Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dounai (talk | contribs) at 14:05, 5 June 2012 (New question: Trouble adding picture). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Finnusertop, 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! (If appropriate to your question, please link to a specific article using square brackets, i.e. [[article title]].) And if you have some helpful advice for someone else, go ahead: be bold! Click the "edit" button to the right of their question and start the conversation.

Ask a question

Trouble adding picture

Trying to add a picture of mine from commons to Sino-Korean Friendship Bridge but it won't go...Can someone give a hand? It is "Yalu River Sino-Korean Friendship Bridge as seen From Dandong, China 2002.jpg" and I've already added it to the gallery in three different ways..image and file with without brackets but it still won't show up...I'm I doing something wrong? ThanksDounai (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same reference, different pages

Somewhere, (maybe here), I saw how to make a footnote when you are using the same reference but different pages for each note, and I thought I saved it but now I can't find it. If someone would repeat how you do that, or send me to the right help page, I'd be very grateful. Thanks.Tlqk56 (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tlqk56, I'm not exactly an expert at doing it the way I believe you are describing, but I think a useful template is {{Rp}}. It will appear after a reference like this[1]: 82 . So it gives the page number in the text while still only using one reference in the reflist. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Book citation

Yes, that's it! How do you do it if you don't use that template? Do you just repeat the whole ref with the different page each time? Thanks for the help. Tlqk56 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Rowley page

Hi

I am a new editor and I have been editing Jeff Rowley's Wikipedia page. My page has been pulled down by another editor intentionally because they called it was a 'monstrosity'.

I really need help with this page, because I don't event know what's wrong with the page.

I want to keep using Wikipedia, and I dont want to be banned (another editor was warning me about being banned).

Now I feel that everything I am doing is being watched. I had no intention of breaking any Wiki rules and I am still learning them now.

Thank you so much for your help.

Shacktown123 (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shacktown, welcome to the Teahouse. You've had a bit of a rough start but it's nothing that can't be rectified. The main objection that I can see to the way you had rewritten the article on Jeff Rowley was that it was perceived to be written in a non-neutral way and at times used language not understandable to non-surfers. You should consider if you need to list all his achievements, for example, is earning a nomination in the 2012 Billabong XXL Big Wave Awards (for best wipeout?) really a notable achievement? Are these various awards notable or does every surfing magazine run it's own? If an achievement is notable, say, being the first to ride a 50-ft wave then it's ok to put that is but not using such hyperbole, leave that to the bloggers and surfing sites. By using 10 references to support this single piece of information, many of which are just rehashes (if not outright copies) of each other it's looks like you are trying too hard to justify it's inclusion. "Rowley was the first to ride a 50 ft wave, at Albatross, Victoria on 15 September 2011<ref>" might appear slightly boring but is much more neutral than "On 15 September 2011, Rowley made history by riding a 50 foot (15 metre) wave at Albatross in Victoria. He was the only surfer in the water at Albatross to conquer the massive waves on a day considered unsurfable.<ref x 10>"
The charity bit is mostly ok but again cut down on the hyperbole describing him as a "high profile Australian" because he's doing the same role as Cathy Freeman is elevating him to a status that isn't necessarily justified by any reference.
I would drop everything from the Television section onwards including all the galleries and social media listings, that really is just "puff" and adds nothing to the article. A couple of external links to his personal website and the charity's website are fine but the rest are just advertising.
Finally I would suggest that before you amend the article again that you draft out your proposed revision on the article talk page and invite comment before posting to the main article page.
Hope this helps, please ask again if you want clarification or expansion on any of this. NtheP (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help/comments & feedback

As an assignment for work, I am putting together a new article about EBIPM. I've completed an initial draft and I'm looking for feedback/help so it doesn't get deleted once I've published it. It's currently saved in my sandbox. Any help is much appreciated. Thank you. Ryansteiny (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryansteiny, thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I've had a look at your draft and I have to say that despite what you have written in the article, it does read to me as a how-to article and also it is a bit promotional in tone. Ok the how-to isn't in depth but I'd much prefer if the article discussed the concept in more detail and spent less time on the mechanics. Even as a ecological process it still seems to fit the fairly generic Assess -> Design -> Implement -> Evaluate cyclic methodology employed in lots of fields so the emphasis on the steps could be reduced. I'd like to see more on how it was developed, why, by whom, where and when, none of which I can see in the draft as it currently stands.
I said it felt promotional to me, this is because I see phrases like "EBIPM can help land managers in all aspects of managing invasive species by providing a systematic thinking and planning process that is easy to follow because it's set up in a stepwise framework" this really sounds like a sales pitch to me. There's also a summary section which again makes the whole article sound like a taster. Wikipedia is not about selling products but providing articles which discuss their subjects in a neutral fashion. There is a balance to be found about going into too much detail for the average reader and currently I think it goes overboard on the practical and underboard on the theory. The amount of suggested further reading material, all of which refers me to the same website again suggests a underlying promotional tone. I'm also a bit concerned that you say you're putting this article together as a work assignment. Does that mean you have a connection with the body/organisation that own/developed the concept? If so you should read the guidelines on conflict of interest and why it is recommended that people do not edit articles that they have a connection with.
In style there are some alterations I would suggest (some of which are really minor but I'll include for completeness;
  1. Section headings the number of = used should all be increased by one, the lowest level you should use should be two, so the first section would be ==Background==
  2. Only the first word in each section heading should be capitalised unless it's a proper noun
  3. <ref></ref> tags should be after the punctuation marks, not before them
  4. If you are referring to the same source more than once you can use the named reference technique, so the first time you use a reference you would type
    <ref name="A name">Reference details</ref>, on subsequent occasions that you refer to the same reference all you need to enter is <ref name="A name"/>
  5. The references should include the page number(s) that support the information being cited. I know that in the Reference section you have given the page range for the entire article in academic journals which is fine but you should give the page reference in each <ref></ref>
  6. The contents of the reference section should be listed alphabetically, at the moment it's a bit haphazard
  7. Again with regard to the reference section, there is a mix of uppercase and titlecase for editor's names, italics for some journal names and not for others. There should be a consistency. You might want to consider using some of the citation templates, for example {{cite journal}} to help with the formatting and also the identification of journals as the template supports various identifiers like doi
  8. The article needs to be either country specific and acknowledge being so or address things globally. I don't know how recognised worldwide EBIPM is but I don't think "One such rangeland health assessment, . . is currently being adopted or implemented by most government agencies as protocol" is true - true of US Government agencies only perhaps?
I'm sorry if I sound overly critical and/or picky. This is without doubt a notable topic but suffers from being presented in a non-neutral way and without too much effort should be a more than adequate entry on the subject, my feedback is meant to be constructive and if it doesn't come over that way I apologise. NtheP (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to page for Joe Absolom

