Wikipedia:Teahouse

Eman235, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Guest profiles »

Host profiles »

Question forum »

Dear new editors, no question is too basic for our Q&A board. If you need help, just click the link below! And if you have some helpful advice for someone else, go ahead: be bold! Click the "edit" button to right of their question and start the conversation. If you are an experienced editor but not yet a host and want to be involved, find out more information here.

Click here to ask a question »

dihybrid cross

what is a dihybrid crossLightning monty (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Monty! Glad you stopped by. It looks like there is a Wikipedia article about that: dihybrid cross. I had no clue what it was until you mentioned it here :) This space is more for help with editing and contributing to Wikipedia, regardless, I'm glad you're here! :) SarahStierch (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Monty! A great place to get help answering factual questions is the Wikipedia Reference desk. I suggest you try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science for a question like this. Good luck! --Jayron32 13:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

my article is being redirected to another of completely different topics.

Hi all; Thank you all for clearing my doubts about map location it was great. and now i know it how to. I have had created two articles; "Khamdang Gewog" and "Tsenkharla Middle Secondary School". The first one is village block; while the later is a middle school; however; from yesterday when accessing TSenkharla Middle Secondary School; readers are being redirected to Khamdang Gewog. Can any one of you know how to solve this please?.

Thanking you TshewangTgyeltshen (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings ... I looked at the second article on Tsenkharla Middle Secondary School and another editor appears to have a concern about where the material for the article came from. The editor feels that it might have been copied directly from another source without proper attribution. They have removed much of the information and created a redirect to the first article on Khamdang Gewog. Where did you get the information that was posted in the article for the school? --McDoobAU93 04:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Tgyeltshen! Sorry again that you seem to be running into so much trouble. One of the things which is difficult about Wikipedia is that we cannot write about every subject merely because it exists. In order to keep Wikipedia accurate and reliable, we need to ensure that the writing we have about all subjects meets high standards, especially that all information is verifiable, and all of the information in Wikipedia was previously published in a reliable source. Not every subject has enough reliable information about it to base a Wikipedia article on, in other words, outside of Wikipedia there isn't enough good sources of information about that subject that we can trust well enough to include that information about Wikipedia. Because of this, some subjects are covered in short detail in larger articles. For example, a small neighborhood or village block may not have a lot of source material to work with, so instead Wikipedia tends to cover information about that neighborhood in the article about the larger municipality, city, or geographic division instead. In many cases, having lots of little, tiny articles with no hope of expansion isn't a great situation, so instead it is preferred to cover those small bits of information in a larger article instead. Generally, this idea at Wikipedia is called "notability", and subjects need to be notable enough to merit having a stand-alone article about them. If you wish to have a stand-alone article about a subject, you first need to make clear that there is enough source material (i.e. lots of good writing in good reliable sources) about it. If there isn't, and the source material is short, of dubious reliability, or sketchy, it is best to cover what is reliable in another article. Does this explanation help? --Jayron32 04:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tgyeltshen - I am so glad you've returned with another question. I have worked on articles about schools, too, and found that articles on high schools (for example, grades 9-12) are usually considered notable enough to have their own wikipedia article, while elementary and middle school articles are commonly not considered sufficiently notable for their own article. We actually have an editor group that works together on school articles; you can find them at WP:WPSCHOOLS, in case you'd like a bit more familiarity with writing articles on schools. I hope this was helpful, and I wish you happy editing! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How does one upload images to Wikipedia?

I'm very new to Wikipedia, just having started a week ago. I have some of the basics of creating articles and references, as well as transferring photos from Wikimedia. The articles that I've created and am about to create are all related to World War I. In some cases, I've been unable to find appropriate photos on Wikimedia or Wikipedia. Therefore, I contacted the International War Graves Photography Project this week and requested permission to use their photos for my Wikipedia articles. I'm pleased to say that they responded quickly and very enthusiastically. They merely requested that I attribute the photos to their organization. Great start. However, I have no idea how to begin the uploading photo process. I'm not following the articles on the subject. The way I've taught myself to create articles this week is to go into "edit" mode on completed articles and observe the code that other writers have employed. That won't work for uploading photos. Thank you. ACP2011 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Special:Upload might be what you're looking for. Did this help? ReelAngelGirl Talk to me! Tea? 17:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello ACP2011! Good to see you; and very glad to see you've been here for a week. We hope you stay for some time. I came for a week and have stayed 6 years :). Anyhoo, the deal with images is that it can be a bit tricky, because Wikipedia has some strict rules regarding their use. Images broadly fall into two categories:

