Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cordless Larry, 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

How can I make an article less technical?

As part of my university course I, alongside other students, have been given the task of editing a Wikipedia article. The specific page which I have chosen states that 'the article may be too technical for some readers to understand'. I'd like to make the article more accessible however I'm unsure of how to proceed as I am struggling to define between too technical and not technical enough. I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions on how this could be achieved?

thanks RosieGoundrill (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RosieGoundrill. In general, the lead section of an article on a technical subject should summarize the topic and entire article in less technical language. That may be a good place to start. If you give us the name of the article, we may be able to make more specific recommendations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is Machinima: Virtual Filmmaking. --Jakob (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is Anxiety/Uncertainty Management. I can understand why the article has been marked as possibly too technical but feel stuck on how to rectify an article without diluting necessary information. Any suggestions would be appreciated. RosieGoundrill (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jakob (talk) but the machinima article was for a previous module in 2013, the current one is Anxiety/Uncertainty Management RosieGoundrill (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleting a Wikipedia Page

Several years ago our office created a Wikipedia page for promotional purposes but we are no longer promoting our office in this manner. Can someone please advise: 1) how to delete the page, and 2) how to recover our password since the employees responsible for the posting no longer work in our office. Thank you.216.157.112.16 (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If the page was obviously promotional, it ought to have been deleted at the time. Pages can be deleted for the reasons, and by the processes, described at Wikipedia:Deletion process. If you know the name of the account, and have access to the email address declared against that account, then you can get a Reset password sent to that address. If you give us a wikilink to the article in question, we may be able to give you further advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Could you link to the page? Since it was created for "promotional purposes" several years ago, it's probably been deleted already. I'm afraid that you won't be allowed to recover another person's password due to copyright reasons: every edit must be attributable to one single person according to our licensing guidelines. --Jakob (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If the "promotional" article was about a truly notable company, then the proper course of action in my opinion is to strip out promotional language and transform it into a neutral, well-referenced encyclopedia article. Clearly, if we know the name of the article, we can comment in a more informed fashion. I encourage the IP editor to read about conflict of interest on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:991joseph has created many article with same problem.

I have concern that the User:991joseph have created several articles about movie(s) which is not even released or not satisfying WP:NF. One of his contribution about future movie release I have proposed for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhan Chirikkunnu) but still this user have many article with the same issue. In this as a contributor on Wikipedia what I can do? WOWIndian ^Talk 09:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You could start by discussing it with him on his talkpage; that tends to be the first port of call when one has an issue with another editor. You might also want to review the basic inclusion criteria; unreleased films can meet this requirement without meeting the sub-requirements of WP:NF, and it looks as though Buddhan Chirikkunnu has sufficient sourcing to do so. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

How to edit semi-protected articles

Hi,

I'm writing a paper on the speed of light and noticed there are few "citation needed" links next to some of the data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light .

I've found the original paper's written by the physicists' in question but don't know how to amend the Wikipedia article.

Can someone help? Tom.Matthewson (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Tom. In order to edit semi-protected articles your account need to be autoconfirmed – a threshold that is passed when your account is four days old and you have made at least ten edits. However, I have granted you autoconfirmed status early based on your stated intention. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey! there, another option you have that you can try your luck and request for confirmation at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. WOWIndian ^Talk 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@WOWIndian and Tom.Matthewson: Just to avoid any confusion, as stated in my post above, I already granted you the permission that WOWIndian is telling you where to request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

references...

I am working on my first ever article on a contemporary artist, which is pending publication on the ground of a lack of references. whilst there are plenty of general hyperlinks I had added to enrich the text (e.g. the art school he attended), I have nothing like the following: ^ Miller, Edward. The Sun. Academic Press, 2005, p. 1. ^ Brown, Rebecca. "Size of the Moon," Scientific American, 51(78):46. ^ Smith, John. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2005, p. 2.

Question: 1. are these academic / press references a must?

Thanks EdouardGris (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Edouard. Academic / press references are not necessarily required, but reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject absolutely are, and the requirement is all the more stringent in an article on a living person. Unfortunately, I have had to delete the draft article as a blatant copyright violation. I left a message about this on your talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about links and corrections

The first article that I have contributed is found here La_Marcha_Por_La_Humanidad_aka_The_Chicano_Mural_At_The_University_of_Houston

I got a bot edit saying that I had too few links, and that I was not linked to by any other article. I changed this, and I want to know if I should just wait for an editor to review and take down those edits, or if I just wait for a bot to correct it, or do I just take out the edits myself?Hectorchavanajr (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think an editor or yourself can take down the edits if you truly find it has enough links. Sleepinabanana (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hectorchavanajr. Thank you for writing an article about a notable art topic. Well done! I see that there are plenty of wikilinks, and I have added some specific categories. Accordingly, I have removed the maintenance tags. Any editor who is confident that maintenance issues have been resolved is free to remove such tags. If there is doubt, discuss things on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

© template

Have never come across this type of template on a page before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentich_Disappearance

It's at the bottom of the article. Read it, don't get it. As to what is in © question that required the template.