I'm not sure how to go about adding information to a page, so here's what I have to add:

In the British TV series Chef! starring Lenny Henry, Joe Absolom appeared as an assistant chef with a drinking problem. Here is a quote from the Chef! wiki page:

"The kitchen staff at Le Chateau are overwhelmed, and Gareth simply must find another chef as soon as possible. The new addition to the kitchen staff (Gustav LaRoche) proves to be more than a handful for Gareth when it turns out that he prefers imbibing the wine rather than cooking with it."

This episode aired September 8, 1993.

Can someone that knows what they are doing please enter this in Joe's tv section? Jeanne2012 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jeanne. To add content to articles, a reliable source is needed. I searched for one. According to one episode guide, that episode was first broadcast in 1994. I found no source that listed Joe Absolom as a member of the supporting cast in any Chef! episode. If you know of one, let us know here and I or someone else here will help you make the edits. Hope to hear from you again soon, DocTree (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Training/Spotting vandalism from the Recent Changes page

Can someone direct me to a page explaining the nuances of The Recent Changes page? (as per instructions from Required Tasks_Vandalism on Pluma's Adoption page)Orschstaffer (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's a pretty good explanation at Pluma's page User:Pluma/adoption/vandalism - is there anything in particular you want expanding upon? A general explanation would be repeating what Pluma has already written. NtheP (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Here it is, taken directly from NtheP's link (I felt like it might be useful to break-down the big paragraph):

Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left in the "toolbox" section. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:

  • (diff) (hist) . . Shigeru Miyamoto‎; 14:32 . . (+28) . . 201.152.102.192 (Talk) (→Competition with Sony and Microsoft)

So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.

  • A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
  • The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
  • The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
    • An N! means that it is a new page. An m means that it was marked as a minor edit.
  • The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
  • The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
  • The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
  • The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.


Hope this is not overwhelming :) heather walls (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This 21st century overwhelms me:), I learned basic electronics in USAF with tube-type transistors, learned solid-state electronics with a paperback afterwards, I will c/p to my work page and see if this relates to a meaningful experience on my next visit to the recent changes, also of note, are these listed items the same on contributions pages and similar logs? Orschstaffer (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orchstaffer! There are a number of tools that can help you in the task of spotting and reverting vandalism. If you wish you can also drop by the Counter-Vandalism Unit (a wikiproject dedicated to reverting vandalism) and it's "Academy" if you need help. ;-) benzband (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello benzband, these links at first glance look like a great place to learn the Task of spotting and reverting vandalism. I will investigate them promptly. I might also mention I see that my signline(4tildes) has been removed from the beginning of my statement and left at the end. I am just now viewing layout styles, and while previewing this reply before saving I notice at the bottom This page is a member of 2 hidden categories: Category:Archive boxes with unusual parameters & Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed, maybe these will enlighten as well. Orschstaffer (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, i moved your signature to the end of your comment per Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts. You can read more about hidden categories at Wikipedia:Categorization#Hiding categories. benzband (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template problem

I would like to change the link "Prehistoric Poland" on the "Prehistory and protohistory of Poland" in this template, but I cant find template code. 87.199.9.40 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think you need to worry, the link Prehistoric Poland is a redirect to Prehistory and protohistory of Poland anyway. This is quite a complicated template to edit and deals with specialised topics, in this case articles called [[Prehistoric <country>]] which if as in the case of Poland are named something else then it employs redirects. NtheP (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The V T E in the top left of the navbox refer to View, Talk and Edit. So clicking on E should do it. Be sure to explain the reasons for your change in the edit summary and possibly also at the relevant WikiProject(s). -- Trevj (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - didn't see this had already been answered (with a more detailed explanation) due to the table of contents and navbox conflicting. -- Trevj (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

How are straw polls started? Can anyone start a straw poll? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, anyone can start a straw poll - see Wikipedia:Straw polls. Where to do it depends on the topic you want to poll on. NtheP (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, I couldn't find it earlier. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Stalker

How do you stop someone from stalking you on Wikipedia? I have noticed someone who has been following me around and trying to give me a hard time about edits that I have made. This person seems to just spy on me and everything that I do here and it is extremely irritating. So what should I do? I suppose I could unplug my modem and automatically get a new IP address and go from there and make a new profile, but why should I? thanks! Albert14nx05y (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albert! Welcome to the Teahouse and I am *so* sorry you're having that problem. I'd visit the Administrator's board and inform folks there. If you need any help, feel free to ping me on my talk page, or through email! Sarah (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Albert. I noticed your message here and thought I'd look into it for you. I'm an administrator here, and have looked into this sort of stuff before, so hopefully I can help. However, if you're not happy, please do take Gareth or Sarah's advice and contact someone else about it.

    Now, firstly, I thought I'd set you mind at ease. There's no need to get a new IP address, as there's no way for a normal user, or even administrator, to access it. If you want to make a clean start, we have a guideline to help you WP:CLEANSTART, which explains that you can create a new account and move on with bigger and brighter things, but make sure you don't return to the same behaviour or articles. Secondly, I'd like to request that you don't use the term "stalk". We have editors who have been stalked in real life, and the wikipedia equivalent pales in comparison, and as such there was some agreement that it was insensitive to use the term. Since then, we've adopted the term "WikiHound", or just "hound".

    On to your specific problem. It looks like you and your hounder have interacted on a few pages, Raven-Symoné, Talk:Raven-Symoné, Talk:Erin Matthews, Talk:Jena Malone and both of your talk pages. Now, this other editor has been working on Raven-Symoné for 2 years, so, it's unlikely he followed you there. I'm willing to believe that your first encounter at Erin Matthews was a coincidence. (You called him a loser, from the log). The fact that you were edit warring to add unsourced controversial information to the Raven-Symoné article is likely to send alarm bells ringing to any long term editor. I note that you were blocked for this.

