Wikipedia:Teahouse

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239

Guest profiles »

Host profiles »

Question forum »

File:WP teahouse logo.png by Heatherawalls CC BY-SA 3.0

Experienced and want
to help at the Teahouse?
Become a host...

Dear new editors, no question is too basic for our Q&A board. If you need help, just press the button below! And if you have some helpful advice for someone else, go ahead: be bold! Click [edit] to the right of his or her question and start the conversation.

Ask a question

To see the archive pages of previous questions, click on show.

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 12 sections are present.

Is their an article that explains how EMTs are affected by religion?

Hi, IM looking for a page that explains the complications that an EMT must deal with when a religious belief is involved. Does Wiki have that. I cant seem to find one.

74.106.242.98 (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to get the content reviewed by Wiki

I have recently created a company profile. PLease let me know how to get the content reviewed by Wiki. Also need help in publishing the content.

Rgds A Singh Rana 1480 (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rana 1480, if you look to the top of your page you will see the instruction "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here". Clicking there will submit your article to be reviewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. There is a sizeable queue, so don't expect your article to be reviewed immediately. Best of luck! Sionk (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everis article

Hello...

I would really appreaciate if you could tell me what is wrong with this article that I've written: Everis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Everis

Thanks for your comments.

Octaviorojas (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, and thanks for stopping in at the Teahouse. It looks like your article was rejected because it doesn't have enough reliable sources. I'm guessing the reviewer noticed that some of the sources you have listed are primary sources, like the company's Amazon page. They may have also had a problem verifying some of the sources; I noticed that one is in Spanish (which I can read, but not everyone can) and another requires a subscription to access, which you should note in the references; we have a template for that called {{subscription required}}. Try fixing those things, or explaining them more to the reviewer (their talk page would be a good place). Then they can tell you what the problems they found were more specifically. Many reviewers are even willing to help you fix the problems, if you ask them. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 16:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling to display images

Hi all,

im having a bit of trouble with my private wiki (personal server) at the moment. im currently trying to get some images to display on one of my articles. i have edited the local settings.php which means i can successfully upload images, but when i try and display them using the [[file:blah.jpg]] code the image doesn't display, it just shows up with a broken link icon ><

it seems to me its a problem with authorization but i cant seem to find where, is it a server problem? or do i have to authorize the use of images somewhere? any help with this would be fantastic as im really stuck.

Nix 81.137.252.210 (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nix! The Teahouse only supports editors seeking assistance on Wikipedia. If you're wiki is running on MediaWiki, you can visit the MediaWiki Help Pages for assistance. Thanks, good luck, and sorry we can't be of more help! SarahStierch (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article begun in sandbox in July and I'm still not able to begin uploading images. What gives?

I working to write an article covering 50 years of an artist's artwork, commissions, awards, etc. and I feel that beginning to upload images will help me organize my draft. I began the article in July, and I'm going through a name change now, but would like to begin uploading some of the earlier pics that correspond to what has already been written. My profile says I'm still not confirmed. Is this delay due to the name change request? Gilbertyoung (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gilbert, welcome to the Teahouse! Have you actually tried to upload the pictures? The tricky thing about autoconfirmed is that, even if you've met the criteria of four days and 10 edits (which you obviously do), you technically don't receive the permission until you attempt an operation that requires it. So, if you haven't, try uploading the files, and you should be assigned autoconfirmed. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello Gilbertyoung, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not sure why you're unable to upload images yet, but I would strongly advise you to spend time improving the prose of your article first, particularly identifying your sources. Subjects need evidence that they have had significant coverage in independent, reliable news or book sources to prove they are notable enough for an encyclopedia entry - see also Wikipedia's 'golden rule'. We'll also need to know what sources you used, to allow verification of the content. In addition, if you are Gilbert Young, the subject of the article, I should say we strongly advise people not to write articles about themselves, because it makes it difficult to write a neutral piece (another requirement of Wikipedia).

