Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, 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

Can notes be duplicated?

Quick question, can footnotes or notes can be duplicated like references do? Thanks! FairyTailRocks (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi FairyTailRocks, yes indeed they can! Here's an example:

Bla bla bla.<ref group="note" name="foonote">Little footnote here</ref> Bla bla. Bla bla!<ref group="note" name="foonote" /> There goes.

;Footnotes

{{Reflist|group=note}}

Which should produce:

Bla bla bla. Bla bla. Bla bla! There goes.

Footnotes

I hope this helps! ~ benzband (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And one last question, how can you put references inside duplicate notes? FairyTailRocks (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you rephrase this question or give an example of what you mean? F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK 19:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

About judging reliability of source and writing it into article

Hi, Recently I am translating Shm-reduplication and also reading some of its references. I read from this article(http://www.academia.edu/209796/Metalinguistic_shmetalinguistic_The_phonology_of_shm-reduplication) that "Southern (forthcoming)suggests that shm-reduplication arose in Yiddish from a mix of Turkic Echo m-and East Slavic sh-. The Oxford English Dictionary on the other hand sees it as anEnglish-internal development, “derived from the numerous Yiddish words that begin with this sequence of sounds”. The existence of early Yiddish forms inshm- supports the former theory over the latter (cf. Weinreich (1980:623-4), who seems to think that the construction goes back several centuries in Yiddish.)Southern for example cites Yiddish shmallig , employed in a manuscript of c.1600 to disparage hallig ‘holy’.," But when I searched "shmallig" in google I got no results except copies of this article. So is this part of article reliable enough to say that there existed such a "shmallig" manuscript, which relates to Shm-reduplication around 1600?--chaoxiandelunzi (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to discuss possible changes to an article is on the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Shm-reduplication. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use Wikipedia to promote any entity,

I crated a new page, and I was making sure no promotion, but still I got this message, I can not find any promo in the page. Please help. Thanks

KhalidCalgary (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Teahouse! Portions of the page you've edit contained promotional text. The editor removed some text according to avoid mission statements and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. ///EuroCarGT 05:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello KhalidCalgary, and welcome to the Teahouse. Here are examples of promotional language: You wrote that the group has a "dedicated team". Do you mean to imply that other such groups have less dedicated teams? How can you prove how dedicated they are? Is there an objective measure of dedication that this team has passed? What is the evidence for that? You write that the group "offers both depth and volume in terms of programming and experience to facilitate the successful introduction and integration". How deep? What volume? Who says so, other than the group itself? That whole phrase is marketing speak and management jargon that is simply not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328: While I agree that KhalidCalgary needs a source for the phrase "dedicated team" I suspect (because it is a computer programming team) it was used in the same IT context as "dedicated server". That is to say a server (or team) whose assigned function is 100% focused on a single specific task/project as opposed to being a general resource shared among a number of different projects. Outside of the IT world such a team might be called a "targeted team" or even just a "taskforce". This phrase is less a case of promotion and more an issue with JARGON. DOH!

On the other hand the second example ("depth and volume") is quite clearly marketing speak and needs to be cleaned up to be more encyclopedic. F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK 09:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't about computer programming and "dedicated team" was a description of the whole organization. The discussed section is at [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

DOH! That kind of "programming"! Thanks for the diff link. F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK 16:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

How does one search for articles not yet published?

I had planned to write an article on an old radio and TV show, "Dangerous Assignment," after using Wikipedia's search function and finding: "You may create the page "Dangerous Assignment", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." I was surprised, then, when a Google search turned up "User:GlennRay77/Dangerous Assignment" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlennRay77/Dangerous_Assignment) with an article on that very show.

Apparently, Wikipedia's search function does not include articles in progress. Is there any way one can search for topics of unpublished articles? If not, a person could put much time and effort into research and writing only to find that he or she is duplicating someone else's efforts.

Teblick (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Teblick. When you enter a search term, the titles of actual Wikipedia articles or close matches will appear in the results box right below. This is for the convenience of the vast majority of readers who want encyclopedia articles and not our behind-the-scenes work pages. But please notice a secondary search results box below that, that says "containing:". That search will produce a list of all Wikipedia pages, not just encyclopedia article titles, that contain that phrase. So the "containing" search will bring up a very long list of every Wikipedia page containing the phrase "dangerous assignment". That draft you found through Google is right in that specialized search.

The author of that draft abandoned it well over two years ago, and has made only four edits on Wikipedia since then. We can consider that user "inactive". You are free either to work on it yourself, or to begin a completely new article. But please don't "cut and paste" any of that material without attribution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The above reply is inaccurate. "containing " only searches encyclopedia articles by default. What you can do is click "Everything" on the first search results page. This makes a new search which searches all pages here at en.wikipedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a configuration or settings or browser issue here, PrimeHunter. I just did the "containing" search again on the words "dangerous assignment". I got article results that included those words, such as Police Squad!, Clair George, Brian Donlevy, Patrick St. Esprit and also the draft article mentioned above. Have you tried my experiment? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I described the default and I did try it. Registered users can change the default at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-searchoptions. I guess you have selected "Search in all namespaces". Regardless of the setting, "containing" searches the same places as not using "containing". The only difference is that if you don't use "containing" and there is an exact match with the title of a page then you go directly to that page instead of a search results page. For example, if you enter "assignment" then you go to Assignment. If you use "containing" on "assignment" then you get a page with search results. There is no article called "dangerous assignment" so in that case it makes no difference to use "containing". See more at Help:Searching. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Reporting an editor/issue

There has been an issue with an editor owning a page and acting very defensively with other contributors. This issue has been ongoing and newer editors are concerned but don't know how to resolve or report it. What should be done? -AslanEntropy (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC) See: Animal Welfare Talk Pages, user: DrChrissy — Preceding unsigned comment added by AslanEntropy (talk • contribs) 00:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

In addtion to the OWN, DrChrissy also has a COI case on the COI noticeboard right now.124.170.240.130 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What issue do you have in mind? I see you yourself have made just two edits to the article, removing without explanation some standard definitions and replacing them with a highly contentious POV definition. Your edits were rightfully reverted, by two different editors but not by Dr. Chrissy. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

1)User:Epipelagic is in the COI case for his connection with DrChrissy, the editor has OWN problem. He defamed me in multiple locations.

2)What he said about AslanEntropy's past editing is a lie. The edits were not reverted, but moved to different part of the article. 124.170.240.130 (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Is AslanEntropy a friend of yours, IP hopping 124.170.240.130? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(deleted repeat of my comments below)--AslanEntropy (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I am a VERY novice user. I don't know if there is a real issue or not. I know the point has been raised multiple times, but I don't personally have enough experience to decide if it's valid or not. I am here to ask a more experienced person. Someone should go look at all that has gone on with this DrChrissy user and make an assessment.