    So, all in all, I don't believe the other editor is following you around, let alone unduly. I will post a message on his talk page asking him to be more sensitive to your feelings towards him, but that's about all that should be done in this case. I apologise for the long reply, and hope it helps. WormTT(talk) 17:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser?

What is a checkuser and can I be one?Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 07:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mir Almaat Ali Almaat and welcome to the TeaHouse. CheckUsers are a small group of users who can, under particular circumstances, see the details of how other users login into wikipedia (not their passwords, but other technical details such as their IP address). CheckUsers are mainly involved in investigating Sockpuppets, who are people who pretend to be multiple people in order to circumvent wikipedia rules. Becoming a CheckUser requires a long and conflict-free period of editing wikipedia, but if you stick around long enough, I see no reason why you shouldn't become one. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please?

I have finally got the guts to make a few edits and would really love it if someone might take a look and let me know how I did? Someone is sure to get to it eventually but attempting to "jump start" the process. ANY thoughts are welcomed, good, bad, indifferent. A writing professor once told me "an authors work is never done, there is always something that can be improved upon, please welcome all the feedback that you can get. . ." Thank you so much in advance!! Tattoodwaitress (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Edit summary. Other than that, yes it's a good, modest start. Next, you might want to introduce a few Links to other articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Jim said, you don't have an edit summary in any of your edits, although that is relatively minor. The edit summary box is right under the main edit window, and right above the "Save Page" button. Typing a short explanation of your edits really helps others to know what you did without actually looking at your edits, and is a highly encouraged practice here. It doesn't have to be long; saying "copyedit" for this edit or "add source" for this edit would be great. Other than that, you're doing well. Glad to see you enjoying yourself :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both... as soon as I left this post I realized I forgot the edit summary. Thanks for checking on them for me. I actually posted one of those feedback notes asking if it is possible to add the edit summary after the fact but I haven't heard back yet. Is it possible or no? Tattoodwaitress (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TW! (I hope you don't mind that I call you that :) ) Nope, you can't go back as far as I know, but, that's okay. If it's something important you can always just post a comment on the talkpage of the article about it. But, if it's not, move onto your next edits :) Sarah (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tatoodwaitress! To follow up with SarahStierch, there is a way to make an edit summary when you forget one. It involves making a dummy edit. You can add an extra space between two words. This should allow you to leave an edit summary, but won't affect the look of the page. Just make sure you check the edit history to make sure the edit summary appears. In addition, there is a way to set your preferences to prompt you if you forget to make an edit summary. You can set that by going to My preferences→Editing→Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Click the check box next to the last one. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I never thought about that. Good idea Ryan :) (Doh!) Sarah (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did go and change my preferences to prompt me when blank summary box. What a great idea. And the extra space sounds sneaky but good. I like sneaky. Too funny. As far as the nickname TW. No I do not mind at all. My best friend calls me TW. You two are awesome thanks again. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but the references added to Kidnapping of Colleen Stan are not reliable [1]. -Cntras (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving short summaries to edits, or rather failing to.

Today I found a link to my contributions page from an edit summary which I failed to enter when I edited another user's page. A left-pointing arrow (←) link on my contributions page took me to the AES page. Is anyone out there who would care to explain what is going here as my concern involves the vandalism mentioned under the What to do heading on the Automatice Edit Summary page? Orschstaffer (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to the teahouse. I am guessing that you are referring to 'Created a page with....'. Usually people who vandalise pages don't leave summaries. So, the AES page says that if you believe that somebody has vandalised a page and not left an edit summary, you can check the edit and see if there is any evidence of vandalism and revert the edit. Hope this answers your queries. Roshan220195 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orschstaffer (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC), Thanks for attempting to clarify, however, my concern lies within the misconceptions a page owner might have that I attempted to vandalize, which I did not, and assuming good faith on my part, I realize the page owner can revert. The immediate lesson learned here on my part is to NOT to forget to leave the short summary and SIGN the post.[reply]

Hi Orschstaffer - I wanted to mention that you can avoid forgetting to add an Edit Summary by making a change to your Preferences. Just click on My Preferences>Editing and enable "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Thanks for visiting the Teahouse; and I hope my response was helpful! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orschstaffer (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC), Awesome, thanks Rosie. its a done deal.[reply]

Wow. I never knew that existed. Thanks Rosie! Sarah (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to analyse the article, find what is wrong

Hello, I started to work on the article about "Swiss International Hotels & Resorts" a long time ago. The article was declined several times. Nevertheless I made improvements and got rid of the comment "considered as an advertisement". Links for the coverage in media around the globe are all there. But still something is wrong. Swiss International is undergoing big developments around the world and the info should be available for wikipedia readers.

Please help me to finalise the article.Thank you in advance! EkaterinaTerentyeva (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. As you say Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Swiss International Hotels & Resorts has been reviewed several times and the reviews always seem to say the same thing - that the notability of the company isn't established. If it is a notable company then there is an expectation that other people will have written about the company. That evidence in the form of reliable sources is absent here. Most of the references are either from the company itself or are based upon press releases issued by the company so they aren't independent. You need to find some references that are genuinely independent and do more that rehash press releases. If you can't then maybe we have to wait until Swiss International has undergone it's expansion and is recognised as notable. NtheP (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it impossible for my article to be accepted?

Hello, I am writing an article about a notable artist, Nigel Cox, I have had 3 editors review it, each time before I submit for approval for creation. The comments left after the article is rejected are that it is biased. Nobody can see the Bias in this article, I'm told it is clearly written by several sources.

I believe the article is strong enough for inclusion, Subject is notable, very referencable, and would like the Wiki community to have the ability to edit it and make it stronger.

Help?