1. Images you created yourself (photographs you took with your camera, original drawings you created, etc.) which you are willing to license for use which is compatable with Wikipedia's license. Images of this type should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, located at http://commons.wikimedia.org This sister site hosts images which can be used on any Wikimedia project in any language.
2. Images you did not create yourself, or do not own the copyright to. This can be quite tricky. Some of these images are in the public domain (images whose copyright has expired, for example), and as such, may be uploaded to commons as described above. However, most images you find on the internet, which you did not create yourself, are not generally allowed at Wikipedia. A select, small number of these may meet Wikipedia's policies, which are described at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, but tread carefully when using images of this type. If you have questions about the appropriateness of an image for use or uploading at Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, you can get help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, which is a place where more experienced editors which work in this field can help.

Good luck, and I hope this can help! --Jayron32 17:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi ACP2011. I am so jazzed that you stopped by the Teahouse. The above suggestions are great and you probably don't need one more, but I wanted to point towards here WP:IMAGES as it has been helpful for me... hopefully for you, too. Anyway, thank you for joining the crew at the Teahouse, and happy editing. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

References/Sources for Television Shows and Books

Hello All, I was wondering the best way to go about looking up references and sources that would be considered credible in updating and editing articles on television shows and books. Any thoughts on where to start since I do not want to try and end up doing something wrong on my first attempt? Thanks.Kdeorne1 (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Of course, you want to follow Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources. Also, you should consider posting your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, and also think about joining that project, working with other editors with similar interests. (There is also a similar one for books, Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, but it appears to be much less active, so you may not have as much success posting your question on that Wikiproject's talk page. Still probably worth doing.

Which doesn't directly answer your question - perhaps others here will want to do that. In any case, it's great that you're planning to start with sources, to improve articles, rather than just taking information wherever you find it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kdeorne1! I hope your Wikipedia experience is going well. The most reliable sources are usually trade journals, which unlike the "popular press", tend to focus more on the business and less on rumors and celebrity gossip. In other words, for the entertainment industry, you'll probably want to use more of journals like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, and less of magazines like Us Weekly. I know that the Nielsen Company publishes a range of entertainment industry publications as well, I've used Nielsen's website for information; they have lots of good stuff on ratings and trends in TV viewership. Unless you live in either New York or Los Angeles, you may have trouble finding such journals on newstands, however most major libraries should have access to them, and many of them also publish online. The above specific advise assumes you are in the U.S. Of course, if you are in another country (like the UK or Australia or Canada), then you'll need to seek other Journals of similar reliability and reputation. Libraries in those countries should still be able to help you locate such sources. --Jayron32 14:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Rules in banning users because of biased edits or vandalising

