Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, 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

TV series vs. TV programme

Will someone who is familiar with British television terminology explain to me how British people use the term "program/programme"? For example, is it appropriate to say: British terminology: "Asylum of the Daleks" is the first episode of the seventh series of the sci-fi television programme Doctor Who. American terminology: "Asylum of the Daleks" is the first episode of the seventh season of the sci-fi television series Doctor Who. Transphasic (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Transphasic. That isn't really an appropriate question to ask here however. The Teahouse is specifically for questions about editing Wikipedia. There is a place to ask general questions. That is the Reference Desk. Specifically I think you want the reference desk for entertainment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment I am a big fan of Dr. Who though (Tom Baker is still my favorite) and whenever I talk to my friends in the UK as far as I can remember they use the same terminology for episodes, etc. as Americans but I'm not certain of that, for a more authoritative answer I suggest the Reference Desk. RedDog (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What does "rollback (AGF)" mean?

I have Twinkle on (I think that's where it is from) and one of the edit rollback options says "Rollback (AGF)". What does that even mean? Thanks. XndrK (talk · contribs · count) 16:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Rollback, in and of itself, reverts all of the edits of the previous user. AGF stands for assume good faith, so an AGF rollback is one where you believe the previous editor had good intentions, but their edits were still problematic enough to require reverting. You'll also be prompted for an edit summary when you use it, which you should fill in. Yunshui 雲‍水 16:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I submit a ban for an IP address, and if so, where?

I was doing a random check of the recent changes when I found some vandalism. I (of course) hit the Rollback (VANDAL) button (I have Twinkle installed) and found out that every single edit from that IP address was vandalism (except one, which I suppose is someone else using the same address).

Is there a way to ask for a ban on an IP address? If so, how? XndrK (talk · contribs · count) 15:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to report vandalism, you can do so at Administrators' intervention against vandalism. Twinkle enables you to file a report automatically; just go to the IP (or editor)'s talkpage and choose ARV from the Twinkle menu. We can block IPs just as easily as registered accounts. Yunshui 雲‍水 16:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Having a conniption, not waving.

Dear kind and understanding Teahouse host, I'm working on Jaunpur district. When I try to 'save', I end up with a reflist error message and only part of the article. The whole article appears when I go back to 'edit'. Any suggestions? Regards, "more Myrtle muppetry" Myrtlegroggins (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it. There was a hidden comment that hadn't been closed correctly, causing everything beyond that point (including the reflist template) to become invisible. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Yunshui!! This was the first time i had tried to use a hidden message. I'll know to check it very carefully next time. Regards, Myrtle, (sigh of relief) Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Use VisualEditor(Beta) in my sandbox?

Can i use the VisualEditor from beta, in my sandbox?

When clicking "Edit" I get the old one?

(Imri Paloja (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Imri Paloja. Look up at the top of your screen. Up where you see links like your user id, sandbox, etc. You should see a link that says "Beta". Click on that. You should see a list of various beta software wikipedia tools you can enable. There is an option to enable them all but I wouldn't recommend that. Scroll down and you should find "Visual Editor", click the box to enable that. There is also a Visual Formula Editor which if you do math or logic stuff you might want to click on as well. (Note that can only be enabled if the Visual Editor is enabled). Click done and go back to your sandbox. Now the tabs that normally include the "Edit" option should instead include the options: "Edit Source" and "Edit beta". The Edit Source is the original editor the Edit beta is the visual editor. Click that to try out the visual editor. Note even with the visual editor enabled some pages, I think talk pages and teahouse pages, still only work with the original editor. RedDog (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

reliable medical sources

Can an entry in a popular science book be considered a reliable secondary source? Can someone delete my primary entry on the basis that it contradicts what is supposedly a secondary source?Johntosco (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Johntosco, and welcome to the Teahouse. We have very stringent requirements for sourcing in medical articles. "Popular" or lay-oriented sources are not considered reliable in most cases. Any medical claim should be cited to a source that complies with medical reliable sources. The best medical sources are survey or review articles published in peer-reviewed medical journals of excellent reputation, or in medical textbooks, or recommendations published by major mainstream medical organizations. By "review" articles, I don't mean articles reporting on an individual research study. Instead, we are looking for articles that collate, analyze and summarize a significant number of research studies on a given disease or medical condition. I am not a medical expert, so I am just approximating what is needed, I hope reasonably accurately. Please read the link I provided, associated links, and please defer to our established policies and guidelines in this very sensitive area. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, but I am afraid that it doesn't quite answer my question. Can I include a primary source, i.e. a scientific study, in an article when there are no reliable secondary sources? When the only secondary source is a popular science book?Johntosco (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Then the content may not be included. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 12:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring definition