Dkalaf (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I had a look, changed a word or two. I'm not sure what bias is present either, I suggest you ask the reviewing editor to be more specific. Rich Farmbrough, 14:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) Dkalaf, welcome to the Teahouse, saying your draft on Nigel Cox is written in a non neutral view is, I think a bit unfair. I think the point trying to be made is that you are making some statements about his work and his motivations but they need reliable references to back them up. For example ". . . the vast and desolate spaces which had a profound affect and influenced his art", "His mother Margaret Cox, . . . , was the creative influence in Cox’s early life." These need citing - who says this? with what authority? The other concern I have is an over reliance on press releases. Press releases are notoriously one sided so while they might be used to establish a fact e.g. when a gallery had an exhibition of Cox's work they shouldn't be used to back up anything subjective about Cox such as what other people make of his work. There are one or two bits you might want to drop such as what qualification he left school with. It's enough to say he was educated at Dundalk Grammar School before leaving Ireland to study at Riverside. NtheP (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My article was rejected because of notority

Pls you said you accept article from journals i already done that but you still reject my article. Can you help with the portion that you think has the problem. I am suspecting it is the IDENTIFICATION paragraph taking from a blog. Pls help, as i cannot find journal ariticle on identification. OchukoAluya (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OchukoAluya, welcome to Wikipedia. Your submission to WP:AFC was declined because it read like an essay. It may be helpful to take a look at WP:NOTESSAY and WP:YFA. -Cntras (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OchukoAluya! And as Cntras says, welcome to the Teahouse! It appears that there are a few issues with your article, unfortunately. First, it does appear to be written like an essay. This often stems from the author, like yourself, knowing a lot about a subject and writing an essay that might be more worthy of publication on a blog, in a scholarly journal, and the like. Here at Wikipedia we like to keep things...a bit boring at times - to the point, if you will. Just the facts! I'm thinking that your article might first make more sense to have a brief statement about identification and authentication placed into the e-commerce article instead of having a separate article itself. Second, I also think if there are certain sections of the article (i.e. certain very notable types of identification or authentication processes) that are worthy of being made into their own Wikipedia articles then that is a possibility. If that isn't possible, you can also submit definitions for the types of processes at our sister website, Wiktionary. Let us know what you think about these options! We're really glad you're here at Wikipedia and we hope we can lend a hand to make your work a part of Wikipedia. Sarah (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Article Title

Oh dear off to a trick-start here with a typo in my headline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Randolph_Street_Markets

The name of my article subject is Randolph Street Market. Is there a fix for this or will I need to redirect later?

Thanks V Much, Marilyn Nix (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be moved / redirected later. You may need to be auto-confirmed to move articles, which should happen by the time you've knocked the article into shape. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stuartyeats;

Marilyn Nix (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it anyway. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Randolph Street Market It can be off-putting working with a big "mistake" at the top of the page. Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

technical loops in sandbox, image troubles

I am having trouble figuring out the images as may be evident from my intro guest entry. My sandbox developed a loop template which got worse by removing things and trying to fix it myself. The problem began after changing the top line (namespace, I believe), I did not adhere to the bracketed instruction to edit below this line as I was attempting to create a user subpage. As a self-proclaimed autodydactic, I sometimes create my own dissappointments. Also I have requested to be adopted as an editor/article creator as can be seen from my user and user talk pages. Orschstaffer (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orschstaffer, welcome to the Teahouse. The template loop is because you have this - {{User:Orschstaffer/sandbox}} at the top of the sandbox page. The curly brackets indicate to the software to look for a template called User:Orschstaffer/sandbox but that is the name of the page the template is on so it loops itself. Delete that line and the problem will go away. You can also delete the line that says <!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->, the <!-- --> code just indicates hidden text that only shows up when the page is being edited. It's a message nothing more and in the case can be ignored. It's often used when a page might have quite complicated syntax used and an edit in the wrong place could really screw things up. Here it's just a suggestion and deleting it will do no harm at all. NtheP (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Orschstaffer. You put your draft article in your main user page but no foul, no harm. A fix is quick and easy. First, create a space for the draft. In the address box of your browser, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orschstaffer add /OrschDraft or whatever you want to name your subpage and hit <ENTER>. You can also make your draft page a subpage of your /sandbox. A page will pop up telling you that there's no page with that exact name but the first option will be "Start the User:Orschstaffer/OrschDraft". Click on that and it'll create a blank page. Second, right-click on Orschstaffer at the top of the screen and choose "Open in New Tab" or "Open in New Window." Click the "Edit" tab to get the wiki formatted text and cut-and-paste everything from your main userpage over to the page you created for your draft including the template stuff like "{{Userspace draft}}". When you're done moving all of it, save your now blank userpage. Go back to the tab or window with your blank Userpage and click on "My Talk" at the top of the screen and click the "Edit" tab again. Cut-and-paste your notes for the article over to the new page you created for your draft or create a new subpage for your notes. Leave your request for help and such on your talk page. When you're done, save the page on each screen and you should be OK.
You are going to have to deal with some other issues like conflict of interest and notability but those can wait until after you get your Userpages organized. Post any further problems getting organized here. DocTree (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help NtheP and DocTree.
Conflict of Interest may perhaps be easy enough to remedy, the Notability though, should be covered, unless I misunderstand what is required. I have verified the notes and received approval from each source to use their respective references. I shall continue to research wiki policies and resources and will check back here for further input. Meanwhile I should improve my user page now that it is blank. How do I link the Teahouse on my userpage?
Orschstaffer (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Userpages of a few others for ideas. Just click on their nickname. Click the 'Edit' tab to see how they made their userpage look that way. You can also check out Fun Stuff for ideas about decorating your Userpage. Finally, to answer your question about a link to the Teahouse, you can:
  1. Type (or cut-and-paste) " [[WP:Teahouse|Teahouse]] " whenever you mention Teahouse and every time you mention it, there's a link.
  2. Type (or cut-and-paste) the following which was shamelessly plagiarized from Heatherawalls userpage. In edit mode, paste it into your page and use the 'Show preview' button to see how it looks.

{{Userbox | border-c = #3fb6ff | border-s = 1 | id-c = #f4f3f0 | id-s = 14 | id-fc = #7d7b75 | info-c = #f4f3f0 | info-s = 10 | info-fc = #7d7b75 | id = [[File:WP_teahouse_logo 3.png|60 px|link=Wikipedia:Teahouse]] | info = Orschstaffer is a guest at the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]] and would like to see you there.|float=right}}

Take care, DocTree (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

spam links?

