Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slimhady (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 7 March 2012 (→User pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Maproom, a Teahouse host

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

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.

Click here to ask a question »

Template:Archive box collapsible

Slideshow In Creole

How can I create a slideshow of images in Wiki Mark up language? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Shop in Wikipedia?

Is there any coffee shop in Wikipedia? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm afraid not, though I'm sure you can get some coffee here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to add images in a Wikipedia page

I have a problem to add an image in the pages of Wikipedia what kind of pictures I can use? PRARTHITA 15:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)PRARTHITAPRARTHITA 15:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prarthita (talk • contribs)

Hi Prarthita! Generally, the rule is that photos need to be educational, which really just means that they need to show something in the article rather than being decorative. Beyond that, so long as it meets the licensing requirements, there's a lot of flexibility.
In regard to licensing, as a general rule images need to either be public domain or released under a creative commons license. If it is a photo you took, that means that you allow the image to be used by anyone for any purpose, so long as they credit you. There are exceptions, such as logos, but generally you need to ensure that the image is allowed to be used for any purpose before you can upload it to Wikipedia.
Otherwise, to add a new image to Wikipedia, you need to click on "Toolbox" over on the left side of your browser (in the colum under the Wikipedia logo). There you will see an "Upload file" option, and that will lead you through the steps. Better yet, if the image is able to be used for any purpose, you might want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons here, which will let it be used in all of the different language Wikipedias and related projects.
If you have any trouble just let us know. :) - Bilby (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting photos on Wikipedia

How do you post a photo on Wikipedia, so that it can be used in an article? Formido576 (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On your left hand side of the screen you have this "Toolbox" panel in which you'll find "Upload file" option, click on it, and follow the easy steps. It will ask you to upload image on Wikimedia Commons, which is a better thing to do as all the uploaded images on Commons can be used across all Wikimedia projects. Also, read our image use policy. — Bill william comptonTalk 13:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to know html to use wiki?

I'm trying to edit my User page, but I find it very hard to make changes that look how I want them to. Do we need to know html to make edits?Kimalicious (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, html is not used for the vast majority of work on Wikipedia. In some cases raw code is used but that mostly gets hidden away in in templates. The only bits of html you'll run into in most cases is a break tag (<br>) or a non-breaking space (&nbsp;). User pages are places some editors do use a fair amount of html, but that's just for fun.
'Wiki' means quick, and the idea is that it's supposed to be quick and easy to edit. Alarbus (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kilimicious. Thanks for dropping by. Have a look at other peoples pages and open them for editing to see how they are formatted. You can copy bits you like and paste them into your own page then make any changes that are needed to personalise them for yourself. Cancel the edit window on the other user's page rather than saving when you are done and they will not even know.--Charles (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

How Do you make a status On your user page As in if your not in wikipedia at one time it says you are busy but if you are it says you are on wikipedia? Slimshady (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Slimshady. I hope you're the real Slim Shady.  :) Anyways, there are several user-made tools you can use as "status indicators". One is at Wikipedia:Editor activity indicator. Is that what you're looking for? --Jayron32 23:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Slimshady! If you're looking for a status indicator, you can use the Qui script by User:TheDJ. It's a helpful tool that shows your status to other editors and lets you add friends. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 01:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesnt really help i tried it but neither one worked for me I hate to criticize someone but it just doesnt work.

Regarding names

A while back I developed Jeanne de Jussie for a class assignment; one problem I ran into was the prevalence of alternative titles in the text I used. Some characters were referred to as "Duke of ___" and "Prince of ___", so I used other Wikipedia pages to determine what their actual name was given the time period. In the article I provide both title given in the text and the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article. Is there are more efficient way to resolve this? Does it have to do with redirects? (And some other general advice on the article would be appreciated as well.) Pferrete (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pferrete! I looked over the article, and I see where it looks like you linked to articles such as Prince of Piedmont. That looks fine the way it is, Wikipedia has lots of articles on titles of nobility. Some of those titles had multiple forms, and in most of those cases, a redirect exists. For example, "Prince of Piedmont" actually redirects to Lord of Piedmont. This isn't a problem, really; that's the reason redirecting exists in the first place! I hope I was able to answer your question. Do you have any more questions about the article, or about editing in general? --Jayron32 20:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Article titles are generally settled on according to the common name of the subject. Redirects exist (and can be created) to cater for other valid titles. The choice of actual wikilink may depend on context. If an editor thinks an existing link is inappropriate s/he will probably change it some time and be willing to discuss why. -- Trevj (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pferrete, and thanks for stopping by with your question. The name of an article commonly follows a predetermined naming convention. If the article creator is unaware of the most appropriate choice of name, select what you think is appropriate and just realize it may be renamed later, or, as you mentioned, there may be redirects to assist with finding the article with an alternate name. If there is no naming convention, for example, if someone is known by "Jane Doe", "Jane Ann Doe", or "Jane A. Doe", I google search each with quotes around them to see which has the most ghits. Another element of naming convention is to use of a qualifier, so if there are lots of articles on different Jane Doe people, the article could be named "Jane Doe (mayor)". I hope this helps. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UMD teahouse party

Looking to join some wikiprojects! Is there a page that has a full collection of projects, and any personal recommendations? JXC59 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there JXC59, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory has an extensive list of all the Wikiprojects divided by topic (click on the links in the grey box on the left hand side). As for personal recommendations...well, it really depends on what you are interested in. I, for example, follow the activities of three very closely: WP:WikiProject Video games, WP:WikiProject College football and WP:WikiProject Wikify, a maintenance project. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JXC and thanks for your question! Some projects are more active than others, so take a look at several, and maybe narrow it down later. My first wikiproject was WikiProject Anthroponomy and the editors out there "taught me the ropes"; the participants at WikiProject Military history are very well organized; but there are plenty of great wikiprojects out there and they'd be glad to meet another editor. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid to really add anything...