There is definitely a conflict on that talk page (of which I am not really a participant). I would like the conflict addressed and resolved, but need help on how to go about doing that. Also, what does "IP hopping 124.170.240.130" mean? Thanks! --AslanEntropy (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It means that your friend keeps changing her IP. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop your defamation, I don't know about the editor, it's my ISP who changes the IPs, and the OWN problem of DrChrissy has been noted by multiple editors by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.240.130 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no personal connections with other users. Please stop saying otherwise. Thank you.--AslanEntropy (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Then why did the IP hopper go out of her way to say that she was from Australia and you were from the USA ? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say she is from USA, don't make up what I said. I guessed she is PROBABALY from USA judging from her edits. 124.170.240.130 (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I repeat: I have no personal connections with other users. Thank you. -AslanEntropy (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So is it just an extraordinary coincidence that you have suddenly emerged on the animal welfare page in this awkward manner supporting the IP hopper just at the point where she is trying to wind up her attacks on Dr. Chrissy? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Untrue, stop lying, go to see her contributions, she started middle last month, not 'suddenly emerge' .

It seems like I'm being accused of something. Not sure what it is. What are you accusing me of?

I don't know anyone on wikipedia. I just joined and started editing a couple weeks (? maybe months?) ago. Since you seem to have free time, please feel free to contribute to the pseudoruminant stub I started! It needs a lot of help! I don't know if this IP person or DrChrissy are wrong. I am only here to report an obvious issue and gain help from more experienced people in addressing the issue between the two users. My intentions are to be good and fair and help improve articles on wikipedia. This conflict on the talk page of an important topic, Animal welfare, appears to be a huge issue. I'd like it resolved, if possible. Asking about it in the Teahouse was my newbie-mineded next logical step. What are you accusing me of? How are you, Epipelagic, going to help resolve this apparent conflict? What do you suggest? Thanks!--AslanEntropy (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC) COULD SOMEONE PLEASE STEP IN AND MANAGE THIS CONFLICT? ADMINS? SOMEONE? THANK YOU!--AslanEntropy (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you return to useful things like developing articles such as pseudoruminant, and stay away from the destructive character assassinations the IP hopper is trying to manufacture around Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently people care if I'm from the USA. I'm from the America. The rural midwest, actually. Where I live, people are polite, grow lots of corn, we assume everybody's doing their best, and we almost always have snow for Christmas :-) It seems like you guys have a lot of old drama going on, and I've drawn attention to it, as was my intention. Other editors have chimed in on the page and are making statements. I'll just politely excuse myself. I am signing off from this section. No hard feelings to you, Epipelagic, or DrChrissy... I respect your view and understand your concern as best I can. Epipelagic, you have yet to accuse me of anything. Feel free to contact me with any personal questions or concerns via my user page :-)It's getting late here, so goodnight!-AslanEntropy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

To AslanEntropy. If you are new to Wikipedia then you really are best off getting out of this for the moment as it is not likely to be a welcome introduction with the past history of this IP hopper. May I suggest for the future that you are wary of joining in with supporting IP hoppers. Sure there might be a lot of crap flying around, but an IP hopper is extremely difficult to follow and find where the original uncivility began. Supporting them without a really thorough knowledge of what they have been saying and where is not a good idea. Have a good New Year and welcome to Wikipedia! __DrChrissy (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Urgent notice to AslanEntropy, Epipelagic, DrChrissy and assorted IPs: This argument is a completely inappropriate use of the Teahouse, and I must ask that all of you stop NOW. The Teahouse is intended to be a friendly place for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. It is not a place for unseemly bickering. Take your dispute elsewhere, please. Read up on Dispute resolution, and follow those procedures. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This issue has already been amicably resolved, and it would have been better if you had not marred it in that inappropriate way. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem linking articles in different languages

Hi there! I am trying to link the page about Potential Natural Vegetation with its German counterpart Potenzielle Naturliche vegetation, and the Dutch one. Apparently there is a conflict of addresses i can't solve?Velanidia Foundation 23:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velanidia Foundation (talk • contribs)

 Done I have merged the two WikiData items. (diff). benzband (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! :-)

Velanidia Foundation 23:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velanidia Foundation (talk • contribs)

Can't upload picture

Today was my first day as a user/member. I completed two wikipedia pages with succes but when I wanted to upload a picture I got this : "You do not have permission to upload this file, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users." When will my account get confirmed? I must wait some time or I must do something in particular?Catalin19 (cata) (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Catalin19 (cata), and welcome to the Teahouse. Only logged in users with autoconfirmed accounts can upload images. This means that your account must be at least four days old, and you have made at least ten edits. As I see, you already have more than 10 edits, so you only have to wait 4 days. If you don't want to wait for 4 days, you can also request someone else upload those images here: Wikipedia:Files for upload. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

But it is usually better to upload pictures to Wikimedia commons if possible, so that they can be used on any Wikimedia project; and I believe that commons does not have the requirement of autoconfirmation. The only case where you can't use Commons is if the image is not freely licensed, in which case it can be uploaded to Wikipedia but only if it is immediately used in a way that complies with all of the Non-free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

How to get a new page live if I have already saved it?

I wrote a new article about a month ago. It was however rejected since it had a lot of formatting errors. In the last month I studied extensively about how to write and format new articles. lately I edited my old article to perfection and saved it. I have received no mail or message on Wikipedia whether it is verified or even if it is awaiting verification(just as I could see the last time). I can see the article in my "sandbox" and "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation". How do I know that it is awaiting verification to go live or is it not?Ayush Khaitan (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft isn't currently awaiting review, as in this edit you deleted the feedback on the previous draft, and in doing so you removed the link which allowed you to resubmit it when ready. I have reinserted the tag, so you can resubmit when you are ready. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ayush Khaitan, and welcome. As I understand, we are talking about this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Justin Paul. When you edited the article yesterday, you also removed from the article the tag that marked the article as declined. Now, David Biddulph reinserted the tag, and the article is currently tagged as "declined on 11 December 2013". If you wish the article to be reviewed again, you should resubmit it for review. Just go to the article, and click "Resubmit" link in the pink box at the top. The article will be reviewed again, but you'l have to wait for some time. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ayush Khaitan. I polished your perfection a bit. Not too much, just a bit. Checkingfax (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Article rejected for improper use of citations

Hello, I need help with an article that was rejected for mis-use of citations. Can someone please help me. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Florence Comite LewisDavidson (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is essentially WP:BLP, a Biography of Living Person, and must meet some very high standards. The entire content of the article is the first sentence; she wrote a book, and the rest is her credentials. The last sentence "Dr. Comite is establishing her experience and expertise..." is WP:editorializing: who says that? (needs inline citation). Every paragraph should at least have a supporting inline citation at the end, and specific facts may also need a citation. Is her entire claim to notability the publication of a book? There may be a WP:notability issue if so. As a biography, basic facts like birthdate, and place of birth, parents names (if they're notable in any way), high school and college attended and degree(s) earned should be added. Rather than telling us she wrote a book, summarize the work she did that's published in her book.