I'm editing an article, and most of the external links seem to be to commercial (although related) sites. Is it proper to delete these links? Shandong44 (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shandong44. Wikipedia's policy on external links is located at Wikipedia:External links. In short, you are always allowed to make articles better, and if removing spam makes an article better, please do that. Do you have any more specific questions? --Jayron32 19:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Shandong, you can read Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided for links that shouldn't belong in the "External links" section. -- Luke (Talk) 01:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations: accessdate

What does the accessdate attribute, in cite / citations template, mean? Mindtubes (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mindtubes, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! The "accessdate" parameter means the date at which you looked at the source. So, if you were citing a website, you'd put the date that you looked at the site for the information you used. This can be useful especially for things on the Internet which change frequently; it lets people have at least a rough idea of what version of the article was used for the article. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Mindtubes (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stumped

I have edited this several times and still I get a denial. Can someone please point out (highlight) what I need to do to get this approved? This is urgent!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/REBTECH

Jhowardco (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jhowardco, welcome to the Teahouse! First, I'd like to ask, if I may: why is this urgent? It sounds like you might want to read our guidelines on conflicts of interest; if it's true that you do have a conflict of interest, you should think long and hard about whether you really should be writing this article. Editing in an area for which you have a conflict of interest is not strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, but it's strongly discouraged, as it's very difficult to edit neutrally with a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements or publicity; you should really keep this in mind if your goal is to spread the word about something, because there can be some significant unintended consequences of having a Wikipedia article. Chief among them is that, once an article is on Wikipedia, you have *no* special control over its content. Anyone can write anything they want on the article, and if some information that you'd rather not have there gets put up, and it's backed by reliable sources, you will have no right to request its removal.
That's the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw your post, so forgive me if I've misjudged you. As for the article itself, it keeps getting rejected because of the general promotional tone of the article. Phrases like "the next generation of lighting technology and night vision" and "Mr Borkowski has more than 40 years of extensive aviation experience" appear to violate our policy on neutral point-of-view, especially when they are unsourced. Overall, the article reads more like a press release from the company or something similar, rather than an encyclopedia article. Also, you need to be sure to establish the company's notability, which is what we call the minimum standard of significance that subjects must meet to have their own article. There's more specific guidance for notability of companies and organizations here. Finally, you need to make sure that what you're writing is verifiable. By verifiability, we mean that all the material in an article must be able to be confirmed by a reference to an independent, reliable source.
There are some other, less serious issues with the article, like having links to sites outside of Wikipedia within the body of the article, but we should really straighten out the major concerns first, to make sure that there's an article worth having. Thanks, and despite my message possibly being disappointing or (yikes) foreboding, good luck! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I can appreciate the concern of any type of ad--that was not the intent. But I have a problem with seeing Press releases used in Wiki pages like Eaton Corporation, for example, and similar "notable" types of sources are not allowed in any of my articles.

I can easily substantiate the credibility and the experience of the people mentioned. I just need to know what exactly the acceptable tone when I craft material based upon other pages already in use.

Can you explain this comparison and why press releases in other pages are apparently okay but not mine?

Jhowardco (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the real answer to that is that it's not okay in those other pages, either; the relevant link here is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia's not perfect (indeed, far from it); sometimes things slip through the cracks, and promotional language that should be rejected gets through. At the end of the day, we have to judge each article on its own merit, not how it compares to other articles. The articles you mention should also be fixed, and their promotional tone changed or removed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I give up: procedures trump substance.

I understand why the phrase "don't tas me, Bro." appears in relation to a dubious offer of help to neophyte editors: the advancement of knowledge requires the procedural cognoscenti to "taser"-- by the use of procedural challenge --those who disagree.

Congratulations: You & hypocrisy have won.

Enjoy your power & the perquisites of opaqueness. _

Gary Bollinger Briefly an editor of Wikipedia Abraham Bartolo (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gary, I am interested in hearing a little more about what has been troubling you on Wikipedia to see if we can resolve this issue. It appears like you are a very knowledgeable person and your improvements to Rendition (law) and Bankruptcy in the United States are welcome. I also noticed that it does not appear that you have had any prior interaction with other editors. I believe your issue is due to the warning that appeared on Rendition (law). All that error means is that after inserting a reference you forgot to put the tag </ref>. It is a very common error and I still make it sometime. In addition, it appears that you had a little bit of difficulty getting the wikimarkup for italics correct. That is fine, and if you would like more assistance for either of these things just let me know. You can either ask a question here or leave a message on my talk page. I can help explain things to you and point you to some useful essays and help pages. If it is something else that has upset you, please let me know about that and I can hopefully find a way to fix or offset that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome reply, Ryan, thank you! heather walls (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. I have looked through all the edits from User:Abraham Bartolo. BTW some WP communications (error messages) are from software not humans! Maybe they need to be made more mild. I think I was pretty freaked out when I first saw one of those 'missing /ref' messages --Greenmaven (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I made the same error minutes after posting this [2]. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the ref errors are fairly unfriendly. The anti-spam message is worse, because the URL is often (usually) there before you edit. You can't even save then search for the problem. I don't know why fixing that bug isn't a priority. Rich Farmbrough, 16:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Is there a bot that fixes missing ref closes? It'd probably be difficult to tell sometimes, but if someone's using the cite template, it should be pretty easy to make a bot to stick a </ref> tag on the end of the template... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My bot used to fix some special cases. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to run it, for fear the reduction in errors will put us all out of work.
A possibly better solution, which I have advocated, but not actively (because people are very conservative when it comes to referencing), is to have a simpler family of templates that enfold the "ref" semantics into the "cite" semantics. Rich Farmbrough, 16:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Wow, yeah, now that you mention it, that makes a lot of sense too. There's probably inertia for actually making that change, though; probably too many people are too used to <ref>{{cite. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be fully in support of it because of special instances where something must be placed outside of the cite template (like {{subscription required}}). Maybe they could modify the cite template to accept that as a parameter. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a naive suggestion—I always do refs by clicking on the 'little book' icon on the editing toolbar. But I can't remember if that comes standard, or whether you have to edit your preferences to opt in to it. Clicking the icon provides the ref defining wiki markup for you. This thread has led to a surprising and useful discussion. --Greenmaven (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 'little book' icon comes standard, but I believe you are making things more difficult on yourself than what is necessary. Have you considered using the reftoolbar that also comes standard? That's the thing where you click cite, choose one of four citation templates and fill in the fields. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

What happened to the common edit summaries feature? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

don't know all the detail but it looks like there was change last night that disabled, temporarily, this and several other features eg Twinkle. NtheP (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. The summaries are back now anyway. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template modification assistance