I have been using wikipedia for a long time now, but this is the first time I made an account and started actually started editing articles and adding to them. However, after trying to read all of the rules, and hearing a lot of things about people's content being deleted or biased I am kind of afraid to actually do anything other than Copy-editing articles for grammar and things like that. I dunno, I guess I'm just not really sure where to start. How do you guys recommend really getting into Wikipedia without breaking the rules too bad (there seems to be a lot of them)? I guess I'm kind of afraid I'm going to step on too many people's toes or mess up some wiki page really bad. DrWolfen (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DrWolfen, don't sweat it. Really. Wikipedia only has 5 core values, and one of them is be bold. You literally cannot break anything at Wikipedia, so have at it. As long as you are genuinely attempting to improve something at Wikipedia, you aren't going to get in trouble. Just don't pick any fights, try to learn from any mistakes you make (we ALL make them, especially early on) and otherwise be agreeable to working well with others, and you shouldn't have any real problems. Is there any other question we can answer for you? --Jayron32 19:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to communicate your motivations (e.g. in edit summaries) you'll probably settle in after a short while. I don't think it's unusual to start out with typos and develop from there: check out the first edits of other users and see for yourself! Anyway, welcome! -- Trevj (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DrWolfen, one thing to try, if you want to create a new article, or make a lot of changes to an existing one, is to create a page in your user space -- User:DrWolfen/Sandbox or User:DrWolfen/Name of article -- and you can edit there to your heart's content. Then, when the new article has enough sources to make sure it won't be questioned, you can post it in the main encyclopedia area. Or if the article exists already, you can post a link to your user page on the article's talk page, and ask whether anyone would object if you inserted the new version. It's best not to do this with contentious pages until you're a bit more experienced (because if people do say "yes, we mind," it means you have wasted your time), but for anything non-contentious, it's a good way to ease yourself in. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just started myself a couple of weeks ago. In my case, I had created a memorial on Find A Grave for a British flying ace. When I realized that there was just a stub for him on Wikipedia, I decided to use my research to write a Wikipedia article. Consider starting with something that you're interested in as a hobby. Don't worry about photos for your first article until after you're finished writing it. Then, when you do photos, just start with photos that are already on Wikipedia or Wikimedia. Don't worry about uploading photos yet. I just uploaded my first one a couple of days ago. There are so many basic things that I don't know yet. However, one thing that helped me a lot was to look at other articles that I thought were good and were in the same topic category that I was writing. I go into edit mode and look at the various codes that the writer/writers employed to create the article. I've written eight articles in the last 2 weeks and that's basically how I did it. Right now, I'm trying to figure out the best way to get specific suggestions on how to improve the articles I've already written. You mentioned concern about content being deleted. Just try to avoid adding your personal opinion to the articles. Also, try to find topics that other people think are worthy of having an article. One way to do this is to look at Wikipedia articles that are related to your area of research. If a phrase is in red, someone thought there should be a Wikipedia article on it and you might want to be the one to write it. Also, I would recommend submitting all of your early articles for approval to make sure that you're heading in the right direction. I hope this is helpful. As I mentioned, I'm brand new, too, and I don't know my way around yet very well. ACP2011 (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is great to have this feedback from a newish editor. You are doing awesome work. I hope you are entering these new or expanded articles for "Did you know?" on the front page.--Charles (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, I'm new enough that I don't even know what or where the "front page" is. ACP2011 (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the jigsaw logo at the top of the page you get the front page. There is a featured article and current affairs and anniversary sections that are changed daily. The Did you know (DYK) section showcases new and 5x expanded articles less than five days old and changes three times daily. There is a link for nominating articles. You get a credit for each article shown like the ones at the bottom of my user page.--Charles (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll check it out. ACP2011 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I'm trying to fill in the template for my Arras Flying Services Memorial nomination. What is meant by hook? Also, the same template indicates article 2. Does that mean that I can submit more than one article for nomination at the same time? Thanks ACP2011 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "hook" is an interesting or quirky fact from the article which is intended to catch the readers interest. It must be well sourced. Sometimes two or more related new articles can be harnessed together in one DYK, but not often. Alt is a description of the main photo for visually impaired readers.--Charles (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are the general guidelines on Talk pages?