Am a new user and got nearly banned yesterday on the "Kudankulam nuclear power plant" article because I edited an article that I thought was biased. Where to find detailed rules on the same for better dispute resolution? Many thanks in advance. Nashtam (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nashtam. I'm sorry that you've had a negative experience. The important first step when someone disputes a change you have made to Wikipedia is to civily discuss the matter at the article talk page. The best way to approach this is to gather reliable sources which support your proposed changes. Also give it some time, don't expect instant agreement. Be willing to work with others and compromise. If, after a few days of discussion, you reach an impasse, you can try to bring in other, impartial editors using methods described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Good luck! --Jayron32 05:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. Am ready to talk on the talk page, but so far the other user has not obliged. It may not have been of much use anyway, judging by the past comments on the talk page which also complained of the bias in the article. But the bias was not corrected. Have raised the issue on the Wikipedia's Neutrality Noticeboard, as per your advice. Thanks again for your help. Nashtam (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nashtam, as you may already aware of fact that Koodankulam is a highly controversial topic in India these days, and as always, Wikipedia articles attract people from all sides. If you think that article's neutrality is biased then you may tag it with {{neutral}}, it will attract attention of other users. You may also approach India noticeboard, a better place to discuss the article of concern. — Bill william compton^Talk 12:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Great responses. I'm really impressed with Nashtam's interest in diving in and seeking to solve the problem. Good luck and keep us posted! :) SarahStierch (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello guys... I respect all people's views. But this user User:Nashtam has created many usernames to do repeated removal all the verified content, almost the entire section which are from verified sources. I had raised a SPI and it has been confirmed today by the CheckUser. Please see [[1]]. This user just puts a message that we will discuss and then create an user and do the vandalism repeatedly. Sathishmls (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sathish.. Glad to finally talk with you. Like I have said already, I am a new user, and not familiar with the do's and dont's of wikipedia. This would have been perfectly obvious even with my initial interactions with you, when I didn't know that one had to sign one's comments with four tildes. I have not used any username other than Nashtam for the last 24 hours and don't intend to use one in future either. I still don't know the rules on the same, but from your message here, I understand that unlike having multiple email ids, having multiple usernames in wikipedia may have some do's and dont's with it. Will try to understand them. Really appreciate your effort on this. Can we now talk about Kudankulam please. Nashtam (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Locating places in Wikipedia map.

Hi All; I have been editing few places within Bhutan lately; how ever i didn't know how to located the map. can any one of you please enlighten me with the knowledge ?..

Thanking you Tshewang Tgyeltshen (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tgyeltshen, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm a little confused on what you're looking for. If you need a list of image file relating to maps of Bhutan, you can view the list at the Wikimedia Commons category, located at commons:Category:Maps of Bhutan. -- Luke (Talk) 03:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The first thing I thought of was how you can geolocate a location on a map, for example: Thimphu - when you look in the infobox the map has a pin in it showing the location of the town. I have to admit, even I don't know how to do that! :) SarahStierch (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tgyeltshen! One great resource for anything map-related is Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Lots of Wikipedian-cartographers work with that Wikiproject, and I have used people who work there to help me make maps for articles I have worked on. If you have specific questions about how some function related to maps or geography works at Wikipedia, they are a great resource! --Jayron32 04:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Its a fairly complex piece of coding. As part of {{Infobox settlement}} a few things need to be included for the map to show up:

|coordinates_region     = BT
|subdivision_type       = Country
|subdivision_name       = {{flag|Bhutan}}
|subdivision_type1      = District
|subdivision_name1      = <DISTRICT OF BHUTAN>
|latd= <DEGREE> |latm= <MINUTE> |lats= <SECOND> |latNS=S
|longd= <DEGREE> |longm= <MINUTE> |longs= <SECOND> |longEW=E

Just replace the <X> with the required variables. lat is short of latitude and long is short for latitude. This *should* work. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 04:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, but just one more suggestion. If you would like to add a map to an article of an organisation, you can do this using location map. For example, in the case of the National Institute of Traditional Medicine (Bhutan), you could add to your article:

{{Location map | Bhutan

| lat_deg = 27 | lat_min = 28 | lat_sec = 57 | lat_dir = N

| lon_deg = 89 | lon_min = 37 | lon_sec = 56 | lon_dir = E

}}

This would create a map of Bhutan with a pin showing the location of the Institute.

class=notpageimage|

National Institute of Traditional Medicine

As an aside, it is great to see improved coverage of Bhutan. - Bilby (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hello Tgyeltshen, I'm so glad that you stopped by the Teahouse! Did we give you the information you need? Thank you.--Rosiestep (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Request an article merge