I have been told that I am edit warring even when I have explained my reasons on the talk page. I have also asked for informal mediation but this has been closed. Now, the question is simple, what have I done wrong according to wikipedia?Johntosco (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Johntosco. An edit war is when an editor continually reverts another editors work. The standard is 3 repetitive edits is an edit war but I don't think it's a hard and fast standard, even two can be considered disruptive. For more please see this article: wp:Edit war As an editor you never want to be in an edit war. We always try to collaborate. I think in your case the concern comes from your editing of the Shiatsu article. I looked over some of the comments and I think you may not be completely understanding Wikipedia policies. For example, it is not rude for another editor to point out a Wikipedia policy to you and to use that policy to explain why a change you made was not appropriate. If you don't mind some friendly advice, I think every editor has experienced a situation where we feel strongly about an issue but our opinion is not in accord with the consensus. When that happens it can be very frustrating. At least it's happened to me and I found it frustrating. But you know Wikipedia is huge. There are always other articles that need your help. What I do in those situations is just move on and find another article to work on. RedDog (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. It was concerning the article on the book 'Trick or Treatment' and I believe it was insulting, because the reason given for undoing my edit was that I should be writing my book and spending my spare time better. In the real world that would be called harassement. Furthermore, my request for mediation was closed, even when the other person refuses to give ACTUAL reasons on the talk page.Johntosco (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I read the Trick or Treatment talk page, and in my humble opinion, you have been a bit confrontational and unwilling to listen to input from experienced editors there. We have high standards for reliable sourcing on Wikipedia, and it is really important to have a collaborative attitude and accept consensus. At its best, Wikipedia summarizes what the range of reliable sources says about a topic, and does not advance a specific point of view on a topic. Editors who accept that principle can flourish here. Those who insist on pushing a specific point of view will have a different difficult time here, and may decide to contribute to advocacy oriented websites instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, my attitude was confrontational, but I don't see how this justifies other editors undoing my edits without having to justify their reasoning according to wikipedia guidelines. I think some people would call that vindictiveness. I don't see how it justifies someone adding original research, and I am not allowed to remove it, when mine was removed.Johntosco (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You asked "what have I done wrong according to wikipedia?". Looking at the thread in Talk:Trick or Treatment, I feel that your attitude, from your first post onwards, has indeed been too confrontational. Some of the other editors in the discussion are not without fault either, but you asked for feedback on your own approach, so here it is. Statements such as "Is it typical of you NOT to read well the posts ...", "Proof, evidence don't mean a thing in wikipedia, and certainly nothing to Alexbrn" and "I am also fed up with your lies" (and many more) are needlessly personal - you would do better to address the issue rather than attack the individuals involved. You need to be aware that Wikipedia has a low tolerance for personal insults - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks for our policy on this. As to the way forwards, you could maybe try building consensus towards a more neutral wording for the points you thought were important - but I fear you have now injected so much emotion into nthe discussion that this will be difficult. I don't expect you will agree with all of this, but it is my honest attempt to answer your original question. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Referencing archives, curriculum vitae

I am writing a Wikipedia entry on a man who was a European military officer, immigrant to the U.S., then a college professor and ethnic community activist. He donated all this documents (from WWII to his death)to the archive of the college where he taught. It has not been digitized. Can I site this archive as a source and how do I do it? Also, his full curriculum vitae is in the archive, do I cite this cv as a source in the archive or just refer to the archive or just refer to the cv? I have other published sources that I can cite for some parts of his career but documents in the archive are essential sources for other information. JoannaDrze...Peru (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, JoannaDrze...Peru. Some of the documents in the archive might be reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, while many of them may not be. As you review those documents, the best would be copies of articles about him and about his work published in newspapers, books and magazines with professional editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Primary documents should be used sparingly, especially unpublished material such as personal correspondence. The curriculum vitae may be useful as a research tool, but probably shouldn't be cited in the article unless published somewhere. I recommend the Primer, which gives a good overview of what is needed to make your article a success. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

How to add a detail to the table or column of the article like the article India?

How to add a detail to the table or column of the article like the article India? Psgs123xyz (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you are referring to infoboxes, then there is not much you can do. All infoboxes have certain perimeters, and they can't change without making an edit to the template, which I highly don't suggest. You can however, add infoboxes to articles or add information supported by the perimeters on articles. Reading the link I gave you will give you a more in depth description. buffbills7701 23:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

buffbills7701 I think you mean "parameters". --ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

New Article Submission query

To which email id I should send my article for review/submission?122.174.229.123 (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! There is no need to send an article submission to anyone by email. Instead, you can create it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and it will then eventually be reviewed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Submitting an article for review.