Terms like "low T" in the text need to be defined, not just as "low Testosterone": the text needs discussion of the relevance of that issue as well as others, including of course citations to support those discussions. This article needs substantial work.Sbalfour (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Organizing Userboxes

Hi, Over the course of my month on Wikipedia, I have accumulated numerous userboxes on my userpage. Everything worked beautifully when I had just a few of them, but now that I have amassed a larger number, the formatting has become really...weird. How do I make them align to neat rows again? Thanks! Sincerely, Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cogito, thanks for your question. I ran into this a while ago myself. I found that using the following formatting was helpful for me:

{{userboxtop}}

(Userboxes go here)

{{userboxbottom}}

This means that this:

Extended content
la-1Hic usor simplici latinitate contribuere potest. enThis user is a native speaker of the English language. ipa-1 əThis user has a basic understanding of the International Phonetic Alphabet.

Should turn into this:

Extended content
Userboxes la-1Hic usor simplici latinitate contribuere potest. enThis user is a native speaker of the English language. ipa-1 əThis user has a basic understanding of the International Phonetic Alphabet.

This should organize your userboxen into a single column. Template:Userboxtop has other customizability with alignment and header text which you can check out. Let me know if you have any questions. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Help editing an Article for Creation

I am looking to create a page for comedian/magician Lee Terbosic, however my first submission was declined. Looking for help to improve my article and sources so that it will be approved in the future. I have some HTML/coding experience but would be interested to learn how to better the submission. Cmclementi (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

An inline link to the article would greatly facilitate editors' responses. The rejection reason is primarily for WP:notability, so the problem is not with the article (though some work may be needed there, too), but with the person. This person appears to be a local celebrity, rather than a generally known person. I agree with the assessment that this person is not a suitable article for an encyclopedia. A living person needs to be very notable to make a worthy encyclopedia article.Sbalfour (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, here is the link for the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lee_Terbosic

He recently appeared on national television and now has an IMDB page set up with the corresponding information, which I feel would "beef up" the references on the Wiki page, however that info was not available at the time of my first submission. Do you think adding something like this, in addition to published work, would be of a great benefit? Cmclementi (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on First Article: Hou De Kharcha

I just finished my first article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hou De Kharcha and I would like to get some feedback from experienced editor. Initially article got declined but then working with editor MatthewVanitas I was able to bring it to a better standard. I have resubmitted the article - Can you please provide suggestions or critic on article. According to my reviewer this article has potential to go on Wikipedia: Did you know... - How does that work? How do I submit the article? Although my article still needs to be approved :)

Thanks and any comments are welcome Coolflip9 (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

[show/hide] button alignment after header text

I have list of names in an article that I want to subdivide by having portions of them hidden under a [show] button. But when I use the

heading

text

template, the button gets stuck way over on the right hand margin, when one would not think to look (because the names are short, and left-aligned on the page). Furthermore, if there's a right-floating image over there, the button lands in the middle of the image. That's got to be a bug. I want the [show/hide] button to work like the section [edit] button that's always just at the right place, to the right hand side of the heading. How do I do that? (This is not within a table or any other collapsible frame).184.76.111.134 (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for your question. Looking over the templates used for collapsing content that are available, I've not been able to find one where the position of the "show" can be moved someplace else other than the far right margin. Other hosts are welcome to chime in if there is a workaround, but I'd recommending using a collapsible table instead. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Contents inset box on this very page has a [hide] button that is adjacent to the "Contents" header, rather than right-aligned. How did they do that?Sbalfour (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Table of Contents on all pages is like that. Take today's featured article, for instance: Gagak Item. benzband (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The documentation of {{Show}} shows a way with a fixed width table. Help:Collapsing shows a way where the table expands to full width or the longest line:

Simple collapsible table
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet This is the longest line and determines the table width

PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Getting some feedback on my first article

I just finished my first article and I would like to get some feedback from experienced editors before requesting the article creation. I have it in my sandbox User:GambHerno/sandbox Thanks and any comments are welcomeGambHerno (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This is essentially a biography of a living person, and must meet unusually strict standards. First, the person's real name is Nicholas Benedict. Nick Savoy is just a pseudonym, and I think the title of the page should be his real name. You might wish to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There has been some controversy about this person and his company. I also have a concern about notabiity. It also appears that most of the references for this person come directly or indirectly from the person or his company. There's a feel of sensationalist or populist propaganda to this article. There's already an article in Portuguese for him at pt:Nick Savoy.

Worst of all, a page of this name has been previously deleted from the English language Wikipedia, see Nick Savoy.

My opinion: find another article to write. Judgment has been passed on this one.Sbalfour (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. I have been trying to collect what the sources say without any bias.I have put special emphasis in gathering enough notable sources and the great majority of them are totally unrelated to him or his company. I didn't know about previous attempts, but I think it is fair to evaluate it with the current content and suggest what to modify to make it a valid wikipedia article. Thanks again for the feedback.GambHerno (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to distinguish the general content of the presentation and quality of writing (both of which are reasonable) from the standards for including an article in Wikipedia. The primary standards in question, those argued in the deletion discussion, are WP:Notability (people) and WP:SECONDARY. I agree with the previous consensus: 1) this person appears 'notable' due primarily through self-promotion and promotion of his company; 2) interviews, and etc printed in newspapers, blogs, websites, etc are not independent or authoritative secondary sources. The problem is with the nature of the person, not the nature of the article, and cannot be reasonably overcome. As a WP:first article, you faced an extraordinarily high burden getting a WP:BLP (Biography of Living Person) accepted. Now you face an almost insuperable burden of reversing a WP:consensus WP:delete decision. That discussion and decision appears to have been closed (and accepted) for several years. I understand the work you've put unto this, but I do not think there's a reasonable way forward with the article.Sbalfour (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Blue text with pecked underscore.

Hello. Thanks for inviting me to tea. Milk and no sugar please.

Here you go! Vanjagenije (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a very basic question. When text appears in blue with a dotted (pecked) line underneath, what does this mean, and more to the point what can I do about it -- i.e. how to get rid of it. If I have already identified a word or phrase at its first use in blue so as to direct a reader to its wikipage, I don't necessarily want to direct the reader again at every repeat use of the word or phrase. Also, some of the items are so obvious to a person reading the type of article that it does not seem very appropriate to put them in blue. Hope my question makes sense.

Is a newcomer to the tearoom allowed two questions on the same day/visit ?