Hi, I'm looking for a modification of the Infobox Tennis Grand Slam events template so that it links to the previuos and next event similar to the Infobox tennis event template. It seems the creator of both these templates is not active anymore and while I can do some simple template editing I don't have the skills for this modification. Is there a helpdesk for templates or a pool of experienced template editors that I can call on to help out? Thx! --Wolbo (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You could create a copy of {{Infobox Tennis Grand Slam events}} at Template:Infobox Tennis Grand Slam events/sandbox and try out your changes. Include (transclude) that in your own sandbox, using previews if necessary. Then copy the final version back in place of the original when you're happy with it. Assuming there are no potentially controversial changes, include a relevant edit summary and you should be done. If in doubt, summarise your changes at Template talk:Infobox Tennis Grand Slam events too. -- Trevj (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My new messages

Where do I find my new messages? Is this a link that appears only when I have new messages? I stumbled upon it before but cannot find it again to see if I have any new messages. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tattoodwaitress! Welcome to the Teahouse. Yup, that message (the big orange one) only pops up when another Wikipedian leaves a fresh comment on your talk page. To find your talk page, just click here: User talk:Tattoodwaitress. You can also see it in the top right menu (when you are logged in) next to your username as "My talk." That is where your messages will be or any comments on your talk page :) I hope this helped! Sarah (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proper way to redirect

Apologies but I goofed up trying to redirect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warid_Congo Exactly where should I put the redirect so that it goes straight to Warid Telecom as the page should not exist anyway? Truealpha (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that with this. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it Stuart, and welcome Truealpha! I'll explain how you can redirect it properly, per your request! The nice thing about redirects is that you can just redirect it to another page - so, if you redirected it to the wrong place (a misspelling or wrong word, whatever) you can just redirect it to the correct name - Warid Telecom. You probably don't need to nominate the wrong redirect for deletion, since perhaps it is related to the correct name, but if you do, and forgive me for linking to policy, you can pick the right deletion tag here: Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects. I hope this helps :) Sarah (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much to both and thanks also for clarifying. Appreciate it! Truealpha (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creating my user about me page

Thank you to Heather who responded so quickly. I am going to start my user about me page I guess that would be a good place to start. If I come back here later I could ask someone to check it out for me right? And can I always find responses to questions where I found the response to the last question in my new messages section? Or do I need to come back here to see the answers. Oh and where can I find other user about me pages to look at for examples? Tattoodwaitress (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, again! You can design your userpage however you wish. There really isn't a specific type of userpage style or guide that I know of that shows you specific examples. Perhaps visiting the history pages of articles that interest you might help? (you can see my userpage by just clicking on my username in my signature). And of course, you're welcome to come back here and have us check it out :) You'll have to revisit the Teahouse to see the answers to your questions. When we answer a question for you we leave a talkback message on your userpage, so when you log in you will be told that you have a new answer. Just follow the link to the Teahouse response in the talkback box. Can't wait to see your userpage! Sarah (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tottood! You can find anybody's talk page by clicking on the blue (talk) link next to their signature. If it's red, it means they haven't started their page yet, so there's nothing to see. To leave a message on someone's talk page, go to it and click on "New Section" at the top right. It opens a page with a place to put the heading, and a big box to write your message in. Scroll to the bottom of the box and save it when you're done. If someone leaves a message on your talk page you'll get that orange message notice. Some people may just post the answer right on your talk page. If you ask a question here, most people will answer here, so everyone can learn along with you. If you click on someone's name (like my Tlqk56), you go to their User page. (Again, if it's red, they haven't started it yet.) Start exploring and have fun!
I'm pretty new to Wikipedia myself. I can say that you are definitely welcome to ask anything here -- I've had to ask a few really dumb questions, along with some not-so-dumb ones, and everybody is always helpful and friendly. Nice to meet you. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great way to put it Tlqk :) Sarah (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thank you all so much... now when I reply to you as I am doing now (i just hit the edit button and adding to the bottom is that good? will you get the notice that I replied? Or should I hit your talk link then reply? Hope you get my thank yous. I will work a bit more on this another time... retiring for the evening. Thanks again for the help and ta ta for now. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You replied perfectly here. Unfortunately, the notice that you've replied here isn't automatic. You also have to go to the person's talk page and leave a message so they know to look here. There's a template you can use someplace, but as I usually just ask questions, I didn't save it. Teahouse is still experimental, and I'm hoping that when it gets more established the notifications will happen automatically.Tlqk56 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{New user bar}} Is a nice template suitable for new users. I have posted this on Tattoodwaitress feel free to remove it in case you dont like it. :) --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Can't I Find "Good" References?

I have an article for a rather notable local band (they meet some of the notability requirements) but Wikipedia won't accept it because of my "uneliable" sources. The problem is, I can't find any "reliable" sources. Any suggestions?Cabooseofteworld (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you're having a hard time with your article. If you're unable to find any reliable sources - that means independent sources that aren't related to the band (i.e. newsletters from the band or their label, YouTube, Amazon, the band websites are all unreliable sources) - then perhaps the band isn't able to be included yet in Wikipedia. In your article for creation I didn't see any weblinks to the sources you used, which is a problem. While we like to assume good faith with all contributions, if no sources exist online then that makes many editors a bit nervous about if the subject is notable. I hate to say that the band might not be able to be included yet - usually if they are notable they have healthy coverage in the media (regionally and beyond), so, you might just have to wait until they get more coverage. I hope this helps and perhaps there are other bands you have interest in writing about who might be a bit more notable? Or perhaps you know where those reliable sources are hiding out online? :) Sarah (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! I'll work on the referances. In the mean time, I'll try to work on other articles. (For example, on some of the band pages, I've noticed pretty big gaps) Cabooseofteworld (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

article denial

Can someone please highlight or point specifically to exactly what is unacceptable in the article I last submitted?

I have many citations and referrals and edited the article so as not to sound like an advertisement, but I fail to see what is wrong with it.

75.134.104.188 (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not logged in, so we have no idea which article you're asking about. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello possible stranger! Like Stuartyeates says, we can't see what you've worked on as it's not connected to the IP address you are using right now and you didn't provide a link. We'd love to help if you can give us more information. heather walls (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A user with the same IP as you posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phyllis Zagano. Are you referring to that article or another one? -- Trevj (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the most recent link that I know of: Articles_for_creation/Airway_Management,_Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhowardco (talk • contribs) 13:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you represent http://www.jhowardco.com/ ? Some people will have issues with that.
As far as the article goes, I suggest that Airway Management Inc is unlikely to be notable. Possibly either the good doctor or his invention might be. Rich Farmbrough, 16:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Why does Googling my published page show the sandbox page?