More specifically, there are many Talk pages of an article that are years old. What are the general guidelines in responding to questions or contributing information to these sections? I know on some forums it is generally frowned upon to "resurrect" "dead threads". What is wikipedia's stance on this if one finds the content on the discussion pages lacking, but improvable? Emries (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For general guidelines, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Regarding your question, some talk pages are very active (their old threads get archived automatically), while most talk pages see almost no activity, so the questions/threads sometimes just sit there for years. I don't think there's any harm in responding to an old thread, if you like; it certainly isn't frowned upon. I think most editors don't bother with inactive talk pages much, and opt for improving the article directly (which is the important part, after all!). Mlm42 (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Consensus can change, but I agree that for non-contentious areas it can be a more efficient use of time to simply edit to improve. For example, you could edit something prompted by a previous discussion and drop a short note explaining what you've done and why. -- Trevj (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History page layout

How do I read the information in the history page lines, specifically the numbers in parenthesis that appear in both red and green with plus and minuses.

Abster397 (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abster. Information about the history page is located at Help:Page history. The red and green numbers refer to how many characters (more or less) that a document has been changed by. So a green "+25" would mean that 25 characters were added, and a red "-100" would mean 100 characters were removed. Does that help? --Jayron32 19:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

joining wikiprojects

How do you join a wiki project?Sdavis21 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all joining a Wikiproject is very informal, and you can still help them even if you are not an official member. However, most Wikiprojects will have a list of members that you can add yourself too. For example, WikiProject United States has a member list here with many sub-projects listed below it. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sdavis21, there are loads and loads of wikiprojects, some active some not. Which topic areas are you interested in editing? I can figure out where to point you. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best Resources for Underdeveloped Articles

I've been looking through a the directory of stub categories, and the sheer amount of categories is overwhelming. Are there any other ways to look through for underdeveloped articles, in addition to going through the Category:Stub categories page? Thank so much!AbbyShant (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AbbyShant. Due to the work of the folks at WikiProject Stub sorting, the stub categories are more easy to navigate. So perhaps this is what you are looking for: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs. Cheers, Mlm42 (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making a new article

I'm interested in creating a page/article for a subject the English Wikipedia doesn't have any information on. However, I'm fairly new to the community and to editing. How long should I wait before diving in and making a page? I don't want the article to be declared "irrelevant" simply because I haven't been involved long enough. Pistachio13 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hard limit that you need to wait - an article shouldn't be deleted simply because you're a new editor. We do have inclusion policies though, that mostly revolve around the idea of notability, especially as expressed in the general notability guideline. The policies are kind of long and messy, but as a first order approximation: as long as there isn't already an article about a subject and you can find at least three reliable sources (usually news articles, journal articles, or books) that discuss the subject in detail, then an article is probably appropriate. If you'd like, if you drop me a note with your idea for an article topic here or on my talk page, I'll look over it for you and let you know if I think it will work. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pistachio13. Thanks for dropping by. You may wish to consider working up the article in your own user space, your sandbox or another special page, before releasing it into the wild. If it is notable and meets some minimum requirements you can then get it shown on the front page in the "Did you know?" section and get a credit posted on your talk page for creating it.--Charles (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, I wanted to know where to go once there is enough relevant information for an article to be, as Pistachio13 put it, "released into the wild". I would like to have my article reviewed by other editors, to double check it and let me know if the 3 reliable sources are valid. I've visited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review but kind of got discouraged because my article does not seem to fit into the categories that many of the copyeditors handle. I'm not sure what to do at this point. Any tips? Thanks!--GMHayes (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for creation? -- Trevj (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Trevj! I did not see that page, but thank you for directing me. I'm taking a look at it now.---GMHayes (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gmhayes4, are you talking about User:Gmhayes4/April Masini? And yes, Peer Review tends to be for more advanced articles, not for newer submissions. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Nolelover. That is the article. Thank you for the information about Peer Review (maybe down the road I will be able to jump into the deep end).--GMHayes (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Video game/media criteria for copy/edit?

I recently attempted to update the page for a popular MMORPG named Star Wars: The Old Republic. I started by giving some in-depth descriptions of advanced character classes, but then it was immediately erased. My description was considered "vandalism" and/or "encyclopedic". I was wondering what the general outlines for the editing of gaming/media content was that is different than that of other topics (people, places, concepts, etc.)? Benjamin J. Kim (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they were wrong to label your edits vandalism, if that helps any. However, Wikipedia requires that content be reliably source by independent parties. For video games like SWTOR, it can be extremely hard to find sources for this content so additions like what you made are labeled "OR", or original research. I know that the first thing that pops into your head will probably be that there are hundreds and thousands of other articles that use even less sources, but that's just the way things are. Because an article like SWTOR is more popular, there will be more people watching it and hence more people around to undo your edits. I hope this helped. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Pictures to Articles

I usually only add text based edits to articles, but I recall attempting to add a picture to an article about a year ago, and it being a difficult process which scared me away from trying to add pictures. Is there a page that describes the process of adding pictures that might make it more user friendly? Jlooney888 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about uploading new images, or adding images that have already been upload to articles? Help:Files has sections on both problems. Uploading images can be very tricky so if that's what you're trying to do, please don't be afraid of coming back here to ask more follow up questions. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joining a WikiProject

Is there a general site where I can find a database of all the Current WikiProjects? 1Q84 (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there 1Q84 :) This is the full directory (click on the subject to see individual projects). Is that what you're looking for? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much appreciated. 1Q84 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 1Q84! One more resource for you. One problem I've encountered is that a lot of Wikiprojects used to be active, but are less active now, so you might not find anyone around when you go to check them out. However, you can find an up to date list of some of the most active Wikiprojects here, where you're likely to find people who share your interests. Hope that helps! - J-Mo 23:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a compendium of sports uniform templates?