If so, when I want to refer to the same reference (source) a second or third time in article, how best to do this. "Opcit" seems the obvious method, but I am conscious that as articles are edited the work cited immediately above may become a long way from the subsequent reference if new material and new references are inserted in between.

I expect I could find the answers if I studied the instructions more thoroughly, but as you have invited questions.... Hope I'm not wasting your precious time.

Diakonias (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diakonias, I'm not entirely certain what the blue text with a dotted underscore is, but I can answer your other questions (You can ask as many as you like!) :) The typical practice is to wikilink the first mention of a topic per section, so as not to overlink for almost exactly the reasons you say. You also don't need to wikilink basic and obviously well understood words.

To refer to the same reference a second time, name it the first time you use it by changing the <ref> tag to <ref name="XYZ"> and use it elsewhere by writing <ref name="XYZ"/>. Obviously change XYZ to different things for each unique source and call them whatever you like!

Don't worry about asking loads of questions; there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers ;) Samwalton9 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Diakonias. I ran into that "pecked underscore" problem myself about six months ago. It was caused by malware on my computer. It had nothing to do with Wikipedia's software. Clicking those links led to bad advertising sites. It was a struggle to remove it, with I recall three separate hard drive cleanings, each more aggressive and thorough. If I am right, good luck to you with the cleanup. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Like this?Tooltip UK (see {{Abbrlink}}). Mr Stephen (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

How can I remove wikilink to AR15 rifle from article Ksitigarbha?

In the first line of the article Ksitigarbha is a link " Michigan state police.gif", linking to a wikipedia article AR15 (rifle). I tried to remove this link because there is no connection to Ksitigarbha but did not succeed because this wikilink seems to be hidden. Do you have any idea how to find and delete this link? Best regards JimRenge (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jim. You'll see similar symptoms mentioned on a number of occasions on the Help desk and elsewhere. These are relics of a number of acts of vandalism to templates (in this case Template:Infobox Chinese/Korean‎) a few days ago. Although the vandalism was quickly reverted, Wikipedia's cache is storing the vandalised versions of the pages affected. You can cure it for each page in turn by purging, with a command such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksitigarbha?action=purge , but nobody has yet found a way of globally purging all the pages affected. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! JimRenge (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Cite Web: Work vs. Publisher

Hi! When I open the Cite Web template editor, I am given two parameters among others: Work, and Publisher. What is the difference between these two parameters, and what should I be filling in to them?

Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Work is a subset of Publisher. If you were citing the Keiser Report on RT you'd put down RT as the Publisher and the Keiser Report as the Work. Checkingfax (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

For [2], what would be considered the Work, and what would be considered the Publisher? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, Bananasoldier, the work is GameTrailers and the publisher is Viacom.There can be some subjectivity with websites, especially those owned by multinational corporations, with many levels. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What to do?

There's an article that's going through what I would consider to be an edit war. One editor deleted a chunk of text that is major to understanding the subject of the article, citing that there are no sources for that section. Another editor added back the text, citing that the text needs to be there to fully understand the article. The original editor redeleted the text, citing WP:BURDEN. My concern is that the deleted section is a major portion of the article that needs to remain in the article at all costs, but I fear adding back the section only for it to be deleted AGAIN, and I'm not sure what would work as a source in this case. I'm at a loss of what to do. What can I do, and what should I do? What would work as a source in this case?

For the record, the article in question is Pyramid (game show).

Thanks! GameShowGeek (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, GameShowGeek, and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help if you tell us what is the article in question. The best solution would be to add reliable references to that section of the article, so as to provide WP:Verifability. You can look out for some reliable sources and include them yourself. You can find out more about doing this here: WP:Reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

GameShowGeek did actually say "the article in question is Pyramid (game show)", but didn't link it. Rojomoke (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hello GameShowGeek and welcome to the Teahouse! The reason that the other user is removing that section is that it is entirely unsourced, which is not allowed on the English Wikipedia. If you could find even a single source to back up the claims that the removed section makes, then I'm sure that it wouldn't be removed. Please see the golden rule of Wikipedia. Happy editing!!! Technical 13 (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Help?

Just wanted to bring a promising editor at the helpdesk to your attention. XOttawahitech (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I responded there (the help desk)! ///EuroCarGT 02:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@EuroCarGT: I am afraid there was a misunderstanding. The help I asked for was not for myself, but for user:Nancyprancy12 who posted this: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Help_for_Submitting_a_New_Bio at the Helpdesk. XOttawahitech (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Oh, thanks for notifying me. Seems resolved now. ///EuroCarGT 22:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do some questions disappear from the teahouse list?

I had asked a question, received a response, and wished to ask a follow-up. However, the "Let's discuss it" on the response from the editor was not clickable, and now I see that the original question is gone from here, and I don't see it on my page?

I have contributed to Wikipedia, but perhaps for the last time. Velotrain (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You deleted that question yourself, Velotrain. Perhaps that was inadvertent? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• As Cullen328 has said, you deleted the section yourself in this edit. If this was accidental, you may be able to undo your action. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a follow up comment, I think the UI for the teahouse should be given some thought. It's confusing that the way you enter the initial question is different from the way you then edit questions. Also, the fact that you can't see the various edit widgets (e.g. to make a link) is a pain. I sometimes write the question first in my Sandbox and then paste it into the teahouse. I seem to remember a general effort to roll out a better threaded discussion capability, is that still in the works? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to find links to a section rather than to the article?

I want to change the name of a section and would like to know if anyone is linking to that section. When I use the "What links here" page and type in the section name it seems to be just ignoring the section name. The specific section I want to rename is Message_passing#Message_passing_systems. When I enter "Message_passing#Message_passing_systems" into the page it seems to ignore everything after the pound sign. MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, no What links here won't pick up section links (see Help:What links here#Limitations) but you could try using Special:Linksearch instead. Only drawback is you have to enter your search term as a full URL rather than a wikilink. NtheP (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Naming countries before they exist

I'm happily going through the list of "articles that need expanding" and expanding several on Canada in the "dates series": 1750 in Canada, 1820 in Canada etc. However, the political/ social/ geographic entity called "Canada" didn't exist until 1867. As a Canadian, I find it weird to write on "Canada" before it existed. On the one hand, this is a geo-nerd kind of technicality: obviously the elements that eventually became Canada existed in 1750, 1803, etc, so it's perfectly fine to write under the overall dates heading. So, I'm NOT proposing changing the overall heading ("1750 in Canada"). But it might be helpful to put an italicized note sub-head for each "in Canada" page prior to 1867 that says something such as "Canada didn't come into existence until Confederation in 1867; the events and people discussed below lived in territories that eventually came under the umbrella of Canada." Or some more felicitous heading. So: a) is it OK to make such a sweeping addition -- to probably a couple hundred pages b) is there any fast way to bulk-add such a change or does it go page by page? c) and wordsmiths come up with a catchy way of saying this? Thanks Wordy24 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Wordy and welcome to The Teahouse. Any change that would affect hundreds of pages should certainly be discussed. But as for the mechanism by which you would do it, I would say start with WP:VPT and maybe they can also point you to the right place for discussing whether you should make the change.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wordy24 and welcome to the Teahouse. My understanding is that the word "Canada" was used by both the French as in Canada (New France) and the British as in The Canadas and Province of Canada, all of which are historical usages describing geographical areas that are now the provinces of Quebec and Ontario your country. Accordingly, I do not see the problem with using the word "Canada" in these articles as long as there is nothing misleading within the articles themselves. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 11:11 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

notable books and papers?