This article & the Kinross Incident are likely getting some traffic lately with the disappearance of the Malaysian Airlines flight, which is how I came across it. So I'm just wondering what's in © dispute on this one, if anyone knows. Just curious, TYVM. ScarletRibbons (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@ScarlettRibbons: Hey Scarlett. That was a misuse of the template {{copyvio}}. It's for articles where the main textual content is questioned as a copyright violation and normally replaces the entire content of the article or more rarely just the section questioned. Here, if you clicked on the webpage that was flagged in the template as being infringed, you would have seen that it was the source of an image that was on display in the article, so it was that image (and two others) that was claimed to be infringing. What the user should have done (and I have done now) is simply remove the copyright infringing images. Meanwhile, the images are up for deletion at the Wikimedia Commons. Note that when you see a template in an article, if you click edit you can then usually locate the template's name, copy it, and then navigate to the template page itself, which usually will provide an explanation of its purpose and its proper use. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, TYVM. There were inline citations after some of the inline citations (if that makes any sense) claiming some citations were © violations, which was why I was scratching my head, as I thought the sources seemed OK. Nice of you to tidy up the page :-D ScarletRibbons (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

how can the average reader benefit educationally from the clutter on the wiki website portals?

Janus.Malone162.236.186.128 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Janus. Most of the main page is given over to highlighting recent excellent work that has been recognized by other editors. There's a lot of excellent work to highlight, so the information density of the front page is far higher than most web portals. There's no intent to make the front page particularly educational, nor do we go out of our way to target "average readers". The search bar is prominently displayed, so it should be relatively straightforward to get to the article you're looking for without having to navigate multiple links. Hope that helps! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Links to other wikipedias

Hi, I'm just preparing my first wiki article and have noted from google that there is an entry with my title in Italian wiki. How can I link mine to that one in the manner of "see also" ? And should I ? Diana Bassplayer (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This used to require a manual link - but these days the software should sort it out automatically - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will wait and see --Diana Bassplayer (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Arjayay: are you sure of this? There's no mention of such an automatic process on Interlanguage links. Diana Bassplayer, if Arjayay is right, you don't need to do anything. But you can link them up by looking for the heading "Languages" at the side of the page (probably the left side, unless you've changed the skin), and beneath it an icon labelled "Add links". Picking that will let you link it to articles in other language Wikipedias that cover the same scope. --ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, Thanks for this. At the moment there is no Links heading under "Languages", only Settings, but that may be because the article is not live yet; I've submitted it as an Article under Creation. I was hoping to improve it while I waited for approval.... so I may just have to be patient to try either of these solutions. Diana Bassplayer (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

My bad. I know I read something about automation when a bot started removing the manual links from the edit page, perhaps it was only a proposal at WP:VP(T) which hasn't been implemented. As ColinFine has said, you will need to access Wikidata by clicking on the "Add links" under "Languages". You may need to expand "Languages" by clicking on it, and turning the right pointing arrow to a down pointing arrow, before "Add links" appears. Apologies again. - Arjayay (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Diana Bassplayer, there are also a couple of templates you may find useful. If you think the italian page may have more information, and you're not feeling up to translating it, you could add Template:Expand language to the top of your page. If you're finding there are interesting related articles in the italian space that you want to link to from your article, you can use the Template:ill (for inter-language link) to have a redlink for the english version of the page and a link to the italian page side by side. I recently wound up doing both on a page I created at Guy XVI de Laval if you'd like to look at examples. Incidentally, I've encountered permission issues when trying the Add links under Languages (as suggested by ColinFine) on the left bar for that particular page, I'm not sure if this is widespread or just me. 1bandsaw (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions about proposed new page "Acharya Kishori Das Vajpeyi"

I have just begun working on the article and seek suggestions to make it worthy of being a wiki article.Page will be found at User:Rkvajpeyi/sandbox. Rkvajpeyi (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rkvajpeyi. The most important thing is to add references to reliable sources that back up the claims in the article, and then expand the article, giving more information about his entire life and career. Please read Referencing for beginners, and you may also find A Primer for newcomers to be worth reading. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

can i go ahead and edit an article, when i haven't received any response to my post