I want to fix up the uniforms on a handful of teams (both college and pro), but have trouble getting certain designs to look how I want them to. Where could I go to figure this out?

Broadcastterp (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask at the Wikiproject of the respective sport. For example, if you are trying to work on college football uniforms than you would ask at WT:CFB, WT:NFL for pro football, WT:FOOTY for association football (soccer), WT:CBB for college basketball and so on. They should be able to give you much more specific help. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for pages

I was wondering are there any pages documenting this presidential election? Mel7257 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mel! Which country's presidential election are you referring to? You can find links to every one scheduled for this year at List of presidential elections in 2012. I hope that helps you find what you are looking for! --Jayron32 19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Jayron says, it depends on the country. :) However, if you are looking for the elections in the United States the main main is United States presidential election, 2012. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mel! If you have interested in participating in improving/updating articles for the US President Elections we also have a WikiProject, a collaborative environment for Wikipedians interested in that subject. Drop by the page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections. Sarah (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding citations to articles that are lacking them

I want to go through some articles that are lacking sources and add citations/sources to them. I was wondering the best way to go about this. Where should I start my research in order to add sources/citations to articles that need them? Abster397 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abster; what a noble goal! This obviously heavily depends on which articles you are trying to add sources to; but I've found generally one of the quickest, easiest ways to find good sources is to do a Google Books search. Also, the folks at WikiProject Unreferenced articles probably have lots of good advice for you. :-) Mlm42 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Abster, your "adding citations" might result in a certain rewriting of the text, which usually makes very much sence. I usually go to the library and get 2-3 books, and I find what I need. Ziko (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are DYK pages selected?

The Do You Know pages are pretty interesting. How are they selected or nominated and what comes out of it? Thanks in advance. Emries (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emries! I'm glad you enjoy DYK. If you want more information about the process for selecting DYK entries, you can find it at Wikipedia:Did you know. Is there any other questions you have for us? --Jayron32 19:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Emries. As far as I know any article that is submitted will be shown as long as it passes the standards for notability and verifiability. It is the picking out of quirky facts known as "hooks" from even quite mundane articles that helps to make the section interesting I think. The guys who work on that part of the front page select lists to display that cover a range of subjects and avoid having more than one or two from any country on at the same time. I have done a few of these articles and while they must be under five days old when submitted it does take quite a time for them to work through the system until the proud day when you can show your friends your work on worldwide view. That may be in the night where you are though.--Charles (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my IMDb references are being deleted?

It is well known that IMDb is a reliable source when it comes to who acted in a movie. IMDb does not allow people to randomly add themselves to movies without written proof or direct proof from the movie company. Yet, I am told by the wikipedia editors it is not a reliable source. The only other way to prove a person is in a tv show in the 1990's is to show the film or tape of the show or go to IMDb. I am very frustrated. with this. Erica Nicole 18:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)erica.nicoleNYCErica Nicole 18:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Erica Nicole! Nice to see you stopped by. Regarding sources, actually, IMDb is not a very reliable source, because they depend heavily on un-vetted, user-contributed content. That means that the information on IMDb could be submitted by users, and we do not know whether or not it has been verified. As far as your specific problem, do you have any more details? What person are you talking about and what TV show are you talking about? If we know what specific problem you are having, maybe we can give you more detailed help. Thanks! --Jayron32 19:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, Erica. After looking at your edit history, is appears you have been reverted a few times - and I agree, this can be very frustrating! :-) But yes, Jayron has a point; see also these points regarding online sources. Wikipedians use the term "Reliable source" is a much more strict sense than most people do.. for example, with our definition, Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source (even though many people think otherwise). See also: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). Cheers, Mlm42 (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If the reasons for the reverted edits are not clear, you could try leaving a polite note on the editors' talk pages asking why. f the actors don't have articles but there are enough references to start one, you can add a wikilink anyway. This will appear in red and another editor may then be inspired to begin the article. One issue with adding details to articles is that they have to be balanced and if left unchecked could potentially expand to dwarf the main content in some cases! This would be giving undue weight and could potentially be addressed by splitting out the cast list elsewhere. -- Trevj (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search keywords

I was wondering why when I do a search for keywords, the article I created isn't showing up. Can someone help? Thanks :) (unsigned comment left 19:13, 5 March 2012‎ User talk:Luckyleftyllc)

It would be helpful if you include the article you are talking about and possibly some search words. If you created an article about a business (guessed by your username), it may have been deleted. Please sign your posts in Wikipedia with 4 tildes ~~~~ heather walls (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Hey there, and thanks for dropping by the Teahouse. Wikipedia's search engine is very good at finding names of articles, and for what it's worth, it doesn't take long for web-wide search engines like Google and Bing to find new articles, either. I just created an article for an upcoming video game, Forza Horizon, and Google is already showing it in search results. Is that where you're trying to search for the article, or are you trying them in Wikipedia's search box? --McDoobAU93 19:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name of my article is "Maurice "Moe" Carpenter - The Inkredibles". When I search the keyword "the inkredibles" it doesn't show up in the list of results. I'm speaking about Wikipedia's search box. (unsigned comments by User talk:Luckyleftyllc)