Is it acceptable to create an article about a notable book or scientific paper? Open Research (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Open Research, and welcome to the Teahouse in 2014. It is acceptable to create an article about any notable subject; but I'm not sure if you're aware that "notable" has a special meaning in Wikipedia: it requires that the book or paper has been the subject (not just mentioned in passing) of several other pieces of writing published in reliable places; and the article should be written almost entirely from what is said in those other places, not from the content of the book or paper itself (which is a primary source). I suggest looking at your first article.--ColinFine (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Order

Hi there, I have been editing articles on Nichiren related articles for quite a while - even though there are some edit wars going on . However, I am not happy with the structure of the article on Nichiren especially with the sections following " Posthumous titles and status in major lineages", Any advice on a somewhat logic order? Catflap08 (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Catflap08. The first advice, which I offer without hesitation, is "Do not engage in edit wars. This is very important. Don't do it. Do not do it. Discuss matters on the article's talk page. Ask for help with dispute resolution if you need help. Report editors who do engage in edit wars to the edit war noticeboard. But you must have clean hands to complain about someone else's misconduct.

Clearly, the Nichiren article will be controversial, since three rival schools of Buddhism revere this person. I am surprised to see an About.com article used as the first source, since that website is usually not considered a reliable source here. I see you've made a brief comment on the talk page about your structural concerns. I recommend going into greater detail there. You can post a neutral request for input on the talk pages of other recent substantive contributors, but you have to be even-handed. You can't just inform people you think are likely to agree with you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen,

cheers for your comments. These days I do not engage in edit wars … lately when a dispute comes up quite a number of other editors do come to aid or I seek help. This is most useful especially when religious beliefs a concerned. There are one or two articles I stay mostly clear of as I just can not be bothered any more. What I meant though was if there is any guideline on how to put order to notes, references, literature … it seems to me that in the article in questions those sections seem to be all over the place. Catflap08 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Making an article visually appealing

Could someone point me to a few articles that make use of techniques that improve readability through visual appeal? Or guidelines on this? It seems to me that some Wikipedia pages (such as this tearoom home page) have been constructed to be more visually appealing and I'd like to learn more about that. Thanks to all and a Happy New Year to everyone. Open Research (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Open Research. We don't use the sort of graphic elements you see on some project pages such as the Teahouse within articles themselves. The main techniques used to increase readability and visual appeal are adding photos and other images, and the creation of sections and subsections. When an article has three or more sections, a table of contents is automatically generated, and this helps readability. Infoboxes are also often used, which include a portrait in a biography, a book cover, movie poster or album cover for articles about such works, or a logo for an article about a company or organization. There are other techniques, but these are the most important ones.

We have about 4,100 featured articles, which have gone through a rigorous peer review. That is less than 1/10 of 1% of all our articles. I suggest you take a look at several from the List of featured articles to see some of the techniques used in our very best work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

How to make major edits risk free.

I thought of a major change to the 'Rules' section of FreeCell to make it a whole lot better but since it was such a major change and I'm such an inexperienced editor, I didn't dare try making that change in case it made that section or part thereof worse and instead suggested the change in the 'Incomplete set of rules' section of its talk page. Is there a method of suggesting a major change and having it wait pending approval other then putting it in my sandbox where it's going to go unnoticed for so long. Is there anything that's sort of like a sandbox except that there's one for each article rather than one for each account where when ever I make a major edit, I can see less than 4 days later whether the change was approved, rejected, or modified by somebody else into a better edit than the one I originally made before the edit makes it's way into the article? Is there any Wikipedia Help page that I can read to make myself sometimes think up a really huge edit and be extremely sure it's not a harmful edit? Don't answer me by telling me that Wikipedia has a method of undoing all edits because I already know and I'm afraid of having my bad edits temporarily in a Wikipedia article. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're concerned about making a large edit the best idea would be to post your idea on the Freecell talk page as you have done. Since you haven't had any reply, go and ask for opinions on the Board and table games or Video games wikiproject talk pages. I'm sure someone will be happy to go over and give an opinion :) Samwalton9 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Blackbombchu and welcome to the Teahouse. If after going to the talk pages of those other groups, as Samwalton9 has suggested, you still get no answer, I suggest being BOLD and making your proposed edit. If someone objects later, they can always REVERT and then you and them can DISCUSS it in more detail on the talk page. Happy editing!! Technical 13 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I already got an answer on Talk:FreeCell and that answer opposed the change in its current form. Blackbombchu (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Links not turning blue

One question: I've created two pages today, but the links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pan_Pacific_Swimming_Championships , are not turning blue. Wikipedia is having some problem today? Janperson (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Janperson. When a page is created it can take some time for other pages to update and recognise that the page exists. To get around this you can purge the page which updates it. The easiest way to do this is to add ?action=purge to the end of the URL in your address bar and hit enter. I've done this but I can't tell if this has fixed your problem as I don't know which links you were referring to :) Samwalton9 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

For me, the links to your new 2010 Pan Pacific Swimming Championships – Women's 100 metre freestyle and 2010 Pan Pacific Swimming Championships – Women's 200 metre freestyle are blue. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@Janperson: Sometimes when this occurs it may not be the Wikipedia page that needs cache purging but your own computer, which is falsely displaying parts of a page as they appeared before a change was made because its showing the old content stored in its memory. If that might be the case here (and especially if you're still seeing the links as red following Samwalton9's purge), try bypassing your computer's cache.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

to make a posting "notable'...

This pertains to the article "Storming Robots". Targeting toward issue 1 and 3: about notability and being verifiable.

I have added references from the following notable independent sources:

1) Knowledge @ Wharton High School hosted by University of Pennsylvania : http://kwhs.wharton.upenn.edu/2012/01/aboard-the-international-space-station-programming-robots-in-zero-gravity/

2) Garden States Woman Information and Resources for NJ Woman: http://www.gswoman.com/index.php/item/536-i-work-like-a-slave-but-love-what-i-do

3) Press Release from NASA Site: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jan/HQ_12-029_SPHERES_Challenge_Winner.html

4) Hunterdon Chamber Internet Radio Show: https://www.facebook.com/BigC.HCCRadio?ref=stream&hc_location=stream

5) NJ Star Ledger coverage : http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2009/07/branchburgs_storming_robots_ta.html

6) Hunterdon Democrat: http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2013/12/readington_robotics_team_softw.html

Will these be sufficient to remove the issue 1 and 3?