Ok--got my first page published here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_the_Burma_Road But when I do a Google search, the only page I find is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ccmulder/sandbox which is my sandbox page. Why does the actual page on Wiki not come up on Google, but only my sandbox page? And when I change that page, it also changes the actual page on wikipedia? Christopher Mulder (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google takes a while to see that pages have moved. It'll cotton on in a couple fo days or maybe a week. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You! AceMulder (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my article denied

Why was my article for creation, Primary objective denied again? Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Primary_Objective Megaboltable (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Having just had an article published and having difficulty doing so (a book written by a WWII commander, later General, which you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_the_Burma_Road), I think what they are saying is your subject does not have any independent notoriety. One of the things that helped get my page published was showing that the CIA cited it as one of the foremost authorities on guerilla warfare (see "References and Citing" below to see what I mean). So you would have to find sources that cite the book independently. At least that's what I think they mean in the explanation of why it was declined.
Christopher Mulder (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Megaboltable! The reasons why your article was declined are displayed in the section beginning "The reviewer left the following comment about this submission:". In a nutshell, there's no evidence why the book should have an article in an online encyclopedia: notability is required, and the burden of finding – and including – evidence for notability rests on the creator of the article. The tone is also very promotional, which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. It reads like an advert. If you can address those two issues (in particular, I'd read through the whole notability guideline to see how you can prove that the book is notable) then your article would stand a better chance of being accepted. Brammers (talk/c) 07:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a particular notability standard for books at WP:Notability (books). JohnCD (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article

I'm trying to set up a new article for the school where I work - there is another article for this school under its old name - all I am really trying to do is update it with a new name 'Dorcan Technology College' becomes 'The Dorcan Academy' - I thought I was supposed to create a new article and then link it to the old one but that didn't work - then I thought I'd copy everything from the old one onto the new - but it says there are no 'reliable sources' - what is a reliable source for an English school?Auntiestrewth (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Auntiestrewth. You can rename a page by using the move tab at the top of the page. This preserves the page history. Making a redirect for the old name to the new one will help anyone searching for the old name. Reliable sources will include official inspection reports and newspaper articles.--Charles (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article to the new name, The Dorcan Academy. However, it is a tiny stub, and completely lacking in references to books, newspapers and magazines which discuss it; indeed, were it not for our rule of thumb that secondary schools are presumed to be notable, it would probably be headed for deletion in its present form. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References and Citing

My father was with the 101 Detachment in Burma and his name appears in a book I am trying to write a new article on. I used the back cover summary and the Foreward to describe the book but did not cite to it. I edited and now cited to the back cover and Foreward although not sure that's going to be good enough. Unfortunately, I don't know how else to authenticate it as there is nothing else but the book itself. Below is the link to see how I did the references and help would be appreciated

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Behind_the_Burma_Road&oldid=494751453


Christopher Mulder 09:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Chris. Glad to meet you. I was a bit surprised when you said "..there is nothing else but the book itself". I had a poke about in two of my favourite hunting grounds "Google Books" and "Google Scholar". It seems that quite a few people have used "Behind the Burma Road" as a source text to tell the wider story of events in Burma during WWII - as well as the development of A Typical warfare.

One trick that may help you drill down to sources, is to search for the name by putting it in quotation marks - "Behind the Burma Road". If you just type in the words Behind the Burma Road search engines look for any page which contain those four words. If you put them in "Quotation Marks", then the search engines look for the Exact Phrase. You many find some very useful comments about the book and the story by hunting that way. You can mix it up by also adding the published, the authors name or maybe key words from the book - place names - the names of people mentioned in the book. I spotted one reference which was eye popping "A selection from the most broadly informative books on intelligence...." - listed by the CIA. Last time I looked the CIA were noteworthy. P^)

I also pulled another trick and looked at "Google Images" - and there are lots of images linked to the Book. Some lead to copies of "Round Up" the CBI - forces newspaper from 1943 - and those may prove interesting too. If by any chance you can show links from Round Up to sections of the book it gives a very nice context. It's a hard trick to pull off, but the information from Round Up may help lead to yet further mentions of the book.

One issue I noticed quickly is that the book keeps getting mentioned, and when I went digging I found that many old documents do mention it. The problem is that these old (pre Internet) documents have been scanned and turned into Pdfs and are actually image files and not text files. That means that search engines can't read the actual text. You have to find a reference and follow the bread crumbs - Search engines can't take you right to the source. I often find that by first getting some good quality sources from other places leads to a better and more interesting way to write about the subject. You may be surprised by what you find - that CIA reference was eye popping!

I also happen to know that the book is highly regarded amongst Burma vets in both the USA and UK. It shows how the guys worked together in a nasty war environment and in many ways rank was of no interest. In some ways it's a unique history of events - and I noticed that word "Unique" kept popping up too. The book has been translated into a number of other languages. Now that is telling. All the best and happy hunting. If you need any other help just ask. That's what we're here for.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help. What I meant was I just wanted to provide a short summary of what the book is about which I could not find. So what I did was simply use the back cover and the Foreward, which should obviously be fine since that's directly from the book but was not sure how to do that and did I do it correctly? Do you see what I mean? Also, how would I cite that CIA paper. I found it here: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol8no1/html/v08i1a11p_0001.htm I did some research and found this: https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/faqs/index.html#citations Would this be correct: "Central Intelligence Agency. Public Texts In Intelligence (1963). Retrieved 2012-05-28."