I have created and saved an article. How do I submit it for review ? Mondmichael (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Mondmichael, add the following code to the top of your article {{subst:submit}} and that will add the article to he list of those to be reviewed. NtheP (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it worked.Mondmichael (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

small scientific studies

What is the policy of wikipedia concerning small pilot studies? it is a scientific study with 34 patients, 17 receiving treatment and 17 in the control group.Johntosco (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's the same as it is for any other study, as long as it meets the general notability guidelines and is reviewed/covered in reliable sources then it will be acceptable. There is specific guidance on finding sources for medical articles at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and I would suggest you read that page before going any futher. NtheP (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict} Hi Johntosco - I'm not quite sure what you mean by policy "concerning small pilot studies"? If you mean will Wikipedia publish it? the answer is a definite no as Wikipedia does not publish original research. If you mean can you quote this research in another article, you can, provided it has been published in a reliable, third party publication, which for medical subjects must be peer reviewed. If you have another use in mind, could you please explain - thanks Arjayay (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much both of you, Nthep and Arjayay. No it is not original research, but something published in NCBI and the Joutnal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. I'll try to explain clearly that it is a pilot study and itis about potential effects. Thank you again.Johntosco (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello all. Johntosco has added this and I'm afraid it is not acceptable. Biomedical information needs to based on reliable secondary sources according to our medical sourcing guidelines. There is a recent piece in the Signpost which has a good explanation of this. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Alexbrn. 1) You are afraid it is not acceptable or simply you don't like it being acceptable? 2) I have followed the guidelines. I have written about a study published in a peer-reviewed publication, and mentioned in pubmed. Exactly what recent piece in the Signpost - which you quote as if it said that my contribution is not acceptable - says is acceptable. 3) You must excuse my bluntness, but you seem to be a self-appointed guardian of a particular article, and you fight over anything that doesn't support your POV.Johntosco (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You have added material sourced to a primary publication (a paper in a journal detailing the outcome of a "pilot study"). As the Signpost puts it, these kinds of paper "are papers describing novel research for the first time". What we really need is secondary sources (such as a review article or a systematic review). We would only use primary sources for health information in truly exceptional circumstances, and never (as here) against the grain of secondary sources as a kind of "debunk" of them: this is all spelled out in WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Alexbrn. First of all, I know I'm not as knowledgeable and experienced as you are when it comes to editing in wikipedia, so I would ask of you some politeness, and point this things out on the talk page of the article, and not have me search around wikipedia to find out what your point is. I believe this post is for questions and not for mediation, but please correct me if I am wrong. Second, according to the source and text which you have used in the article, "Evidence was of insufficient quantity and quality" and "The only RCT included in their review was not actually a study of shiatsu but of a complex mixture of treatments including shiatsu for back and neck pain. No significant effects compared to standard care were identified in this study.". This means that we are NOT talking about a systematic review about shiatsu. A systematic review is a literature review focused on a research question that tries to identify, appraise, select and synthesize ALL high quality research evidence relevant to that question. In fact, that famous systematic review, includes only 9 shiatsu studies, but 71 acupressure studies, so, if anything, it is a systematic review of acupressure.Johntosco (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope I am answering questions: it's good we're moving to a discussion of secondary sources. After removing the primary, the systematic review you mention is one of the sources we're left with. Its conclusion in essence is that there is no evidence around Shiatsu - a "negative finding" which is worth reporting, especially as it is in line with the other sources we use (Ernst etc.). That way the article gives a rounded view of the medical/scientific consensus. Note also that because this is a fringe area the guidance at WP:FRINGE also applies - and there are some important considerations in there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you continue to be discorteous and write here instead of the talk page of the article. However, 1) You haven't answered one questiom. How something that it is not a systematic review of shiatsu happens to be - according to you - a systematic review of shiatsu. 2) About fringe theories I read: A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field, must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. As far as I know, there are ABSOLUTELY NO theories concerning shiatsu that are broadly supported by scholarship. That is why you use as a reference the website - and opinion - of an author, and not something found on medical journals, specialist academic or professional books - as I have done. 3) Even if the systematic review was about shiatsu - which it can hardly be said it is - Ernst's opinion about it is one, not broadly supported by scholarship. Where is that broad support? Please show.Johntosco (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Classification of articles.