I'm currently working on wikifying the article on the Feekes scale, a numerical tool used to grade the growth and development of cereal crops like wheat. Even though I've added some citations and a little more detail, it seems like the article itself will never be particularly long. Likewise, articles on similar metrics (e.g. BBCH-scale (cereals) and Zadoks scale are generally just a table of the scale and a one-line introduction. Is there a proper way to perhaps just make a new article called something like "Growth Scales for Cereal Crops" or the like that could combine these issues (along with more general information (e.g. why you would scale them)? Am I in way over my head? Thanks! Pusillanimous 21:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. It looks an excellent idea. The first step is to propose the merge by adding tags which can be found here to the articles. You will need to decide which page to make the main one and the other(s) will becomes redirect pages. The page can be moved to a new name while retaining its history. Then leave some time, ten days at least to see if anybody objects. Meanwhile you could work on the merged article in your sandbox or make a user subpage for it such as User:Fred/merged cereals article. Copy and paste what you need from the existing articles to work on and when it is ready to go copy and paste it back into the new article.--Charles (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can always say I learn something new everyday on Wikipedia...Feekes, Zadoks, BBCH...Oh my! :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Something to bear in mind when considering article merges is the inbound links (accessed via "What links here"). If the term is useful to have in its own right (i.e. not beneath a subheading in a longer article) then it may be more useful to readers as a separate article. In some cases (although not this specific one) a subject may not be notable in its own right and should therefore normally be merged uncontroversially. There's nothing wrong with short articles, except that higher article numbers require higher levels of policing against vandalism. -- Trevj (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Pusillanimous! Another idea is to follow what is called at Wikipedia, "summary style". Basically, that just means that there is an overview article, something like "cereal grading" or something similar, which discusses the concept in general, and then you have individual articles that deal with the details. See Wikipedia:Summary style for how this is supposed to work. --Jayron32 04:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As search terms each of the scales would still have a redirect page so that should not be a problem. I am personally involved in cereal growing and will be interested to see how this turns out. Good luck with it.--Charles (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions! Have a good day everyone! Pusillanimous 18:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How to write citations from newspapers

I would like to cite information on people and places that were only available from mentions in newspapers and not books. I would like to see an example of how it would read in Edit form. Information I use a here is a defunct English newspaper with which I am familiar and is not available digitally (so cannot create online link).

Newspaper Name - "Wellington Journal and Shrewsbury News" Date - 15 February 1921 Page - 6

Cloptonson (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! The easiest method is to use the "Cite" option in the edit window. When you edit a page, in the bar at the top of the edit box (where it has "B", "I" and various other options) you should see an option called "Cite". If you click on that you can select "Cite news" from the "Templates" option which will appear, and this will open a small window with boxes for the information you might add. Just ignore the URL or Access Date - the system will just leave them out if you don't add them to the options.

If you don't wish to take that path, or if the advanced toolbar isn't visible in your browser, you can always use the cite template directly. In this case it will look like:

<ref>{{cite news | author = | date = 15 February 1921 | title = | work = Wellington Journal and Shrewsbury News | page = 6 }}</ref>

That will display in the references section of the page as:

Wellington Journal and Shrewsbury News: p. 6. 15 February 1921.

I left the author and title blank in the example, as you didn't include them, but if you know them just drop the information into the right spots and all should be good. - Bilby (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I Cite an Interview I Performed?

Wikipedians, I need your wisdom. For an encyclopeadic article, is it okay to cite an interview that I performed myself? If so, how would I do that?

Arashi-Ai (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, how are you going? :-) It's not really advisable to cite an interview you created performed yourself would fall under original research, which essentially means it's something you discovered yourself (like an interview you did yourself). If it's a news item, however. you may be able to do a news report on Wikinews, as they allow this sort of material. Hope that helps. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. If your interview has been published in a reliable source (i.e. preferably a news outlet or journal) independent of you, and with editorial oversight, I would say that yes you can use it. If unpublished, it'd be "original research", so the answer would be no as Steven Zhang says. Depending on the nature of the interview and planned use, it may be appropriate to declare a conflict of interest in conjunction with its inclusion. In any case, an editor citing their own work should be careful that they're not placing undue weight on its contents, i.e. ask yourself whether its inclusion adds something of value to readers seeking content of a neutral (i.e. unbiased) nature. -- Trevj (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations aren't showing up properly

Hello, I am a new user of Wikipedia and I'm wondering why my reflist on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Lake_Elementary_School is showing up so strangely. Shouldn't the links at the bottom go to the sources, not the Wikipedia page? I think I'm following convention but I could be wrong. Googlypoo (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Reflist should go just above External links. It seems to be working OK though. A word of warning. Elementary schools are not normally given their own page but are instead merged into their local community page so the page may be put up for deletion or merge. You can read more about citing sources at WP:Citing sources.--Charles (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You may want to try using ProveIt, accessible via "my preferences"->gadgets. Enter the details in the various boxes, place the cursor in the correct place in the main edit window, then click 'insert into edit form'. -- Trevj (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Voceditenore's response:

