had a magic wand to bring back your lost work - but I don't. C'est la Vie - "see also" option 3!

One thing we can help with is making it easier for you to work smarter and faster - and I for one what to see that article published. So - what have you found slows you down - what is taking up your time as an editor? That may sound like a stupid question, but different editors experience different bottle necks. It does depend from subject to subject - page to page. There may be tools, tips and tricks that can be of help in you recovering and moving forward.

I know it's frustrating, loosing so much work - but we may be able to deal with other "lesser" frustrations in the work process, so you can move forward quicker. It's not much, I know, given all the work you have evidently put in. But, we are here to help! We don't give up easily! All the best - and as I said, I want to see that article published. Let us know what we can do - to help you move forward.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK Anyone please! Rookie question: What's the easiest way to link cites [1] to the references sub-heading (1. ^abcd Doe, J....) and hyperlinking other cites such as the ones under "See also" or embedded in the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelandlinda (talk • contribs) 04:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, A&L, and welcome to Wikipedia. I looked at your article and added a few technical things for you. Most importantly, I added the {{Reflist}} thingie for you. Now, as long as you add references after the fact they reference and enclose the reference inside "<ref></ref>", your references will automatically add to the list. You do not need to add superscript numbers. They go in automatically. I also turned your "See Also" list into Wikilinks, except for "teenage drug and alcohol abuse", as there is no article by that title on Wikipedia. One note from a quick read though: It looks and reads like a college paper. That is not all bad, but on Wikipedia, you are not allowed to draw conclusions from the facts you report. All you can do is report the facts. Hope this helps. Your article is well written, but you need more references and you need to lose the conclusions. You write well, so this shouldn't be too big a challenge for you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't worry too much about technical issues for right now. You will need to deal with the technical aspect of citing books though, so let me try to explain that to you. After the fact you are referencing, you need to insert a "cite book" template. You access this by making sure the arrow next to "Cite" (at the top of the edit screen) is pointing down. That will make a pulldown menu appear named "Templates". Click on "cite book" and fill in the blanks. You will NOT need the "<ref></ref>" coding. The template will put it in for you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Gtwfan52, Thank you for the thoughtful advice! This is my first time doing a project for a graduate course in Wikipedia. Very good comments and helpful hints. Question - How do you list the same ref for multiple cites within the same article to reflect something similar to the following example: (12. ^ a b c d e f g h i Cruz, W (2001)......)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelandlinda (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NAMEDREFS. The long and short of it is that the first time you use a reference you give it a name in the form <ref name="intuitive name">text</ref> The next time you want to reuse that ref, you just type <ref name="intuitive name" /> (make sure to note the closing slash (/) for this later use). I am going to place below a visual guide.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Visual inline citation guide

Formatting references using inline citations

All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the "cite.php" form of inline citations, using the <ref></ref> elements. Using this method, each time a particular source is mined for information (don't copy word-for-word!), a footnote is placed in the text ("inline"), that takes one to the detail of the source when clicked, set forth in a references section after the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <ref> tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a </ref> tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: <ref name="name"> followed by the citation text and a closing </ref> tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: <ref name="name" />. In order for these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code <references/> or, most commonly, the template, {{Reflist}} which can be modified to display the references in columns using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. Per our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.
Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'	What it produces when you save
Two separate citations.<ref>Citation text.</ref><ref>Citation text2.</ref> Multiple<ref name="multiple">Citation text3.</ref> citation<ref name="multiple" /> use.<ref name="multiple" /> == References == {{Reflist}}	Two separate citations. Multiple citation use. References_________________
Templates that can be used between <ref>...</ref> tags to format references {{Citation}} • {{Cite web}} • {{Cite book}} • {{Cite news}} • {{Cite journal}} • Others • Examples

Family members

Hi.

Almost all of my family members edit Wikipedia. I am the last to have started editing. They have their own user accounts and probably your buddy right now.

My question is: Do I need to do anything? Because recently, I start to get the feeling that I must.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is compulsory Codename Lisa. We are all volunteers and do as much or as little as we feel like.--Charles (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi there Codename Lisa - nice to meet you.
  
  You have asked an interesting question. It does deserve a serious answer.
  
  Wikipedia is voluntary, and there is no must about it. Wikipedia is about sharing human knowledge and making it available to everyone in the world free of charge. That is a big task. Some Wikipedians are faster at sharing than others, and some have very particular knowledge that takes time to share. Everyone in Wikipedia is Equal and we all work at out own speed and in the way that best allows us to share knowledge.
  
  If you are being pressured by other people, that is not really an issue we can deal with - but we can support and encourage you in the knowledge you bring to one of the biggest projects ever known. If we can help support you do that, please stop by and have a cup of tea any time. Many new and inexperienced editors can feel pressured - and in many ways Wiki Land can be overwhelming. There is Jargon - fast moving editors who don't explain what they have done and why. We have all experienced that. That is why the Teahouse was set up. It's here to help people like you who benefit from a more human approach.
  
  If there are specific issues with editing Wikipedia that we can look at for you, please do let us know. We are Human too - so we do know how it feels.
  
  Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm a beginner like you, and I'd just like to add one thing to the good advice you've gotten above. If you're not sure if you want to work on Wikipedia, how about dipping in a toe to see? You might try searching out articles on something you love -- a book, song, place to visit, favorite food or flower, etc, until you find an article you think needs help. Then do some research and add to it, and see how you like the experience. There are thousands of articles out there that need some TLC, and you'll get a feel for how Wikipedia works. I work on articles about children's lit -- not everyone's cup of tea, but a passion of mine. That's what makes it fun. And come back with any questions, no matter how small. Folks here try not to bite us new people. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hello again Codename Lisa! One important point that the others here have not mentioned is that if for some reason you or any of your family are investigated with the CheckUser tool, a small group of trusted administrators will be able to see that your accounts use the same IP address. It is a good idea to be careful with things like this, as we have a policy against misusing multiple accounts, and normally if editors are misusing multiple accounts, then those accounts get blocked. The administrators using the CheckUser tool will also take behavioural evidence into account, like writing style, times of day spent editing, and areas of interest; however, it is best not to rely on such things, and I recommend declaring the accounts of your family members on your user page. See the advice on sharing an IP address for more. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, Mr. Stradivarius

Yeah, about that; I do not know their accounts. I asked before and they politely said that it is a private matter of their own. I don't know why. Maybe because they didn't want me to misuse our relation; or maybe because ... you see, their overall opinion of Wikipedia is bittersweet. Do you think I can use this CheckUser tool to find out their accounts?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

hi there. In my opinion, your family members have done a good thing as it allows you to look at their actions(of course without knowing that it is theirs) without any bias. A neutral point of view is very much essential. So, what I would suggest is for you to declare how many people in your family have their own accounts and that you don't know what they are. Roshan220195 (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Considering the privacy concerns between family members, I've just created {{User shared IP address private}}, which may be of some use in your case. -- Trevj (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Trevj. Thanks a bunch. I put in on my user page. I believe that's it then. And thanks, everyone else, for your corresponding replies. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Help with formatting!

(I was BOLD and moved this from the bottom of the page to the top. Hope that's OK.)Tlqk56 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am trying to edit a page called "Time's Up!", but I am first writing my draft on the talk page. There was some writing already listed on the talk page so I scrolled down to the bottom and started from there. However, the first few sentences of my work are not showing up on the talk page after I save the page. Does anyone know why? I have tried everything and I cannot get it to appear on the actual talk page. If I edit it however, the missing text shows up there. Why is this happening? Palderoty (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, Palderoty, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm moving your question to the top of the page so it will get noticed, I hope you don't mind. (Teahouse is the exception to the rule that at Wikipedia you add new material to the bottom of the page. That's because so many of us new people haven't figured that rule out yet -- but you have. Congrats.) If you click on "Ask a question >>" which is in the top section on the Teahouse page, it will put your question in the right place for you automatically, next time. I'm new , too, and I can't really explain what's happening to you, but I can tell you that the best place to work on a new draft of an article -- or an entirely new article -- is your sandbox. The Talk page of an article is really just for discussing the editing of the article for other editors to see. Give me a minute and I, or someone who knows more than me, will tell you how to start a sandbox for the article. (My visiting grandson just woke up.)Tlqk56 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Howdy, Palderoty! All content on Talk:Time's Up! seems to be showing up. Please clear your cache and try again. Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 21:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Howdy again! As Tlqk56 said above, you should make edits in your sandbox, which you can create at this page. Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 21:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It looks as if Talk:Time's Up! could do with some tidying up. This can be done (see WP:REFACTOR) but content should generally not be removed unless it's totally irrelevant to improving the article in some way. You should find a "New section" tab at the top next to "Edit". Using that will include your edits in a new section at the bottom of the talk page, without affecting the existing discussions. -- Trevj (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have created a draft from the content on the articles talk page at User:Palderoty/sandbox1 Mdann52 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your advice! I will try my best to follow your instructions. If I have any more questions, I will write on this post. Palderoty (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello all. I have been editing my newest version of the draft on User talk:Palderoty/sandbox1 with the help of your advice. If you see any problems that could potentially cause me issues in the future please let me know. What is the next step for me? How do I get this posted on the actual Time's Up! page? Palderoty (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please help to analyse the article, find what is wrong

Hello, I started to work on the article about "Swiss International Hotels & Resorts" a long time ago. The article was declined several times. Nevertheless I made improvements and got rid of the comment "considered as an advertisement". Links for the coverage in media around the globe are all there. But still something is wrong. Swiss International is undergoing big developments around the world and the info should be available for wikipedia readers.

Please help me to finalise the article.Thank you in advance! EkaterinaTerentyeva (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ekaterina, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. As you say Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Swiss International Hotels & Resorts has been reviewed several times and the reviews always seem to say the same thing - that the notability of the company isn't established. If it is a notable company then there is an expectation that other people will have written about the company. That evidence in the form of reliable sources is absent here. Most of the references are either from the company itself or are based upon press releases issued by the company so they aren't independent. You need to find some references that are genuinely independent and do more that rehash press releases. If you can't then maybe we have to wait until Swiss International has undergone it's expansion and is recognised as notable. NtheP (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ekaterina. When you say "and the info should be available for Wikipedia readers", I think you are perhaps misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about. Information should be in Wikipedia only if reliable media have already written about it. If reliable media (such as newspapers) have written about what a company is doing, then there will be no difficulty finding reliable references for it; but if they have not then it may not be put into Wikipedia. "Getting the message out" (whether the message is commercial, religious, philanthropic or anything else) is specifically not a purpose of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a question along this line. Is notice in trade publications specific to the industry sufficient to establish notability? Hotel management companies, such as the one in question here, are almost by definition, hidden from view of the general public. All the general public (and this includes newspapers) are to know is the franchise name and possibly the owner. But in many if not most hotels, there is a third player. Most hotels contract with a management company to actually operate the property, and the only people who are generally aware of this are people in the industry. Gtwfan52 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally not, particularly if it is simply a routine listing (of which there are many in business publications). You are absolutely right when you say there are many substantial companies which are quite invisible to the wider public. Unfortunately this means that, if people generally don't know about the company, it isn't 'notable' (as Wikipedia defines it). Wikipedia should only include articles about things that are already widely known. Sionk (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)