Umm..hi I saw that you guys classify articles as 'Featured','Good' etc.....How is this done???Oooooobygod (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ooooooobygod. These assessments are usually made by the WikiProject to which an article belongs (so articles about Japan are usually assessed by members of WikiProject Japan. The criteria for assessment can be found here - stub- and start-class articles are those in need of most improvement, whilst FAs, GAs and A-class articles are among Wikipedia's best offerings. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Oooooobygod: Just so you know, to be assigned featured article or good article status can only be done respectively through the featured article process with nominations listed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for peers to assess them, and through the good articles process with nominations listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. This is separate from the classification ratings you see on talk pages that are usually made unilaterally by a person from a WikiProject, as Yunshui talks about above. Wikiprojects themselves only assess the other ratings, "A", "B", "C", "Start" and "Stub" – they cannot assign featured or good article status unless the article has passed the formal processes I listed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What are the ratings next to my edit history?

There appear to be red and green numbers next to each individual listing in my Contributions history. What does this number represent? Biznack (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Biznack: Hey Biznack That's the number of bytes you changed in each edit made (which corresponds generally to the number of characters you added or removed); (+30) means you added 30 bytes and (-30) means you removed 30 bytes. For more, see Help:User contributions. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing Too Often

Does editing a page too often make the page less credible and more likely to be disapproved by admins?

Alex Leventer (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No. And the disapproval or approval of admins is irrelevant, as they are in no sense super-editors. Usually quite the reverse in fact. Eric Corbett 03:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ouch!--ukexpat (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

New editor and want to do things right.

I have issue with a few pages and I'd like to make corrections. How can I make corrections properly, changing text in that is error on the page? MR2David (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've put a few useful links on your user talk page. Each of those in turn has further links that you should find helpful. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

How does WikiMedia detect that you just saved over someone else's work whilst Editing?

Is this the proper place for this question? I will check back! :) Emmoksha (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The flippant answer would be: not very well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So, as the software won't always detect an edit conflict, the safest thing is to check the diff for your edit from the edit history after you've saved it. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Edit conflict. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sam Pepper Page keeps getting deleted

I have been trying to publish a page called Sam Pepper (artist), and it has kept getting deleted on the grounds of: 1) not being significant or important, 2) a promotion. The article was neither of those, as Sam is emerging talent on one of the fastest growing mediums right now - YouTube, and most of the information on him online is spread out. It is all factual, and the references prove it. It is not a promotion, it just states his work.. Can you please help me figure out why this is being deleted over and over again, and how to make sure it gets published? Thanks - Kpshu (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Kpshu. The real thing for me here was the promotional aspect of it. I know that most of the things you mention may have had a factual basis (although none were supported by inline citations, and they really should have been), but the bigger problem was with how you were saying it. When you say things like "Sam Pepper is a versatile and accomplished online personality", well, that's hardly neutral wording, no matter how true it is. The thing to remember here is that Wikipedia articles should contain only things that can be actively verified in reliable sources, and statements like that aren't verifiable. Moreover, the article read basically like a list of accomplishments, not an actual encyclopedia article. Finally, you should keep in mind that Wikipedia strives to have articles only on people and things that are notable; that is, subjects that are covered non-trivially in multiple reliable sources (major magazines, newspapers, and the like). Usually, what one means by calling someone an "emerging talent" in a "fast-growing medium" is that one hasn't been covered in reliable sources yet, but will be in the future. Wikipedia only covers things after the fact: we're not a place to gain coverage and exposure, we're a place to document coverage and exposure that has already happened. It's possible that, while Sam Pepper may become notable in the future, he is not notable right now; if so, then we have to wait until he really is notable before we can start an article about him. I know that that's probably not what you want to hear, but does that help at all? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Visibility of User Pages

I've been working on the article for Expert systems As part of that I recovered an old version of the article an excerpted a piece of text I or someone may have use for in future version. At first I stored it in my sandbox but then I wanted to use my sandbox for something else. So I created a user page here: User:Mdebellis/realtimeadaptaton I use the auto-complete feature a lot in searching when I went to find that file I typed "User:Mdebellis/" into the search box and it didn't show up as an autocomplete. When I type in "User:Mdebellis/realtimeadaptaton" to the search box it doesn't seem to be consistent. The first time it took me to the page to create a new page (this was after I had actually created it) but I just did it now and it seemed to work. In any case I can always get to that file by looking back at my history and clicking on the link there for where I created the page but was wondering what is going on here? My guess is that for the auto complete stuff to work things need to get indexed and it takes a while? (Although I think it's been over 24 hours) Or perhaps the system doesn't even bother indexing user pages for auto complete? RedDog (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, RedDog. It definitely takes a while for Wikipedia to index newly created pages into the search engine. Also, I find that sometimes the autocomplete doesn't work if my internet connection speed is slow. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It wasn't the Internet speed though because auto complete was showing me other things but I'm sure it was the indexing then. I just wanted to check because I want to give other people that link (via a talk page on the topic) and I didn't want to do that if it might not work. Looks like as Dustin Hoffman said to the Nazi dentist its safe. RedDog (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mdebellis: Hey RedDog. A wikilink, as opposed to typing something into the search field, bypasses the indexing necessary to find a page through search, transporting a person directly to a page if it exists; a wikilink to an existing page will always work immediately whether the search indexing has been done or not. All users had the benefit of much more easily choosing whether to search or go directly to a title before the switch to the [awful] Vector skin a few years back. Prior thereto everyone had separate "search" and a "go" buttons, which are still available in other skins. (Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a hack to place a go button in the Vector skin?)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What are some great forms of citations that will help my articles stay on wiki?