When and if your article gets accepted to Wikipedia's mainspace, I'm sure you'll have no problems adding images. All the best! Sionk (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! Again, Gilbert is NOT writing the article, I am. My name is L. Winfrey Young and I am just now writing the draft. To rid myself of the "are you Gilbert Young" controversy, I submitted a name change to Dantzler and have not yet received the confirmation. I do have a stack of articles, awards, state resolutions, etc. spanning 50 years to use as reference, just haven't gotten to that stage yet. I'm still formatting my article in the sandbox. I did try to upload pics of the artist creating one of his monumental city murals from the 1970's and got the "you are not confirmed" message. Will try again. Gilbertyoung (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. If you are his wife you will still need to pay extra attention to writing a concise, well-sourced article, because other editors might consider you have a close connection to the subject. I would hate to think you spent months writing an elaborate life story, only for it to be delayed or refused. But, judging by the wonders of Google I can see he's mentioned in several books and news articles, so I look forward to seeing the end result! Sionk (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to put inline references in my article?

Okay.. I have created an article and need to put in my inline references. I have downloaded and read Referencing for Beginners. However, I cannot seem to understand exactly what they want me to put in the piece to give credit to my references. Can someone help me by explaining this in English that I can understand? What exactly goes in the < > to make a reference link? Thank you in advance for any help. Taminole417 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Taminole417 and welcome. First you will need a {{reflist}} template where you want the references to be listed. They will be automatically numbered. Click the curly braket icon in the edit toolbar at the top of the edit window and you get a choice of citation templates for various types of source. These go at the end of the text to which they apply. If you are using the same source in multiple places you can name the citation and use a short version after the first occasion. It will look like <ref name=whatever/>. Looking at your sandbox article you currently have some stray ref closing tags which are causing a red cite error message to appear lower down the page. Otherwise it seems to be coming along nicely.--Charles (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles: Thank you for your reply and your confidence in my article. That is encouraging. I have used the template to create reference tags for all of my references in the piece, but I cannot get that red error meaage:

Cite error: {There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a

template or a tag; see the help page} to go away. I am not sure what I am doing wrong. I have a references section near the bottom of my page, and like an old English teacher, which I am, I put them in the format that I teach my students to use. Now, I cannot for the life of me figure out how to get it recognized? I just cannot figure it out. Any help would be appreciated greatly. Charles (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem was having ref tags lower on the page than the reflist template. I have taken those out as they are not needed. Will take a look at the other errors.--Charles (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images (for a start)

Would a copy of an image of a book cover be okay to use in an article? Sorry if this sounds really stupid, but I have NO idea of how to find out if said image would be ?licensed?...or a problem for copyright.

Let alone figuring out what I'm supposed to do to put the damned thing in the article. (Yeah, virtually computer illiterate newbie frustration with information overload showing here.) Sorry but I tried to follow the instructions in another images question, but what looked like 'clipart' to aging eyes said embedded file...so now I'm even more confused. I found something that looked like pictures to me, and it says 'gallery'. Which actually might not be a bad idea because...

The article I'm writing is about a book that was originally issued in the UK, then subsequently issued in the US (8 years later) with, of course, a different cover. So, would I use both images? Just one? Which one?

Pocket Colonial (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Pocket Colonial! If you look at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_use, cover art is the first item mentioned under "Images". It is very common to see the cover art of a book on the page that discusses it, but the policy states that the cover art image may only be used "for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". But bare in mind that you must provide a "fair use" rationale for the image, which would mean putting {{Non-free_book_cover}} on the file's page. I am not a total expert on this, so I welcome any other host to fill in the gaps. hajat vrc @ 21:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pocket Colonial. One requirement for non-free images is that of minimal use. In this case, it would only be appropriate to use one image of the cover unless there has been content written about the change in the cover (in both reliable sources and the article). Once you upload the image you can include it by typing [[File:Imagename.jpg]] (replace jpg with whatever the file type is. Outside of that, follow the instructions Hajatvrc gave you and feel free to ask for any clarification. Ryan Vesey 22:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The code for the image should have the |thumb option, e.g. [[File:Imagename.jpg|thumb]]. If you don't know how to actually upload the image, all the dialogue you need can be accessed by clicking "Upload" in the "Toolbox" section of the vertical bar to the left of this page. hajat vrc @ 22:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Thanks guys! Pocket Colonial (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a group here specializing in publisher articles?