The description of the url's destination should go inside the brackets with a single space between the end of the url and the decriptive word of phrase. For example:

<ref name=NCES>[http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&InstName=Martha+Lake+elementary&SchoolType=1&SchoolType=2&SchoolType=3&SchoolType=4&SpecificSchlTypes=all&IncGrade=-1&LoGrade=-1&HiGrade=-1&ID=530240002089 Martha Lake Elementary]. [[National Center for Education Statistics]]. Accessed January 22, 2011.</ref>

produces

Martha Lake Elementary. National Center for Education Statistics. Accessed January 22, 2011

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! I just removed my previous response and we'll keep this. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Subject need writing?

Please show me a list of articles that need updating or reorganizing.32cllou (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this the best place to come for help editing?32cllou (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for coming to the Teahouse. A list of articles that need updating or reorganizing is a bit vague. However, I think articles that have the {{Wikify}} and {{Update}} templates would be of help to you. If you have any other questions, feel free to post another message. -- Luke (Talk) 03:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. 32cllou, on Luke's suggestion take a look at articles in these categories. Just simply click on any of the links you see here (the that are organized by date) and you'll find plenty of articles that can use help!

• Articles that need to be wikified - these articles need clean up!
• Articles needing updated - these articles are often out of date and need some attention, too :) (You will have to scroll down a bit on that page).

There are a ton of other places too. Let us know if that helps and if you're still not finding something that interests you we can help you find something else :) SarahStierch (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I should also mention the Missing encyclopedic articles project, which may be of some use. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Also check out Category:Wikipedia backlog. -- Trevj (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all your your suggestions, which I will use. First, I saw research on modern sleeping pills finding a 5x increase in risk of death (from all causes) that needs to be in Wikipedia.32cllou (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. There is a specific Manual of Style entry for medicine, which can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. It might be worth reading this, as medical articles do have quite a high quality standard. If you are still looking for places to help out, WikiProjects are a nice place to start, as they will give you all the resources you need, as well as a support group of people who are interested and knowledgeable about the subject. If there is anything you are specifically interested in, someone here can probably point you towards the right project. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox policy

I am editing a Wikipedia article as part of a class assignment. I like gathering evidence and data and direct quotes first before I write any research assignment, so what I usually do is create a document that has direct paragraphs and quotes that I've copied from other sources (like relevant books) - which I'll later go through, filter, and paraphrase or cite as appropriate in the actual research report. Is it okay for me to use the Wikipedia sandboxes to collect these direct paragraphs and quotes? AlienInn (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The best place would be in your own userspace. If you type your username into the search box followed by a slash then the name you want to call the page it will be ceated for you. See WP:Userpage Charles (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Great question! I don't know the answer if we're allowed to house that type of content on our sandbox either. Charles, are you saying that AlienInn should not use their sandbox? (Like the sandbox button that is located in the upper right corner with our user buttons?) Just curious if that is an option too. That Userpage link is pretty overwhelming! SarahStierch (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 That's perfectly fine, and I would strongly suggest that you use a private sandbox, rather then the public one that is widely advertised. Since the public sandbox is...public, your work is not likely to stay untouched for long. Instead, you can create your own at a place like User:AlienInn/Sandbox. This is within your own personal userspace, so it wouldn't be deleted or modified unless you were hosting bad material. From what you've said, you shouldn't have to worry about that. Cheers, Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Nole, that answers my (edit conflicting!) question above! Thanks. SarahStierch (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an interesting issue - we've just started here and already the questions are challenging. :) As a general rule, the copyright policy doesn't distinguish between userspace, sandboxes and the encyclopaedia proper. So if you create your own sandbox, even if you do so in userspace, you can't add content there if you can't add it into a normal article. (In fact it is more restrictive in some ways - you can't add any non-free images outside of Wikipedia articles at all).