I looked at this, and I may have seen a problem. The name of the article is somewhat confusing. Is Maurice Carpenter also known as "The Inkredibles" or is he part of that group? And as Heather said, please help us help you by posting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your posts on talk pages or here in the Teahouse so we can reach you directly. --McDoobAU93 19:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is also known as The Inkredibles and I'd like people to see him when they search for The Inkredibles. Luckyleftyllc (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I can help you. My suggestion would be to move the article to simply the artist's name (Maurice Carpenter). Then, if you wanted to make it easier for readers who know him as "The Inkredibles" or as Moe Carpenter, you can provide what are called redirects. These terms will indeed show up in the search box and will take you directly to Carpenter's article, when set up properly. Would you like some assistance on your talk page with this? --McDoobAU93 19:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your help would be greatly appreciated!! :D Luckyleftyllc (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

I was wondering, do pictures on wikipedia always have to be from the wikimedia commons?YodaFan67 (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Strictly speaking, no. But... there are strict rules regarding non-free content criteria, because the aim is for the encyclopedia to be completely free. Images displayed in articles can only link to those hosted at Wikimedia projects. For Commons images, the filename specified on local language Wikipedias uses the information from Commons. Non-free images (hosted locally and not automatically usable across all Wikipedias) are liable to be recommended for deletion if a free equivalent is (or could be) available. They also require specific rationales for use and may be subject to reductions in size/resolution. -- Trevj (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yoda! So glad you stopped by the Teahouse. Yeah, at Trevj says - 95% of images on Wikipedia are from Commons or are free. We rarely use copyrighted images because of legal reasons, and like he said, we want Wikipedia and it's content to be free for everyone to use without worrying about messing with the law and copyright stuff. Do you have a certain type of image you want to use? SarahStierch (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get it now. Thanks! YodaFan67 (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PDF References

Hello Teahouse!

I have been working on article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gmhayes4/April_Masini for several weeks, and a few editors have told me that reliable sources are needed in order to move the page. After reading the requirements, I feel confident that I have enough information but it is in PDF form. Two of the reliable sources are from magazines, and are not linked to an online source.

I do not know how to cite this properly. Can any of you help? Thank you!

GMHayes (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! That's great work with the new article. With sources, there is no requirement that they be available online - you are welcome to use offline sources. If this wasn't the case, I'd be in trouble, as I enjoy researching historical documents too much. What is important, though, is that the sources are publicly accessible, (the original documents, rather than your PDFs), and that you provide enough information so that someone sufficiently motivated could do so.
Magazine articles are great, because they are generally reliable and other people can access back issues if they need to. I'd use the cite journal template for a magazine, so it would take the form:
{{cite journal | author = Some Person | date = 5 March 2000 | title = An article | journal = A magazine | issue = 1 | number = 1 | pages = 20–22 }}
That would provide you with (although you would need to fill in fields better):
Some Person (5 March 2000). "An article". A magazine. 1 (1): 20–22.
Full details are at Template:Cite journal, or you could use the generic equivalent at Template:Cite. You also don't need to fill out all the fields (there may be no volume or issue, or no author's byline). Anyway, I hope that helps! - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much, Bilby! That is exactly what I needed to move forward. Sarah Stierch has been helping me wrap my head around staying objective in tone and helping me edit along the way, so sufficient praise is due to her willingness to ROCK! Thanks again! ---GMHayes (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More referencing

So, I wasn't sure if I should have made my question below or start a new one. If this belongs with the other question (Referencing Topo Maps?), feel free to move it there.

I'm trying to reference some legal suvey data - specifically a pipeline right of way. I can see where it is using the Canada Land Survey System overlay (.kmz) in Google Earth. I got the kmz file from the CLSS website. Is this a referencable source? I can't find anything decent that is on their website (I imagine because they have this overlay, but I don't really know).

Sorry for all these questions, but I've read some crazy talk pages about citations etc. Don't want to get into that. Thanks! --JonGDixon (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by JonGDixon. That is a very technical question for us. You may be better off trying the reference desk. Perhaps someone will come by later who knows more than I do.--Charles (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I've posted my question there. Thanks a lot for your help.--JonGDixon (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article to a different name.

I have been working on an article with a few other editors and we are waiting to move it to another name until we have enough info and sources for it to be accepted. We are going to move it out of the userspace that it is currently in. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Brocotv/gabriel_caste)

My question is, at what point should I move the article to a "main page" called Gabriel Caste, an actor in the New M. Night Shyamalan film "After Earth." Caste and another actor, are listed and both red tagged because there is no article. I want to work on Gabriel Caste and than the other actor, "Kristoffer Hivju".

Both are established actors and have works listed on IMDB. I came across these guys when research the AFTER EARTH movie, and thought, hey, why not start my wiki editor adventure with these guys?