Please advise.

ESKCheung (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ESKCheung. Reference #1 is an unsigned article on a website for students, hosted by a prestigious business school. I think it is reliable but have my own doubts about whether it a solid source for notability purposes. #2 appears to be a self published blog, #3 is a press release and #4 is an online local "radio" show. These do not show notability. The last two are the best sources from a major newspaper and a local offshoot. #5 is the best. A minor problem with #6 is that it seems to be highly localized news. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

1. 1 : even when it is run by students, it is indeed backed by a very prestigious business school.
2. 2 : It is definitely not a self-publishing blog. I know the couple who founded this Garden State Woman organization. They do good things for advocating entrepreneurship among female.
3. 3: yes, it was a press release. But it was released by NASA which is definitely notable.
4. 4: I can understand.
5. 5 : good one.
6. 6 : Yes, they are local. However, can they be verifiable sources?

I am in lost here to do this. So, I went to look up other ones who are in Wikipedia to find clues. Then, I came into the Livingston Robotic Club, as it falls into similar categories, but have no issue. I attempted to find some hints where I can improve “Storming Robots” posting. Unfortunately, I found LRC does not seem to have much of anything to back up its notability either; not even have NASA, Star Ledger, the business school. So, I really need some direction as pointing out the difference so that I can learn to improve it. ESKCheung (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In the end, you need to make your case to the AfC reviewers, ESKCheung. We have broad consensus here that press releases do not establish notability. Not NASA press releases, not White House press releases, not Secretary General of the United Nations press releases. None of them. By coincidence, about 30 years ago, I had a minor editorial position that required me to evaluate NASA press releases. Boy, do they send out a lot of press releases! And 96% were worthless, and went into the round file. A small percentage were wonderful, and got attention. "Self published" and doing good things are not mutually exclusive. Does this website have professional editorial control and an established reputation for fact checking? It doesn't seem so to me. I have tried to evaluate the sources you brought forth, identifying their strengths and weaknesses. My assessment stands. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD

Hey, is it possible to nominate a page for deletion without being an administrator, or at least request the action of an administrator? Thanks! I'm not there. Message me! 17:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse! Yes, in fact any deletion (other than an obvious speedy deletion) should be nominated at AfD, whether by an administrator or not. If you want to nominate a page for deletion, see the guide at WP:AFDHOWTO Samwalton9 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There is another process between WP:speedy and WP:AFD, see WP:PROD. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

How can I add reference notes to my article?

Hi, I've submitted an article for creation under the name Oriental Renaissance. Your editor (MatthewVanitas) seemed to like it but rejected it because my reference notes have disappeared. I've now spent a day (!) trying to discover how you do simple reference notes for Wickipedia articles and cannot understand. It seems immensely complicated. Can you please tell me in simple language how to add a ref. note such as the following: Rawls,John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press,1971,p.1. I understand you need to start with , but I don't understand at all how to create a "section" for the references. I know there is a tab for "section" but still can't make this work Help will be much appreciated.Smncr (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Have you read WP:Referencing for beginners? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Go to your Preferences, then to Gadgets, and enable: Proveit. When you go to Edit-Source you will see a Gadget at the bottom of your screen called Prove-It. Put your insertion-point where you want the Reference to be added. Click on the up-arrow and it will expand Prove-It. Click on "add a reference" and fill out the fields. Follow the prompts. Hope this helps. If you don't want to use Prove-It you can use Citation-Templates. See: WP:REFBEGIN. Checkingfax (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I add a References section like this:

==References==
{{reflist}}

If I add that wikitext to this page right here, what's between your ref tags above, will appear here:

References

(this space intentionally left blank)

So if you put the author name and book title etc between the ref tags, instead of putting "and end with" between the ref tags, that's what will appear in the references section instead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hook change after GTG

Hi hosts, this question concerns WP:DYK. Recently I reviewed a DYK nom and cleared it for promotion but the editor has requested a hook change now. Can it be done because the article still has'n't been promoted. There seems to be no advice for situation like this. Thanks. Soham 13:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Soham. They can suggest an alt, and it can be re-reviewed I think. You may be better asking this on DYK talk, which is a specialist talk page. Thanks, Matty.007 14:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go for a re-review. I would have asked at DYK talk but in most cases I see talk pages for most projects remain inactive, I mean I came here for a prompt reply which I got also. Soham 14:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not DYK. 590 watchers, to the Teahouse's 500, usual response time is a few hours... Just a heads up. Thanks, Matty.007 14:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Did'n't know. Thanks for the HU though. Soham 14:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Page information in the 'Tools' drop out on the left of the page has that sort of info. Thanks, Matty.007 14:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

While reading an article, I clicked on an external link, which proved to be missing.

While reading an article, I clicked on an external link, which proved to be missing. Should I try to edit this? 89.249.79.67 (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There is general guidance at Wikipedia:Link rot. If you say which article and link it is then we can say more. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a current URL for the link, or an equivalent live link, please add it to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes add {{dead link}} after dead links that make me feel uncomfortable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

editing a template does not appear to be affecting the pages that use it

I have recently moved the article Showgrounds to The Showgrounds, Sligo Town because there are many showgrounds with articles on Wikipedia and I also created a disambiguation page Showground.

I was going around and tidying up the links that pointed to Showgrounds and found that it appears in a number of articles (e.g. St Colman's Park) due to the Template:League of Ireland grounds. I went and edited the template and the link seems to work OK on the template. But when I look at articles like St Colman's Park the change to the template does not seem to have taken effect. What is wrong? Kerry (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is just a case of the web cache being outdated. When a template is updated, it takes a while for pages to be "rebuilt". This can be solved by purging a page's cache - check out Wikipedia:Purge for details and instructions on how to clear the cache. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Kerry (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Note however that a purge only affects the purged page and not link tables. The latter requires a null edit. But often it's better to just wait for the updates to happen automatically. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. You anticipated the question I was just about to ask. Kerry (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Does only one reliable source automatically mean that the article can't be notable?