I made a request last week for someone to take a look at an article that I feel has a US bias. It is about process-oriented psychology and it seems a fair article but the criticism section skews so strongly toward one US school and seems quite sensationalist. The article is supposed to be about process-oriented psychology and yet the criticism section goes in to one of 26 worldwide schools teaching process-oriented psychology and seems quite sensationalist and unbalanced. I know some about this type of psychology so I'm not sure if I should edit it because of being too close to the topic, it just seems quite out of balance and nobody has responded. Can anyone help?Snowsearch (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems that Process-oriented psychology was founded by an American Arnold Mindell and that he was directly involved in the Oregon incident described in the article. That being said, Snowsearch, you may well be right that the article now gives undue weight to that controversy. You have properly expressed your concerns on the article's talk page and I see that another editor has now commented there. Keep up the discussion and perhaps you should suggest how to summarize the matter in a more concise fashion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks Cullen I will try that to make it more accurate and concise after waiting to see if others contribute clarity here. much appreciated.Snowsearch (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, Snowsearch. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

British placenames in infoboxes

Hi there,

I've tried to navigate the Manual of Style and other places, but cannot see an answer to, or discussion of, the question over whether infoboxes favour places of birth ending in UK vs United Kingdom, and the county and country. In short, is the style guide's preference:

1. Exeter, United Kingdom
2. Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom
3. Exeter, Devon, England, United Kingdom

Thanks for any help. JamKaftan (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

JK, welcome to the Teahouse - the most recent discussion on this can be found at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England?. There was no consensus so any of the variations you've listed so use whichever you feel comfortable with. Nthep (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Nthep! JamKaftan (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, although that discussion shows that there are things about which there is not much consensus, it does seem to suggest consensus that using both "England" and "United Kingdom" amounts to clutter. Personally, I think the same applies to "Devon". If someone doesn't know where Exeter is, they probably also don't know where Devon is, so it's not providing much help. Much better to just wikilink Exeter. Formerip (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If I understand what you are saying correctly, FormerIP, I don't agree. Certainly you should wikilink Exeter, but you should be able to tell at least the country, and preferably the region without having to pick the link. (I have popups enabled, so it gives me a taster of the content of the link when I hover, but not everybody does). --ColinFine (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't saying not to give the country, just that only so much of the postal address is really necessary. I think option (1) above is best, and (3) seems to be against consensus. Formerip (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Submitting user page draft for peer review

I would like peer review on a user page draft. I followed the instructions here Wikipedia:PRG that told me to enter :{{subst:PR}} at the top of the article's talk page and save the page. A link should appear to set up a peer review discussion, but only this "This template should be substituted on the article talk page." appeared in red letters on the page. The instructions previously referenced had a link (Template:PR) in step 2 to follow if no link appeared on the talk page after saving :{{subst:PR}}. However, this page just said the same things as the previous instructions. What should I do to submit my peer review correctly? Sam at LI-COR (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, Sam at LI-COR and welcome to the Teahouse! I've made some formatting adjustments to your questions to imporve readability. To answer your question, my understand of the "peer review" process is to have already established articles looked over and make sure that new contributions are neutral in cases where there may have been a conflict of interest. What you appear to be wanting is the review of a draft to be moved into article space and established for the first time. The proper project for dealing with those requests is Articles for creation, and to submit your draft for review there, all you need to do is put {{subst:submit}} anywhere on your draft page and click Save page. Good luck and happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sam, welcome to the teahouse. I think peer review is intended for articles, not for drafts.