However, properly attributed quotes don't become a copyright concern until they become a substantial amount of the original work, so there is a bit of room to move. I had asked the Foundation about this once, and while I didn't get the clear answer I wanted, there was certainly some leeway for lists of quotations. Personally, though, I just gather those quotes offline, as it makes things a bit harder but also stays unquestionably in policy, but I have kept a small number of attributed quotes in my userspace when I really needed them online. So I agree fully with Charles and Nolelover that userspace is the best bet, but if there are going to be a lot of them, or they are substantial, keeping them offline is safer.

As an aside, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a list of references to sections of articles that you want to use, so maybe that would be an option too. - Bilby (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping the student folks! But I'm confused what the difference is between "userspace" and "sandboxes." I thought sandboxes are part of userspace? Maybe I'm mistaken? Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The speed of response to User:AlienInn's question is really impressive, by the way! Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your userspace would be everything east of the slash in User:Alin (WMF)/????. Hypothetically, every single page you make could be a sandbox, although that rarely happens in practice. So yes, sandboxes are part of userspace (except of course for the main sandbox), but not all userspace pages will be sandboxes. Examples of non-sandbox user pages would be the common award/userboxen pages. As a side note, I hope we haven't overwhelmed AlienInn :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks Nolelover! Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you editing today?

What do you usually look for when editing? I found myself editing really miniscule things just because I didn't want to put correct information on the site. So, I ended up editing grammar and spelling and such. So my question is, what is your thought process when you want to edit? Do you just go for what you know? Or search randomly and do research on other sites? - Thanks, yoyefuwa

That's a good question, actually. Sometimes I have found some new information that I want to add into the article. Other times an edit has appeared on my watchlist that needs some attention. Other times, I stumble across an article and see something that I think might work. For example, I ran across our article on the Battle of Britain, and in the lead section it said that the name of the battle came from a speech given by Winston Churchill. I did a bit more reading and found that the speech he gave had its own article, so I edited the lead to include a link to the speech itself. The other editors that frequent that article must have liked it, because it's still there. :) --McDoobAU93 19:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what sorts of articles or topics other people are working on and interested in. What articles are you editing or what projects are you working on within Wikipedia today? Seeeko (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm currently helping a few other editors work on The Doon School, a premiere boys school in India. That's my main project currently, among many other smaller tasks. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been tidying up a list of long distance walking trails in the United Kingdom along with checking changes to the many articles on my watch list.--Charles (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am currently updating 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests, as it is a current event. I'm also reverting some vandalism, tagging article for speedy deletion, and requests for page protections. I guess you can can call it the usual. -- Luke (Talk) 01:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The new semester just started, so mostly I'm running around fixing disasters in my courses. :) But I've been doing the research on the Torrens Island Quarantine Station in my breaks - I was given a chance to access the old station for photography a couple of weeks back, and now I just need an article to go with my photos. - Bilby (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a big amusement park fan, so I keep an eye on many of their articles. When a new rumor appears on a webpage or talk forum, someone almost always rushes onto Wikipedia to add the rumor. They certainly mean well, but since encyclopedias aren't based on rumors, I undo the changes and let the editors know about our policies on reliable sources and verifiability. I try and add some personal notes to more directly explain my reasoning, since it's not nice to snap at new editors. --McDoobAU93 04:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am gathering sources on JSTOR for a string of articles. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

would like to know more

would like to know more regarding Tea House (Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC))

Hi Jeevanjoseph! I'm so happy you stopped by the Teahouse :) Welcome!! The Teahouse is a support space - it's here to help new editors feel comfortable with Wikipedia and to get in the game of editing with ease and support of experienced editors and fellow new editors! So ask away if you have a question; we will do our best to help out! You are also encouraged to reply to other new and experienced editors as well. You can learn a few more things about the Teahouse by clicking here to view our FAQ. I hope this helps you understand what the Teahouse is about. Feel free to respond if we can explain more, or ask a new question. Thanks for coming by! SarahStierch (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles about punk bands

I like writing about punk bands, is there anyplace where other people who like that also hang out? SarahStierch 05:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in the Punk music WikiProject. :) Banaticus (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I left you our new newsletter on your talk page. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Very cool, thank you to you both! I'll check out the project. SarahStierch (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)