Thanks for the help! ChrisNate2 ChrisNate2 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I would like to thank you for helping out Wikipedia. It looks like you did a good job on User:Brocotv/gabriel caste. The only problem I see is that you use IMDb and YouTube as references. Generally, you are not supposed to use those websites as reliable sources. So, I would suggest that you find more independent, reliable sources to back up your work. Other than that, the article looks like it is on its way for the main namespace. -- Luke (Talk) 19:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm glad that you contacted us for help. As far as the article, keep in mind that it has already been deleted once, due to failure to credibly indicate how and/or why the subject is significant and/or important. You might also find the notability guidelines for actors helpful. If you need help or have more questions, please feel free to check back with us. Happy editing! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot Lukep913! I will get working on researching other sites. If you have any suggestions on where to look, let me know! Thanks again, ChrisNate2 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting one-on-one comparison articles on Wikipedia

Hi folks.. I would like to create an article comparing the pros and cons of Renewable energy with Thorium. Is such one-on-one comparisons allowed on Wikipedia. I did not see anything against it in the short reference material I went through, but I can't help notice that I do not recollect seeing such comparisons earlier on Wikipedia. Seems almost conspicuous by its absence. Would there be any policy against creating comparison articles. Thanks for your help. Nashtam (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's not an absolute rule against them, but our policies do make them rare. One to one comparison articles are generally acceptable if the same one to one comparison is commonly made in reliable sources - basically, if you can find at least four or so articles in mainstream media outlets, academic journals, or academic presses that directly compare the same topic, an article about them is probably okay. But even then, since Wikipedia is limited to repeating what has been said in reliable sources, and we can't conduct original research or synthesis, articles must be limited to simply relaying the things about the comparison that are stated in reliable sources. So it'd be okay to mention "Author X writing in academic journal Y states that factor Z is why thorium energy is totally the bomb, dawg," but it wouldn't be okay for you to independently go out and collect a bunch of information about both thorium and renewable energy and then make the comparisons yourself - even if that information seems like totally reasonable points to make a comparison from. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL.. Gotcha! Reliable sources only and no original research or synthesis. Think it should be doable given those constraints. Will get back with some follow up queries on this line later on. Thanks a ton. Nashtam (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to know what to edit

This is my very first day editing, and I am finding it a bit overwhelming. Is there an easy way to know which articles need more information, sources, and/or links added to them. There are so many articles that I find it easy to feel like I don't have anything to contribute, even though I'm sure I can help out somewhere. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance! Mel290 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mel, and welcome! Honestly, there's tons of opportunities for you to contribute. My first suggestion would be to look for subjects you like (hobbies, interests, etc.) and look at their articles. Not only might you learn something new, but you might find something you need to add or fix. It could be something as simple as spelling or grammar, or maybe you might see something that just isn't correct and need to either find a source or outright remove it. What are some of your interests, if I may ask? --McDoobAU93 01:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mel! You might also look up the towns in your area, and see if those articles could use some assistance. It might be something as small as fixing punctuation or spelling. Or maybe the article could use a history section? As for me, today, I worked on a couple of villages in southern England (1000s of miles from my home), but the fact is, when I got up this morning, I had no idea that I would work on these articles! Hope this helps. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Additionally, you could take a look at Category:Wikipedia backlog. -- Trevj (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all! These are all really helpful suggestions, and I will try them all out. Mel290 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to check out a WikiProject you might be interested in. WikiProjects consist of groups of editors who edit articles on specific topics; for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing (see a list of WikiProjects here). There are often to-do lists on these project pages; for WikiProject Computing, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Tasks/Expand stubs. WikiProjects are also a great way to find editors with common interests. InverseHypercube 04:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing Topo Maps?

Hey everyone,

So, I am trying to reference a topo map (specifically mapsheet NTS 105D) and I'm having a hard time. I can find it on the web at canmaps.com, but the map is actually published by Natural Resources Canada. I have used the canmaps.com site to gather the information as you can preview a map. I used it to get some location names around the Ibex Valley.

I'm trying to cite the source, but I'm not sure what to do. I can't find a location on the NRCan website that has the topo maps, but I know that they are the publishers and canmaps is just a retailer. What I'd like to do is just reference the topo map, but I'm not really sure how to do that, properly (style etc.)

Suggestions? Help? Please?

JonGDixon (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My experience searching Canada gov. sites is about as fruitful as yours! Canmaps does provide the map identifier number, i.e. "011K" for the 1:250000 map of BC here: [1]. As for formatting, use the "map" cite template: WP:CITET. Publisher would be National Topographic System of Canada. Hope this helps, The Interior (Talk) 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! That's exactly what I was looking for! When I used the "cite" button in the editor, it only came up with four options (which are likely the four most commonly used) but I thought that was it for templates. I appreciate the help! --JonGDixon (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I have a new one. I'm trying to reference a technical report that was submitted to the Yukon Government regarding the land use in the Ibex Valley. Now, a couple of things:

  • It isn't a journal paper (or peer reivewed now that I think about it) but it is public information that is being used in land planning. Does that make it a reliable source?
    • Am I better off looking at their references and trying to track down the reports that they based their information from?
  • If it is reliable, is there a way to cite it? I would normally cite the author (although no other names on this report, just the name of the company), date, who it was submitted to, etc. The people that prepared it are professionals in their field, I have no doubt about that.

I'd appreciate some insight.