If what you would like is for someone to review your draft and move it to the article space if appropriate, then put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft page (not its talk page) and it will be added to the queue of submissions for review under Articles for Creation. It can take several weeks to get reviewed though... Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the fast replies! Is there a way to have a draft reviewed if it's in the actual draft space instead of as a user page draft? I read this wiki blog post that says drafts "can get constructive feedback from other editors". I assimilated that information with the peer review help documentation and it made me think there is some way to do this. If there really is no way to request peer review on a draft, should I just move my article to the draft space and wait for feedback? Would it help to request feedback by posting on the talk page of editors who have worked on similar articles? Sam at LI-COR (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Articles for creation doesn't care if your draft is in "User:...", "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/...", "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/...", or "Draft:...", it uses the same {{subst:submit}} template on any of those pages. If you could give us a link to the draft you want reviewed, I'd be happy to submit it for you. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Even better, I found your draft at User:Sam at LI-COR/sandbox/Image Studio Lite Draft and notice that it is using the {{Userspace draft}} template at the top of the page. In that template is a blue link that says "Finished? Submit the page!" Clicking on that blue link then clicking the Save page button will submit it for you. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help, Technical 13. I'll submit this in the next couple weeks. Sam at LI-COR (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Welcome to wikipedia. I looked at the article and I have concerns that it won't meet notability guidelines and won't be accepted because of that. Not everything in existence is considered proper for wikipedia articles, you have to demonstrate that Image Studio Lite is significant in some way. Is it a top seller? Is it used in important ways? Has it been covered in the news in any way? Also, I found it very frustrating when I first got here because the only feedback I got was "Just submit it and it'll be reviewed". Not helpful! The only thing the review got me was a stamp that it wasn't right for some reason. I wanted someone to tell me how to fix it! :-) Bali88 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

After you sign up

If I sign up for a username, will people be able to see my IP address?--71.167.166.18 (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No! Samwalton9 (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's good, thanks.--71.167.166.18 (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It's impossible for regular editors to identify a named editor's IP address if that editor is logged in to their account when they edit. There exists a small subset of experienced and trusted users known as checkusers who are able to identify the IPs used by logged-in editors, but they are only allowed to use these powers under very specific circumstances, and are not allowed to make the results of their investigations public. If you create an account, your IP will be hidden from the rest of us. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Accused of being Sockpuppet

Hi I joined Wikipedia this morning and edited my first article and was immediately accused of being a sock puppet. To Prove this my accuser keeps linking versions of my edit. I went back to it to change spellings. They say this proves im a sock puppet for user Ming. they have reinstated a heavily biased account backed up by a very untrusty worthy source and have removed my account which contained multiple sources. I suspect they are accusing me so as they can alter the article as they wish and then dismiss my contributions as being in breach of Wikipedia rules due to me being a sock puppet. How do I definitively prove I am not a sock puppet ? Thanks Daithicarr (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Daithicarr, welcome to the teahouse. You do not have to prove that you are not a sock puppet; the burden of proof is on the accuser to present evidence that there is reasonable grounds to suspect that someone is using multiple accounts illegitimately. They are required to do this by opening a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and presenting their evidence there. In this case, it will be difficult for them to do so because they seem to have chosen not to edit from a registered account themselves.

The 2014 Crimean Crisis article is a deeply controversial one, so I personally wouldn't edit there if I wanted a quiet wiki-life without people accusing me of things without justification. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks to me as though the other party is confused over the appearance of the New editor Getting Started automated edit summary, and since your edits are superficially similar to some edits made yesterday by Owner Ming, they have jumped to the conclusion that you are in fact Owner Ming in a different guise. I have left them a note at the article's talkpage. For my part, I think it is unlikely that you are Owner Ming; I've seen and dealt with enough sockpuppetry in my time here to be unconvinced. My advice would be to ignore it entirely; if a sockpuppet investigation is formally raised then you can answer the accusations there, but in my opinion there isn't enough evidence to start one. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for you're help, I thought I had been declared a sockpuppet , not just accused. It seems I have a lot more to read ABOUT wikipedia rather than just on wikipedia . I only edited because it seemed so glaringly biased. Daithicarr (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding Sources to a new page 89.168.56.120 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I am writing an article about a bridal company and it's had a speedy deletion. I think this is because the sources were not posted correctly. How do i add sources to a wiki page I am creating? The instructions are really unclear on how to do this. Any help much appreciated. Thank you very much, Sophie 89.168.56.120 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sophie, welcome to the teahouse. Have you read the guide at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sophie, the guidance at WP:REFBEGIN should help you. It also might be a good idea to go through the WP:Article Wizard and create the article through Articles for Creation so other editors can double check the article before it's posted, heavily reducing the chance it will be deleted! Samwalton9 (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source?