I'm writing a biography for two american musicians known as Gabriel Jules and Jorge Pilot. Their basically telling me their life story and the work they've done as in their career. These are upcoming artist that have made a bit of a buzz in Charlotte, NC. They don't have much on the internet aside from their websites, social media, and youtube accounts. How do i prove that one artist is a songwriter... He is apart of ASCAP writing guild? would footage of their performances or in studio session from youtube prove their work field? how do i prove their credibility? Gjules00 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nothing that they have told you can be used in an article, as it is not verifiable, i.e. no reader of the article can check it is true. Similarly (with a very few minor exceptions) nothing on their website, in social media or YouTube can be used, as it is self-published, rather than being independent, whilst videos of their performances are also irrelevant. Until they have received extensive, third party coverage, in reliable sources (National newspapers or magazines, Allmusic etc.) they are not deemed "Notable" in Wikipedia's use of the word. I think you summed it up in the phrases "upcoming artist" and "who don't have much on the internet". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an advertising medium, or a crystal ball. Wait until they are notable, and then write the article, as without extensive third party coverage, any article written about them is almost certain to be deleted. Arjayay (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Gjules and welcome to the teahouse. Just to expand a bit more on what Arjayay said, the work you are doing sounds great but unfortunately it is what Wikipedia considers wp:original research Wikipedia isn't a place to publish original research. Once you have published in a magazine, book, etc. then you can site those publications as references and create a Wikipedia page for the group if you want to. RedDog (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Lost Archive

Does anyone know what happened to MiszaBot and why the archived pages disappeared? Is there a way to retrieve the missing pages? Stmullin (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Stmullin: Welcome back to the Teahouse. What page are you talking about? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 16:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

My archived pages and the MiszaBot file cabinet icon are missing from my personal pages . . .Stmullin (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Stmullin/Archives/2013/July and User_talk:Stmullin/Archives/2012/March both still exist. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've created links to the archives and reconfigured Miszabot . . . is something amiss with Miszabot?Stmullin (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing lots of pages from "In popular culture" to "cultural impact"

Many pages have an "In popular culture" heading. I find an article Popular culture, an essay Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content and a wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture.

I find the qualifier "popular" objectionable. If it is opposed to "unpopular", it is irrelevant, as unpopular would not be "notable". If it is opposed to "high culture", does that mean that wikipedia is judging what is high culture and what is not? No-one else agrees about it.

Can I just go about lots of pages, changing the heading "In popular culture" to "cultural impact" or just "in culture"?

Where could I best discuss this? Does it even need a Consensus affecting multiple pages, or does it vary across wikipedia according to the opinions of those most committed?

That is the real question. Do I change pages to "in culture" until I get into an edit war, or try to influence others to all reject the title "in popular culture", or give up and do something else? Abigailgem (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of popular, especially if you believe that unpopular material would be irrelevant. Eric Corbett 03:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, but that is not particularly helpful. What prompted my question was the article on Dresden bombing, which had a section on Slaughterhouse-five before the "In Popular culture" section. Is that saying Vonnegut's novel is high culture, rather than popular culture? If so, should we exclude "serious" work from "in popular culture" sections? No, I would say, so the usual term used is misnamed.

I understand there are widely differing uses of "popular culture" and widely differing understandings of what it is.10:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You may have a valid point, but unilaterally changing lots of pages until someone objects is definitely not a good way to proceed. Best approach is to raise this issue in an appropriate forum, start a discussion, and wait until consensus emerges. That way, when your changes are challenged, you can point editors to the discussion and consensus. In this case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture doesn't seem to be very active, but you could perhaps raise the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Review my Sandbox for Rudolph Glocenius (Rudolph Glöckel)

Thanks!