JonGDixon (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link or PDF of the report, or is it print only? Has the territorial government published it under their aegis, or is it something still in planning stages? Need a bit more info before I could say definitively. The Interior (Talk) 02:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The report is published, on the gov website, as a pdf. http://www.emr.gov.yk.ca/lands/pdf/lap_ibex.pdf. There is a letter at the beginning of the report, stating that it is approved as an advisory document. --JonGDixon (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd interpret the letter as a form of peer-review, the gov. obviously trusts the data. Although the corporate authorship might turn off some, a consultancy like that could be generally expected to provide quality information. Unless someone tells you otherwise, go ahead and use it. You can always use its references if another editor objects. As for templates, just use a big one that has the fields you have data for, like "cite journal" or "citation". Or old-fashioned citation style of your choice, we don't really have a mandated cite style across the wiki. I like the templates because I'm lazy :). The Interior (Talk) 03:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the authorship I'd go with: "UMA Engineering Ltd., with David Hedmann & Associates, Burnaby, B.C." The Interior (Talk) 03:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I was thinking, but couldn't find much wording around technical reports. I already have the citation template open. You have been a big help, much appreciated.--JonGDixon (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me test my Rollback feature inside my Sandbox?

I recently have acquired rollback rights. I would like to test them out appropriately, so that I will not make a mistake in the future. Would anyone be willing to help me test it out in a controlled environment, like my sandbox? I am also using Twinkle to let you know. Thanks. WheresTristan (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you would like an editor to make some edits in your sandbox? I must add that it is great that you are testing your new tools out like this (many people just jump in with no idea of how exactly everything works), although I think you'll find they're pretty easy :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to rollback your own edits, as well. I'm looking at my talk page, where I made the last edit, and the "rollback" link is available. And I agree with Nolelover, congrats on taking these important rights so seriously and wanting to take 'em for a test drive first! --McDoobAU93 00:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For closure's sake. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Wikipedia:Rollback feature#Requesting rollback links to a test page. I was very recently assigned rollback myself but have yet to test it out. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one is for the ladies! (New and experienced Wikipedians! :) )

Ok! This question is for female contributors to Wikipedia - new and experienced! This month is Women's History Month: have you edited any articles related to inspiring women recently that you'd like to share? Or is there a woman who has a Wikipedia article that inspires you? For me, I worked with another editor to make Louise Nevelson a good article a while ago, she's one of my favorite artists and was quite a cool and eccentric woman. What about you? :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Roosevelt and Georgia O'Keeffe inspire me. Roosevelt, for her silent "dignity" hidden in her childhood, and O'Keeffe, for her beautiful paintings, and inspiring others that anything (even a cow bone) can be drawn beautifully. Rosalina2427 (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Good question! I like Louise Nevelson too, but I'm a bit partial to Georgia O'Keeffe. She greatly influenced my painting and sculpting in school. Fast forward a hundred years... I like reading about women like Libby Thompson, also known professionally as Squirrel Tooth Alice. Her hooker name cracks me up. You know that word game where you combine the name of your favorite pet and the street you grew up on? I would be Frisky Sycamore. HA! I haven't edited "Alice's" article yet, but I am determined to do so before this year is over! Right now, I'm working on developing an article about Eleanor Owen, founder of NAMI and a legend in the state of Washington. She's currently 91 years old and still going strong! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 00:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, gotta love Ms. O'Keefe. She was pretty badass! Leave it to Cindy to teach us about someone new - Squirrel Tooth Alice, WOW. Add her to my "potential Halloween costumes" list :) SarahStierch (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Teahouse! Wow! I've learned so much just by reading the articles listed in this talk. I am in the process of creating an article about April Masini, who is a TV and film producer, author, and relationship expert. She has been a game changer, behind-the-scenes in the entertainment industry, especially in Hawaii. She's worked on Baywatch and Blue Crush, and has a handful of other cool gigs under her belt. She seems to be one of those ladies that is everywhere but you only see her for a second because she's already moved on to the next big thing! Needless to say, I find her interesting and am having a blast creating the article! It's been a challenge to reign in my excitement about her, and stay objective in my article (thanks, Sarah!). All for now. --GMHayes (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In WikiProject Gastropods and WikiProject Bivalves we do have a few articles about women scientists, malacologists (zoologists who work on mollusks), but almost all of our biography articles still need a lot of expansion. For example, the American malacologist Ruth Turner was a very extraordinary woman; I worked indirectly for her for a couple of years at the Museum of Comparative Zoology in the early 1980s. Emily H. Vokes is another very good American malacologist who has just a little stub article that I started last December. Another woman scientist it would be nice to have an article for is the American malacologist Paula M. Mikkelsen, who is mentioned in several existing articles and whose publications are used as references in several articles. If anyone is inspired to work on any of these (or any other similar articles about female scientists), that would be great! Best wishes to all, Invertzoo (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I do is (apart from medical articles) try wherever possible to write authors' names in full in references (thus "Smith, Jane; Jones, Esme; etc") as it's interesting to see how many women are involved in publishing research (answer:lots) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re editing

Have found the site fantastic.

I have only updated my fathers' details as I wanted to keep his memory alive for persons interested and am extremely grateful for having the opportunity to do this on Wikipedia.