After hours slaving over a hot keyboard I might have hit paydirt in the search for references for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Café Jacques (band). Is a Dutch Progressive Rock Page CD review regarded as a reliable secondary source? Thanks to the kind folk who have helped with previous requests.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is often a matter of interpretation of WP:RS based in large part on the proposed usage of the source (ie what is it sourcing?). In my opinion this source appears to have some kind of editorial oversight [1] and would be OK for non-controversial information. If you would like further opinions you may also now, or in the future, ask for feedback at WP:RSN where people well versed in these kinds of questions give valuable input. I hope that is helpful. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. It is probably a specialist job. The content is not controversial in any way that I can see, and I have had a look through the guideline (again). I'll take your advice, and refer to those that know; I'm pretty sure I don't. Thanks for your help.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Feedback tool disabled

Hi, has the ability to turn on feedback for articles been disabled? Thanks, Matty.007 12:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey! May you clarify on this? ///EuroCarGT 16:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matty. The article feedback tool project was discontinued this month (March 2014). There's some more information, and links to additional information, at WP:AFT. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. That was a shame, it was a useful tool. Thanks again, Matty.007 16:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

links on user:dispenser reflinks page not working

Hi, I'd like to report that the links on the user:dispenser reflinks page [2] aren't working. I'm not sure if this is the place to report such a thing, but the link for example http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py leads to a "page not found", as it seems,do many of the links on this previously very useful page. I wonder if you could help, or pass on the message to the appropriate body. Thanks.

Beryl reid fan (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a thread about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Reflinks, looks like toolserver is down for maintenance. Nthep (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Beryl reid fan (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion re acceptance of AfC article

I have been working on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Café Jacques (band) for some months, and although it has come close, the article has been rejected twice. I have had some really good help from Voceditenore, and I would appreciate it if an experienced editor could have a look at it, please. I would like to know if they think it has a good chance of acceptance, and their thoughts on how it can be improved. Significant changes have been made since it was last rejected.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey CaesarsPalaceDude. I've looked and the article and its sourcing is threadbare. I think what you need more than anything is help finding reliable sources to use. So, there's this, and possibly others found through this search; this and this partial view of a write up in Beat Instrumental & Songwriting & Recording looks like it might have some substantive treatment of the band. You might try asking at WP:RX if anyone can provide you access to that article. Often the most material or even the only material on bands is found in newspaper articles and I bet you could scrounge up significantly more if Google news archive wasn't being revamped. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to newspaperarchive.com or I'd look there. I did find this through Trove though. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hey CaesarsPalaceDude: P.S. try visiting the websites of each of the newspapers listed here, and if they have a search facility, try searching "Café Jacques" (in quotes) as well as "Cafe Jacques" because some will drop or not like the accent. For example I tried the Daily Record and immediately found this article, which is not great but mentions the band and shows potential for others.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing articles

How do I remove an article? 400 Lux (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 400 Lux. Only an administrator can actually remove an article, but there are several ways that you can begin the process that may lead to an article's deletion. It depends on how non-compliant the article in question is. Please read our Deletion policy for detailed information. If you mention the specific article, you may well receive a more detailed answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is located at Nanogem. I don't think it is real. 400 Lux (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have my doubts that notability has been established, but I do not think that this is a hoax. Please see Roewe Gems Company and Preciosa. You can nominate the article for deletion, or improve it if you wish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Company article layout

Hi! I'm not sure what the format for company articles is. What sections are usually included, and in what order? Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bananasoldier: We have no fast and hard rules for such matters (other than the general layout concepts, such as starting with a lead, references coming before external links, and so on; see here) and each article may develop differently and have different sections depending on the facts peculiar to that topic. You can always look to see if there is a Wikiproject in an area and check whether they have any good advice or even a model article suggesting common sections (but I don't see much that answers your question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Guidelines). In general though, it's always useful to look to featured articles in the same subject area and emulate what's done, where it fits. See Wikipedia:Featured articles#Companies. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The Invitation was received late.

Is there a reason why I did not get an invitation here until about an hour ago? I had to do a lot of copying and pasting to add templates to pages I have been editing hoping they would work since I could not ask how to make them myself. Luckily, there weren't any issues, I am just wondering why I got it so late. AustralianPope (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I am surprised that you refer to receiving the invitation "late", as (according to the information which I can see) your account was created only yesterday. If you do have any specific questions, please do not hesitate to ask here, or to use any of the specific advice sources shown at Help:Contents. I have added a few useful links to your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Controlled redirects

I am trying to link the phrase "Xbox" to the page about the console. How do I control the redirect so it does that? When I do it currently, the redirect sends the viewer to the general Xbox page instead.

To show rather than tell, I need to change this "Xbox" but lead it to the page about the actual console. I am also having multiple issues with edit conflicts from stored versions, even when they are by me.AustralianPope (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

OK so my last few edits discombobulated the page but I think I fixed it. AustralianPope (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi AustralianPope. The piped link [[Xbox (console)|Xbox]] produces Xbox. See more at Help:Link#Piped link. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

So it's a piped link then. No wonder I could not find any information! Thanks. AustralianPope (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)