User:JuliaRReynolds/sandbox

JuliaRReynolds (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We already have an article on Rudolph Goclenius ? Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Local upload on English Wikipedia of images under Template:PD-US-1923-abroad

Hi everyone.

I made a clutch of these uploads on my article start Facing the Modern: The Portrait in Vienna 1900, but now an experienced user has come on to my Talk page to say he tagged them for deletion on URAAA revival.

But I thought pre-1923 was an absolute determiner of PD in USA.

Am I wrong in this? The Help files don't indicate that URAA overrides and I went through the interactive guide I found on the help files that confirmed their PD status. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Coat of Many Colours. I took a look at a few of your uploads, and they say that photos of the paintings were published in a recent book, but you are claiming that they were published in the United States before 1923. You need to identify all the relevant information about the pre-1923 book, magazine or newspaper where photos of these paintings were published. As I understand the rules, it is not enough that they were painted before 1923, they must also be published in the U .S. before 1923. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a mistake Jim. I didn't know the distinction between publication and creation. You're mistaken about the US thing. Publication anywhere in the world is adequate, though there is an issue about language. Not sure how relevant that is to an art work. See below. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Coat of Many Colours, and welcome to the Teahouse. Actually, the US does not consider foreign works separately from domestic works when it comes to the 1923 copyright cutoff date, and thus (if the paintings were published before 1923) they would be public domain in the US, no matter where they were published. Thus, the issue is the definition of the term "publish", which under current US copyright law appears to require an actual reproduction and dissemination; thus, it would be best practice to find proof of such reproduction and dissemination from 1913/1914. It's quite possible, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Crisco. What was orginally queried here was copyright revival and that's been definitively established as not an issue pre-1923. I'm frankly dismayed that the Teahouse has raised the issue of publication. I was not ware of the distinction between publication and creation under the Berne Convention. It's unwelcome because of course I don't have the resources to provide information in that detail. I comment on my Talk page here. In the case of the Kokoschka image, I've written the Phillips Collection (owner) in Washington, enquiring its publication history. Best I can do. Thank you for your reply. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Keith Vaz vandalism

Hello! The article about Keith Vaz was vandalised. I've reverted it back, but the vandalised version is on BuzzFeed and Twitter. I suspect this will attract people to revert my revert. I don't think the page qualifies for page protection, but is there somewhere I can go to ask for experienced editors to keep an eye on the page for 24-48 hours? Trey Maturin (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Trey Maturin. I've placed the article on my watchlist. I suggest that you also express your concerns on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard, where editors interested in protecting biographies from defamatory edits may be willing to help. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328! Trey Maturin (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

referencing

Hi!! Here in Madagascar there are no many companies who promote fairtrade and organic production. this is quite important i think for the malagasy producers for them to be promote. I hear something about a company who does activities on that way and i would like to share it with all. Viewers said about the submmission that there is a problem of referencing. I searched ALL the details about this company and i found newspaper article, and some mentioning in considerable number of websites. Please, help me to find a way to figure out that problem :( Thank you in advance ArianeCCM (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, ArianeCCM and welcome to The Teahouse. Wikipedia is not here to promote any company, regardless of how important the company's mission is. If you are correct that the company has received significant coverage from reliable sources which are independent and present a neutral point of view, the company may be notable and therefore entitled to an article. Let's say the name of the company is "companyname". The best way for you to start is clicking on the link and changing "companyname" to the actual name of the company: User:ArianeCCM/companyname.

Then be sure to follow the directions in WP:FOOTNOTE.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I just went to your talk page to let you know I had responded and I see you do know how to create and submit an article. The problem with your article is finding sources that adequately cover the company you are writing about. And you are still using promotional language, such as "bright future", "superior quality", "premium producer" and "premium quality". You also shouldn't use green, bold, or underlining anywhere in the article once you have put the name of the company in bold in the lede.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Permissions after CHUU