Many thanks

Robert Robinson

Robrw (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you are enjoying the site. As you have such a close connection to the subject it would be good to disclose this on the article talk page to counter any accusations of conflict of interest. You also need to find reference sources for any facts you add to the article such as newspaper reports from the time or citations from any biographies that may have been published. I hope you will be inspired to edit other articles as well.--Charles (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be cautious about editing an article that you are connected to. Let another editor edit the article so you don't get accused of conflict of interest or not adhering to a neutral point of view. -- Luke (Talk) 20:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great points by both CHarles and Luke. Robert, Hi! I'd just leave comments on the talk page perhaps suggesting changes or any news articles about your dad. It's easier to allow others to add the content, then you. (I'd have to do that for organizations I'm involved in!) SarahStierch (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

when to add an article?

I was wondering- when I was searching for some topics like businesses or certain websites there are no articles for them. One example is WeFeelFine.org. I noticed that there was an article titled "We Feel Fine" that was deleted in 2007, restored, and then deleted again. How can I see what this article was about? Do I need to contact the moderator to see it?

Thanks, Kim

Kimlewis6 (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You could make a request at WP:UNDELETE, listing a few potential references to include in the article. The references will need to justify the notability of the subject. For businesses and websites, take a look at WP:COMPANIES and WP:WEBSITES. -- Trevj (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

A great thing about Wikipedia is its transparency. Deletion discussions are always saved, for example, so looking at that will give you an idea of what the article was about and why it was deleted. For "We Feel Fine", the deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Feel Fine. It was about a website. InverseHypercube 05:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dihybrid cross

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
DOH! Great call on the ref desk suggestion :) They are like the ever knowing knowledge within the ever knowing knowledge of Wikipedia :) SarahStierch (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons for more information on how to upload photos there.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone on their suggestions for uploading photos. I just uploaded one a couple of days ago and it actually worked! ACP2011 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 comptonTalk 12:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [[2]]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have not used another username in the last 24 hours? That's not really what we want to hear; please stick to this account as yes, using more than one is frowned except for a couple exceptions. What other questions do you have? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do here is try and work it out on the talk page. If that doesn't work, open a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard where several users will be able to chip in and help resolve the issue. Regards, Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting to have a fair discussion on the talk page for more than 4 days now, with no response from the people concerned. Now, I get another warning that I am to be banned without further notice. It will greatly help if someone here can point me to the do's and dont's of banning users. Nashtam (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nashtam. I've been in the same position, where it is very difficult to get people to discuss the issues, but there are processes that can help. The policy you are looking for is WP:Blocking policy, but it won't assist much. What it should make clear is that your last warning was incorrect - you haven't been vandalising the article, but have been involved in an editing dispute over content.
Anyway, the important thing on Wikipedia is finding consensus. So the aim is to try and get people to discuss in order to agree - or at least establish - a viable approach. If the other parties in the dispute aren't talking, or if discussion isn't progressing, you need to get other eyes. You've been trying this, which is great, but if it doesn't work one way the only solution is to look for another. I see that regentspark has weighed in, and I've always been impressed with regentspark, so that may help. Otherwise, the neutral point of view noticeboard is useful in these situations. If you can bring the issue down to a focused question which people can discuss, you can also open it up for a request for comment - but they work best if you can bring it down to a relativly simple issue.
The main thing I would emphasis is patience. I sometimes have to stop and genuinely remind myself that it doesn't always matter if an article is unbalanced in the short term, as what I'm concerned about is making it work in the long term. So sometimes I'll take a slow approach, leaving what I'm worried about in the article while I try to build consensus one way or the other. It means accepting that the article is flawed for a while, which is hard, but it also means that we end up in the right place - even if it wasn't the one I thought it would be. - Bilby (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 incorrect 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyefuwa (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am gathering sources on JSTOR for a string of articles. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Seeeko, I tend to work on writing lots of little articles about weird trivia stuff, but also improving and fixing issues with articles on all sorts of topics. Some people at Wikipedia focus on stuff they are interested in and passionate about, while others go the other way and write about things they don't know about so they can learn about it, research it, and also to control for their opinions and biases: if you write about politics, you might have a bias, but if you write about Russian art, which, let's say, you don't have strong opinions on, you can be more neutral. Everyone is a bit different. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What great answers. Thank you so much for the help. I have another question, however. In terms of articles that you find that are under-edited and such, is there a particular theme you look for or have noticed to be common? As in, what type of things should I be looking for to find an under-edited article and then also, what is considered 'under-edited'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyefuwa (talk • contribs) 19:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in WikiProject Countering systemic bias, which aims to create or expand articles about topics that are underrepresented in Wikipedia. Graham87 03:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yoyefuwa, Seeeko. Today, I'm editing James G. Blaine. It is an article another editor has written and is a current candidate for becoming a Featured Article. What I'm doing is improving the referencing techniques the article uses, with the goal of increased flexibility of constructing and collating the footnotes. I did much the same yesterday to Richard Nixon (already an FA), and the day before to William McKinley (which will be an FA Candidate in about a week). Alarbus (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to the main Teahouse talk page. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Hello my name is Roxy! I'm new at Wikipedia, i wanted to ask you if you can help me on Wikipedia. I'm active on Wikia, Will you help me? :) Roxy (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC). [reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=480738632"