Is it correct? Eozhik (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say no, it could indeed be notable. Because fundamentally, extensive coverage is *not* the only factor that can make something notable. Things can be notable for other reasons. However, on a different note, if there is only one reference in a long piece of content, it is unlikely to be properly referenced, and the article would be seen as weak for that reason instead. Open Research (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that the subject can't ever be notable but yes somewhere in the region of at least 3-5 reliable sources would prove notability of a subject. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Could you, please, specify, which corollaries can this imply? If an article devoted to, say, a phenomenon in social life, contains only one reliable source, is it a ground for its deletion or, maybe, merging it with the article devoted to the person who first noticed it? Or maybe for something else? I did not find a clear rule. Eozhik (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And, excuse me, suppose again the article describes a social phenomenon. It is true that I can give only those quotations which the author of the concept already used? As far as I understand, there must be a rule about that, but I don't see it. Eozhik (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Eozhik. It doesn't matter whether it is a social phenomenon or anything else; if it has been written about in only one reliable source, any article will almost certainly get deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Just because an article currently contains only one reliable source doesn't necessarily mean that other sources can't be found and added to the article, Eozhik. Such an article should not be nominated for deletion without a thorough good faith search for other sources. Quotations about the concept need not be limited to those by the creator of the concept. Independent coverage is actually better evidence of notability. But all quotations must be properly cited. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Eozhik! It is hard to answer your initial question in the abstract, because the level of proof required for notability varies with the subject of the article. For example, gazetteer subjects, like geographic features, settlements and some schools (high schools and universities), only require proof of existence. Being in the GNIS is enough reference to show notability for settlements and geographic features. Is more referencing good? You bet! On the other hand, musical groups have a rather high standard for inclusion, which can be found at WP:NMUSIC. Hope you find this helpful. If we can give you advice on a specific subject, feel free to let us know and we will try to help. In some cases, it is not possible to give a completely objective answer. There are numerous articles sent to Articles for Deletion each and every day. The notability is debated and a consensus is formed that then dictates whether the article stays or goes. It isn't, unfortunately, an exact science. John from Idegon (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your answers!!! I understand that my question is too abstract, so I'll try to explain the situation. Actually, I indeed need a help. I have two problems, a little one and a big one (and I am afraid, this will be abstract even after explanations, so excuse me in advance).

1) A little problem is about quotations. A typical case is the following. Not long ago I created a section "Criticism of Hegel by Schopenhauer and Popper" in the article "Hegel" in Russian Wikipedia (excuse me again, this is philosophy; I understand, this is abstract, so I promise to be concrete as best as I can). Of course I cited Schopenhauer and Popper, but besides this I gave three additional quotations from Hegel to illustrate that Schopenhauer's and Popper's accusations were not accidental, what they write is typical for Hegel. I immediately faced accusations that these three additional quotations are "original research"... I did not find the corresponding explanation in the list of Wikipedia's rules, so it is not clear for me who is right here.

2) That was the little problem, now the big one. Not long ago I created an article "Oracular philosophy" in Russian Wikipedia. I faced the same little problem here, but besides this a big one: it turned out that I can't find other reliable source, but the book by Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies. That was a surprise for me, and I asked help at the talk page of the article devoted to this book, and besides this at several forums on philosophy, in particular, here. From what people explained me I got an impression that it will be better to rename the article, since the term "Oracular philosophy" is not very popular among philosophers (they prefer to use other words), anyway, I would like to point out a problem which I find to be typical. Formally, the implication

only one reliable source $\Rightarrow$ the article is not notable

- is not legal in Wikipedia, since there is no such a rule in the instructions. In the rules on reliability in Russian Wikipedia, it is only written

"Желательно наличие нескольких независимых источников."

In English translation:

"It is desirable to have several independent sources."

"Desirable" and "Necessary" are different things.

In my opinion, this looks like a provocation: on the one hand people are encouraged to write articles according to instructions, but when they do this it turns out unexpectedly that there are "hidden rules" which allow to delete your work. You find yourself in a situation where you must spend a lot of time and nerves on disputes (in Russia philosophical disputes are always disputes with political opponents), without guarantee that your work will be preserved. Wouldn't it be better to do everything from the very beginning according to clear rules? That is the problem, as I understand it. Eozhik (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Eozhik and welcome to the Teahouse! The number of independent reliable sources needed is directly proportional to the topic and the length of the article. If you have a four sentence stub, then indeed a single source may be justifiable. If, however, you have a many section -- takes hours to read -- article, then tens or even hundreds may be more appropriate. The key is that they must be proportionate, having one or two sources for a multi-section article won't cut it and if you have tens or hundreds for a four sentence stub, that is what is known as over citing, which is just as bad. Technical 13 (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you, Technical 13. That is important. I think this must be reflected in rules. Eozhik (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Eozhik, please also be aware that each language Wikipedia is an independent project with its own policies and guidelines. We don't speak for Russian Wikipedia at the Teahouse. Here on English Wikipedia, the General notability guideline speaks of "reliable sources" in the plural being required to establish notability. As the minimum whole plural number is two, in most cases we expect to be able to find at least two sources giving significant coverage to the topic. But it is not necessary that two or more sources actually be in the article. And sometimes special guidelines are so universally accepted that no one will support deleting the article even if it has just a single source. For example, there is wide agreement that Olympic athletes are notable. So if there was an article about an Olympic archer who competed 100 years ago that had only one reliable source, and more sources couldn't be easily found online, we would almost certainly keep the article. The strong presumption is that a search of undigitized paper copies of archery journals and home town newspapers from 100 years ago would yield additional sources. We operate under general principles guided by editorial judgment rather than rigid rules. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Cullen, thank you. What about that "little problem"? When A expresses his attitude to B, is it necessary to give only those quotations from B, which A already mentioned? Eozhik (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Format for Wikipedia

I have been trying to upload a biography of a singer to Wikipedia. However it is being rejected because the formats have been in Doc., EXE. and OTD,. I cannot find out as to what format Wikipedia will accept despite the amount of information given by Wikipedia. Please advise. Country music (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has its own format. I have put a number of useful links on your user talk page. Among others, try Wikipedia:Tutorial. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

In general, the best way I have found to get your copy on Wikipedia is to write it on Wikipedia. The process is discussed in the links the previous host left you. If you want to work offline on your computer, the best procedure is to use a simple word processor like "Notepad", and then copy and paste your work into a Wikipedia edit window. If you use a standard word processor like "Word", there will be formatting information that does not show in Word that will copy to Wikipedia, making a mess out of your work. John from Idegon (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

How do I change the illustrations of my team's playing kit?