Christopher Mulder (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings and Welcome to Teahouse! I'm new myself, but I do a lot of work on articles for children's books, so I may be able to help a bit. First off, my understanding is, if you're summarizing the book you don't have to cite the summary, since it's accepted that the info came from the book. But you do cite direct quotes from the book, if you use them. See the Plot section here Beezus and Ramona, for example. (This isn't a perfect article, and technically the info about the illustrators shouldn't be in the lead, but someone else put it there and I left it.) If you quote from the back of the book or the flap you must put it in quotes and cite it. You also have to cite any opinions about the book, and establish notability, which is where the great stuff Media-hound found will be important. I found the following article quite helpful, and though it's for fiction, it might have some ideas you can use, too. Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. Sounds like the book you're working on deserves a great article -- good for you! Don't be afraid to bring any questions here, the people are great. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the help. I know what you are saying, I just don't know how to do it. I actually found the book cited on the CIA website and put that in the article. But not sure what you or Media-hound are saying with regard to "establishing notability". Do I just put some quotes at the bottom? Do you see what I mean. I just wanted to start with just a summary of the book which is all I did, but that got rejected for lack of verified sources, so I did put the back cover in quotes and then also footnoted the Foreward as well--did not quote that because it was of course written in 1963 and if I quoted it, it would not be correct, so I just footnoted it.
Christopher Mulder (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Christopher. The thing is, a new article gets looked at very closely these days, so it's harder to start one than it used to be. Please don't get discouraged, OK? Notability probably causes more problems than just about anything else, and I'm no expert. Basically you need to show that other reliable, verifiable sources have written about the topic, or use it in some way. That's why the CIA reference is so good. (Personal blogs, IMBD, and places like that don't help here.)
Probably the easiest place to show notability for books and writers is in a section called "Critical reception", or something like that. There you talk about what newspapers, magazines, the gov't, or other books have said about your topic. That proves that it's important enough to deserve an article, which is Notability. You can't use the book itself to prove it's notable, it must be other sources talking about the book. Is this what you needed to know? And feel free to stop by my Talk page any time, if I can help.Tlqk56 (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Christopher Mulder I "do" see what you mean. There is a an issue though, and that is using only Primary Sources. With books it tends to be OK as evidently the book is about ... well... the book. P^)

On the other hand the book is not a work of Fiction. It's a history and would benefit from historical contexts. In one way you have provided just a taster - like a first course in a meal. - and what about the main course - and the dessert - and even a few fine chocolates to go with the coffee? What are the most significant chapters in the book? What events and incidents does it address in detail? Has anyone said it's the best book ever written on the subject... and if so when and where? If you can find other things about the book that can be linked to it, you should end up with a page that is a feast for readers. Do you see what I mean? P^)

In one way you are at a disadvantage. The book is important to you and it has a family connection. Being close to a subject can make it hard to write about it clearly. We see that a lot with new editors who come to the Teahouse. Imagine you were at a dinner party and someone asked you about the book. Would you just quote the sleeve jacket ... or is there more to tell, and excite people with?

I went digging in the google news "Archive" section looking for any book reviews from when it was published 1963. Many are pay to view, but the Chicago Tribune had this nugget available. "The Detachment 101, whose guerrilla fighters harassed the Japanese so effectively in Burma, was a cosmopolitan unit -- Americans, Kachin tribesmen who fought magnificently, Burmans, Anglo-Burmans, Rangoon Chinese and British -- and if it was not the most successful guerrilla force we had, surely it had few equals.". They even headed the review "They Made the Jungle Too Hot for Japanese". Now how could that be used to spice up the feast? It's one thing to say what the book is - quite another what "Other" people think of it!... The New York times also said the book "..tells a story of American arms that is little known." Now those are interesting views "About" the book.

Little known and the CIA put it on the reading list as an important book for military personnel to read? How do those views and facts get served up to the reader?

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much to both of you--I have done quite a big of referencing so if you take a look at it now, I think its probably good enough--I've linked it to several sources that discuss it, so we will see how it goes. It is a good authoritative book and should be included in Wikipedia. Ultimately, my goal if it gets published is to link to the names of all of those that served in the detachment. The book as a list of all the names. Here is the link to the most recent edited version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Behind_the_Burma_Road&oldid=494839694
Christopher Mulder (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! It's cooking! I just knew that CIA ref would be useful! P^) .... so you have done the entrée and added a main course! How about some delicious dessert and chocolates to go with some coffee? Who has been talking about this book - and what about the press reviews? I can see where you are going now. One word of caution - unless the people named are notable (Yikes), then you may have to dig deeper to find the references! I like a guy with ambition! I also keep wondering at some of the language you are using. Remember, in Wikipedia we report facts. You have put some very important information in a foot note. It may be better in the main text! The recipe may need tweaking - But I still want to see a "Feast"! Those guys deserve no less. We can discuss the ingredients, and if it needs salt or pepper later. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Well I tried to go just with facts. I bought that article (it was only $3.95) and referenced some facts from it. Here is the latest: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Behind_the_Burma_Road&oldid=494859629. If I have to take some of that out, that's fine.
Christopher Mulder (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well not sure but the "Being Reviewed" box has moved to the top (was on the bottom) above the "Declined" box so I do not know if that means it was declined again or not. I'm guessing its not yet been re-reviewed because I don't see a second "declined" in the page history (just the first) but if so, not anything else I can do at this point I guess but strip it down to no facts essentially and have it just almost as a notation page. Christopher Mulder (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Christopher. Just a minor point, that has been sorta mentioned above. The text on the flap and forward is of course copyright, so if you have copied any of it (I am not clear whether you did) it needs to be either reasonably short, and in quotes, or reworded. All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 04:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Christopher, I'm not sure if I just looked at the latest revision or not. But I noticed that "one of the most broadly informative books on intelligence operations and processes available in English" is a direct quote from the CIA website, so it needs to go in quotes, if it isn't already. I think it's a great opening for the article, as the Manual of Style says you should try to establish notability early in the article, and that statement really does that. You could even say something like: Behind the Burma Road is regarded by the CIA as "one..." I don't think anyone would ever bring up notability again after that. :) But of course any time you use someone else's words they need to be in quotes. I find I sometimes copy a source by mistake, myself, when I've been reading a lot on one topic, so I just thought I'd mention it. The book sounds fascinating.Tlqk56 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help Just wondering how you make comments on my talk page? Are you just hitting the "edit" button on the last comment? Christopher Mulder (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Towards the top of each talk page on the right side there's a tab that says "New Section". Click that, and a box pops up with a place for the heading and body of your message.Tlqk56 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you're writing about a book, remember that the book covers and flap copy are not impartial, neutral third-party sources of the sort we love here: they are sales tools, and written as such. Thus, you are well-advised to keep well away from their use unless in the rare case where you are citing what the book copy claimed about the volume itself; and such claims, however meritricious, are seldom notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=496113743"