Hi everyone, I recently got my username changed but now I see I have got only 6 edits to my name and have rollback, reviewer permissions along with being a confirmed user. Now when I went to edit a page that was semi-protected I could not edit it? I am a bit confused. Soham 12:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've checked the userrights on your account (under your new username) and can't see any immediate reason why you wouldn't be able to edit a semi-protected page - what was the article you were trying to edit? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I think I get it. You seem to be logging in as Sohambanerjee1998 - try logging in as Soham and see if that fixes the problem. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Luke told me that. It works. Soham 13:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have logged on to your old user name after the name change, rather than the new name. Your question was posted from the old name, and that is what is showing as effectively a new account with only the 6 edits. The old edits are shown under your new user name, and that's what you should be logging on with. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I get it now, should I declare that the last 6 edits were a mistake? Soham 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Soham: Hi Soham. You linked "last 6 edits" to WP:SOCK so I assume you are worried someone might think "sockpuppet" and take some type of action if they see those edits. Just don't worry about this at all. Sockpuppetry is not simply the "use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts". Sockpuppetry is the "use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for improper purposes, such as "attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." All of your edits whilst logged in under the other account name were clearly good faith edits without a hint of impropriety, and so no one should ever have a problem with them. That being said, you can re-attribute some edits by description in edit summaries, while using dummy edits, e.g., make a dummy edit to a page you edit under the other account by changing some spacing but no content and then type in the edit summary something like "Note: edit by Sohambanerjee1998, as of 22:31, December 2, 2013 was me, editing while mistakenly logged in under that prior name". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Soham 06:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

how do I submit an article for inclusion in wikipedia?

I am a scholar specializing in 19th century American women's poetry and chief among my projects has been the recovery of the poetry of Sarah Morgan Bryan Piatt. (My edition of her selected poetry -- Palace-Burner: the Selected Poetry of Sarah Piatt -- came out from U of Illinois Press in 2000, as part of their American Poetry Recovery Series.) Currently, Wikipedia hosts a very brief article on Sarah. I would like to greatly expand this entry but I am unsure how to go about submitting my revision. Where do I find the guidelines for the creation and submission of a full-length article?

Paula Bennett76.127.137.153 (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Paula Bennett. Although you can contribute as an unregistered IP editor, I recommend you consider establishing an account. This will facilitate communication and collaboration with other experienced editors. Since we already have a brief article about this poet, you should think in terms of improving and expanding the existing article, as opposed to creating and submitting a full-length article. In other words, you don't need to "submit" anything. Just make the current article better, one edit at a time, until it is an appropriate length. Please read the Primer, which I like as an introduction to editing here. Also, Referencing for beginners may prove useful to you. Since you say you have expertise in the topic, you may find Self citation useful. Be cautious to avoid any behavior that could be construed as overly promoting your own research here on Wikipedia. I am not saying that is your intention. Instead, I am offering information to help you avoid possible stumbling blocks in your editing here. Please feel free to return to the Teahouse with other questions, and thanks for stepping forward to help improve this encyvlopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with userbox

Hello, I created a userbox at Template:Userbox/translate corresponding articles. Does any one know how to simplify the code like the codes listed for userboxes on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userboxes ? Moonchïld9 (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Moonchïld9, this is already done automatically. Just write the name inside {{...}} like {{Userbox/translate corresponding articles}}. However, it's only really useful for others if you replace the constant "2" in the code by {{{1|}}}. This will enable editors to pass their own number of articles as a parameter, for example {{Userbox/translate corresponding articles|3}} to say "3 corresponding articles". If they omit the parameter then it will simply omit a number. May I also suggest saying for example "foreign Wikipedias" instead of "the International Wikipedia". The English Wikipedia is itself one of the many languages in the international site called Wikipedia. Wikilinks in userboxes are also good, for example: "This user has helped translate corresponding articles into English from foreign Wikipedias." PrimeHunter (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User: PrimeHunter! his was very helpful! : )

Moonchïld9 (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I want to make a wiki on my self

recently i tried making wiki page under sebastian gehrig and that is me but they say the info need sources i am my self i am sure i know my self. i want a wiki page on my self(Skgstudios (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sebastian. You simply cannot have a Wikipedia article about yourself. You can tell us a bit about yourself on your userpage however, but it is not for a full blown, article-like writeup in the third person voice and promoting any of your businesses. You can however have a wiki page about yourself at the unrelated-to-Wikipedia site, Wikibios. See more at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't Change Name

Our school recently changed names. I cannot figure out how to edit the name/title of our page though. The information on the page itself was updated. Please help if possible. Walther Lutheran High School. The name should be Walther Christian Academy instead of Walther Lutheran High School.50.73.107.233 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much!50.73.107.233 (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