I have recently updated the WIKI page for my local football club. During the preceding years we have changed our club colours so as a consequence the current illustrations are incorrect but do not know how to go about updating them? Can anyone help me please? See Home colours/Away colours Mangotsfield United F.C. Oaklandsraider (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Oaklandsraider and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to change the team's kit in the aerticle's infobox, you ahould edit the article's markup. At the beggining of the articles markup, there is {{Infobox football club}} template. Inside that template, there are those lines:

pattern_la1=|pattern_b1=|pattern_ra1=|
leftarm1=AAAAFF|body1=AAAAFF|rightarm1=AAAAFF|shorts1=A90000|socks1=A90000|
pattern_la2=|pattern_b2=|pattern_ra2=|
leftarm2=FFFF00|body2=FFFF00|rightarm2=FFFF00|shorts2=000000|socks2=FFFF00|

Those define the kit colors. You should change them to change the colors. Codes like "AAAAFF" are color codes. You can find all color codes here: Web colors#Hex_triplet. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks that has resolved all my questions except one. Our Away kit comprises an all yellow shirt with a black horizontal band on the shoulders (from right to left) but not on the sleeves. I cannot find a template for this design. Can you help please?Oaklandsraider (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Different patterns (stripes, dots, etc.) are defined by adding different values to the "pattern" parameters, like this:

pattern_la1=_shoulderson

"pattern_la1" is for the left arm of the home kit, "pattern_b1" is for the body of the home kit, etc. This part of the infobox template is taken from Template:Football kit, so for more information and examples, you can see: Template:Football kit/doc. The list of all patterns is here: Template:Football kit/pattern list. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Our home shorts are aqua with a white stripe either side. I understand that the pattern and colour for plain aqua is shorts2=000000 but what do I neeed to add to this to include the white stripes?Oaklandsraider (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If you type this code:

{{Football kit
| pattern_la =
| pattern_b =
| pattern_ra =
| pattern_ra =
|pattern_sh =_whitesides2
| pattern_so =
| leftarm = 00FFFF
| body = 800000
| rightarm = 00FFFF
| shorts = 00FFFF
| socks = 00FFFF
| title = Example
}}

You'l get this:

Example

Is that what you wanted? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Quotes

Should quotes always have to be full, or can it be cut short...like for example the author quotes "The tree is finally growing, it wouldn't be the case years ago, the leaves are looking nice, bouncy and healthy...if I don't add "bouncy and healthy" and maybe more will that be fine or I have to write all of it? (Monkelese (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Monkelese, and welcome to the Teahouse. Of course, you don't have to quote the full sentence, if some parts of it are not important for the topic. You can shorten the quotation to give only the part that is useful for the particular topic. But, when you do that, you have to clearly indicate that the quotation os shortened, usually using ellipsis. To learn more about quotations, see here: WP:QUOTE and here: MOS:QUOTE. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Monkelese! One more thing... be sure that if you leave out part of a quote, it doesn't change the "point of view" of the quotation. For example, if a a reviewer says that a play "had lovely costumes but was very boring", it changes the tone of the review to write the first part but not the second, unless the article was just about theatrical costumes. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Linking BLPs to their user accounts

Should I link BLPs to their wikipedia user accounts? If yes, how? Theemathas (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Theemathas, welcome to the Teahouse. It shouldn't be done in the article but it can be done on the talk page with {{Connected contributor}}, and it can be listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. Beware of not outing editors who want their account to be anonymous. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Somebody apparently already done both of them on the page I was intending to do add the link. I didn't look for the link in the talk page before. Thank you, anyway. Theemathas (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for review of changes to existing article

I have been asked to improve an existing Wikipedia page - John Travis (physician). The article has a notification dating from April 2009 indicating that it lacked inline citations. I have sought to address this on a new draft (contained in my sandbox) and have also done some additional editing to clean up and strengthen the article - creating an infobox with an image, dividing the article into sections and adding sections (on the Illness-Wellness Continuum, university posts and NGOs).

I haven't changed the actual page as yet (the changes are saved in my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fbell74/sandbox). However, I would be grateful if someone could have a look at the draft to make sure there aren't any issues with the amended version. I contacted SarahStierch and she suggested removing some external links that I had included and which I've now removed. She also suggested including more secondary sources and removing any content where this isn't available. I've added secondary sources but haven't removed content as it seemed relevant and I felt it had other sources to support it. These were largely what was in the original article, which appeared to be okay.

Also, please note: I have a financial connection with the subject of the article and wondered whether I should note this in the comment box outlining changes to the article or in my own user page. Any guidance on this would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. Fbell74 (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fbell74, firstly you should take a read of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guide if you haven't already. The best place to declare your COI would be on the talk page of the article when moved to article space, as well as probably on your user page. Some areas I'm concerned about are: the Early life and education section having no inline references, for someone described in the article as having achieved "national renown" there are relatively little secondary sources on the subject, the IT applications section contains one primary source and nothing else, the Opposition to male circumcision section isn't entirely neutral as the first sentence goes a little overboard on the description of what male circumcision is, and the Work on parenting section has no sources either. This isn't a detailed review, just the things that stood out to me as I read through. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Samwalton9. Thanks for taking the time to look over the draft. I'll make a note on both pages to make the COI clear. I did read the Wikipedia page on this before but I might have missed the guidance on this. It looks like there are a few areas to address (I'm grateful for your specific about which parts to focus on). I can see that the section on male circumcision could do with being made more neutral so I'll take a look at these as well. Thank you Fbell74 (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't my account autoconfirmed?

Just tried to make an edit. Knowsetfree (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Knowsetfree! It should be autoconfirmed; what were you not allowed to do? (It may have been that you had been accidentally logged out, which happens sometimes.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Writ Keeper. Wow, quick response at the Teahouse which I've not used before. I just tried to make an edit to [Devyani Khobragade incident] but it locked me out. I am logged in on the page though. Knowsetfree (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm, that's weird; there's no reason I can see that you wouldn't be allowed to make an edit to that page. Can you try to make it again? If it still doesn't work for some reason, let me know, and I can give you the confirmed right, which is exactly the same as autoconfirmed. There's no reason that you shouldn't be autoconfirmed, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you see an "Edit" or "View source" tab at Devyani Khobragade incident? What exactly happens when you click it? Quote part of the message you see and say whether there is a red or grey box. If it's red then you may just see an informational message which doesn't prevent you from editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that Knowsetfree isn't in the autoconfirmed user group for some reason. I don't know what I'm talking about. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. In user rights management it says "Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users", whereas, a spot check of a brand new contributor does not contain this message, and on the other end, a spotcheck of a number of autoconfirmed users does not show the check box for "confirmed" to be ticked, so I don't think that's dispositive of whether a user is or is not autoconfirmed. I actually changed the right to confirmed, but that probably did nothing. The answer to PrimeHunter's questions probably needs to be seen.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Special:Listusers doesn't show whether an account is autoconfirmed. Some users incorrectly think they cannot edit a page when they see a red note saying the page has been semi-protected. I suspect this is the case here. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Doh. I even checked this with my own account, I have no idea why I didn't notice that. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• The other possibility is they tripped an edit filter and had autoconfirmed removed... If that is the case it should be fairly easy to fix. Technical 13 (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This however isn't the case...

[20:22] <+Technical_13> !rights Knowsetfree

[20:22] <+Helpmebot> The user rights for User:Knowsetfree are: confirmed, user, autoconfirmed

Was another idea at least. Technical 13 (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Knowsetfree is this resolved for you now? Technical 13 (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)