books with no ISBN

there are some old books which have no ISBN....should I use those as references???? Nabil Kabil (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course. The presence or absence of an ISBN only matters when a book was actually allocated an ISBN, which no books published before the mid-1960s were. Eric Corbett 19:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nabil Kabil. I agree with Eric Corbett that citing old books without ISBN numbers is fine in many cases. And if the book was published in the United States before 1923 and has significant illustrations, you can add those to Wikimedia Commons without any difficulty because copyright has expired. That's a bonus. But in areas where knowledge is developing, such as most academic fields, the newest available high quality sources are preferred. So feel free to use old books without ISBNs, but use them judiciously, being aware that recent scholarship is often the best. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Where no ISBN is available, I often provide the ISSN and/or OCLC number. When you are at Google books and are looking at a publication, if you click on "About this magazine" (or similar), the ISSN will often be provided. The OCLC is easily found by searching the name of the publication at worldcat; once you locate the work and click on it the URL will provide the OCLC number e.g. for the book In Watermelon Sugar, with a URL of worldcat.org/title/in-watermelon-sugar/oclc/1052466, 1052466 is the OCLC and you would just add to your citation (if you were using a citation template) oclc=1052466. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

question about involvement

hello, how can i get more involved with wikipedia,with not those typical working...can you please tell me?Nabil Kabil (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Nabil. Are you saying you want to get involved with Wikipedia but not as an editor? Or are you asking how someone without a lot of technical skills can edit? Don't worry if you don't have a lot of technical skills. It can seem a bit daunting when you first start editing but it's really pretty simple. One thing that I see often is new editors want to jump into creating new articles. My advise is to find articles that need work. Look for articles that have icons at the top such as a broom or a book and that say things like "This article requires additional references" Also, here are some articles that cover Wikipedia basics that would probably be good for you to take a look at: Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple Wikipedia:Tutorial If however, you want to contribute to Wikipedia but don't want to do editing I'm sure there are ways to do that as well but I'm not the best person to explain those, if you can give us more info (just edit this question again and start typing below my text) we can give you more guidance. RedDog (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Submission cancelled

Hello, I wrote an article after following the rules of Wikipedia, but it was cancelled. Would you help me please to tell me how could I manage the matter? (Hagar Sobhi (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hagar, welcome to the teahouse! Because you asked about this at the Articles for Creation helpdesk as well, another editor, Rankersbro, has looked into your query there at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Horizon Interactive Studios about your declined article submission User:Hagar Sobhi/sandbox. He has a question for you there - perhaps you could check it out? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

How do you do fractions that are not in "special characters"?

Hey. I was using the fractions in "special characters" but I couldn't find 1/10. I am asking how do you get these fractions without using special characters. PaintCraft (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

{{frac|1|10}} gives 1⁄10. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Fractions says: "The use of the few Unicode symbols available for fractions (such as ½) is discouraged entirely, for accessibility reasons among others." PrimeHunter (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So that would be <math>\textstyle\frac{1}{10}</math> giving $\textstyle {\frac {1}{10}}$. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

NeilN It looks to me like you interpreted PrimeHunter's response as suggesting that use of the frac template was discouraged. That wasn't my read.I thought the point was that, even in cases where a single byte frac existed, it would be better to use :{{frac|1|2}}than to use ½ --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

S Philbrick, See point #3 in PrimeHunter's link which begins with "In science and mathematics articles, fractions should always be written either with a horizontal fraction bar..." and ends with "The use of {{frac}} (such as 1⁄2) is discouraged in these articles." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

True, but the context in which the OP was presumably asking the question (User:PaintCraft/sandbox) does not seem to be a science or mathematics article, so {{frac}} would be appropriate.. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, (and David beat me to the other point I was planning to make).--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

For the Mother of Megan Meier

MEGAN MEIER WILL ALWAYS HAVE A PLACE IN MY HEART AS WILL HER MOTHER--72.222.190.188 (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)--72.222.190.188 (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Bold text--72.222.190.188 (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC) [[File:Megan Meier|16px|framed|you will never be forgotten & I do not even know you God Bless you no one should ever have to feel your pain. You were too young for someone to do what they did. Theres no peace. God Bless your parents for speaking for you and for that that's how they cope. I felt her anger. I know what that can do people do not get it.I want your story tild and told and told until as we are speaking for you baby girl. Know that you touched strangers.

Hello. Please be aware that the Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia, and not for other purposes. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

New Article

How would I create an article if there is a related subject? 3.14Master (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Just go to WP:AFC and create your draft, or WP:WIZ to create it directly Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but should I create a draft on my user page first, so that I can see what the finished product will look like? 3.14Master (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey there 3.14Master! You can edit a personal Sandbox by clicking here. A Sandbox is an area where you can test out your editing skills, and anything you put there will not be deleted (unless it's hateful contest e.g. posting threats). It's your own personal editing area! Once you open the link I put here, you want to copy and paste this into your Sandbox:

{{User sandbox}} <!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->

That's it! Happy editing :) Newyorkadam (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Reduce info box photo?

I tried adding |225px but it didn't work. Can someone fix this? Muchas gracias!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)