I've just spent a day or two working on this article, and suddenly realized there may be a community or group here that specializes in these type of articles. I know that could mean a standard for format and referencing. I want to be sure that when I've finished gathering information, I'm not just throwing an inconsistent article into their midst. I also don't want to put further work into the existing draft, if I'm doing it wrong. SinMacD (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SinMacD. Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you mind if I ask what kind of publishing? There's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, which deals specifically with books, but there are also related projects for magazines, journals, etc. etc. You can find links from there to related Wikiprojects, so it is possible you can find the specific project that can help you. Does that help any? --Jayron32 04:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SinMac. Welcome back. The closest thing I could find was Wikiproject Literature or Wikiproject Science Fiction. There is a directory of Wikiprojects at WP:PROJDIR, but I sure didn't see one for publishing. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far it's mostly a list of publications from a new small press/independent press. They've put over 35 books/novellas in uder six months, with more announced to follow, so I thought I'd start something now, save it to my personal files until I see more media coverage, and update as they expand. That way, when media coverage justifies an article, it's all ready to place a request for creation. I have another small press in mind as well, with more media coverage, if less production. If there's a standard of formatting in place for articles on publishers, I want to be sure to follow it as I build the basic article. I did check the WP:PROJDIR, but didn't see anything specific to publishing companies. A check for similar Wikipedia articles netted some small press articles, but didn't see any that listed publications. Of course, if this company keeps going at the rate they are, I may have to scale it back to detail only those publications that achieve high standings, awards, or some sort of media coverage, in the future.SinMacD (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, that is a pruident plan of attack with regards to creating the article. I must commend you for being thoughtful of how Wikipedia works; most users don't grasp the intricacies of Wikipedia's article standards, and get pissed when we delete their stuff right away. I could possibly recommend combing through Category:Book publishing companies, but there are thousands of articles there, and most seem to be of the sort of low quality you specifically want to avoid making the article you are working on, so I am not sure that you'll find a good model. Let me look around a bit, and see if I can't find a few decent articles you can use as standards. --Jayron32 05:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to view the draft-work, it's in my sandbox for the time being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SinMacD/sandbox. Once I have it in some sort of working order, I'll copy/paste it out to a Word file and work on something else. I'm treating this as my learning piece, before I try to do anything else. I already made the mistake of enthusiastically leaping in without enough research. I won't do that again. ;)SinMacD (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate any, and all guidance. There's a lot to absorb, but I'll do my best.SinMacD (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some digging, there are not a lot of featured or good level works on publishing companies, but I did find Ace Books, which is a Featured-level article on one publishing company. At least that will give you one example of what the Wikipedia community considers its best work on a publishing company. It is probably way more detailed and in depth than you can get right now, but then again, it's a much bigger company that the one you are working on. At least that will give you some sense of proper writing style, formatting, and layout. --Jayron32 05:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jayron32. :D I'll add it to my favourites, and review it in the morning! SinMacD (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/"

I started the article in the "creation" mode, and now wishes to remove that line from the title,because this article is done. Try editing it out several times without success -- any ideas? Thanks Unable to find this article with Google -- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luo Xian Xiang Did I do something wrong? BTW, is there another mode or page where I could start another article? or creation is still the best choice? CHHistory (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CHHistory, welcome back. I actually have some concerns about the article, and it most likely won't be able to be approved from the Articles for Creation process until they're rectified (someone else will bring it up, I bet). I hope you don't mind me sharing my thoughts about it, I just want to make sure you have the best article possible before it is available for the public to see on Wikipedia (and find on Google). First, it's written in chronological order, like a list. Wikipedia articles generally should be written in paragraphs, like, for example, Judy Chicago. So, you'll probably want to create a few paragraphs, not a list, and I'd also advise that you don't start each sentence with "In 1980, blahblahblah" since that's not generally how scholarly or encyclopedic content is written. It's great that you have references listed at the bottom, however, my other concern is that there aren't any inline citations. That's a super important part of Wikipedia articles - it allows readers to go straight to the source that the information is about and discover where it's from (and fact check, too!). So, if you can add inline citations, that would be fabulous. Then, we can take another look at it and hopefully move it to the Wikipedia main space (and then you can find it via Google, too, which usually just takes a few hours). Also, the best place to start a new article is your sandbox! You can find that here. Hope this helps - I only want to see your contributions be the best they can - thank you so much for contributing to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, thanks for the feedback. I totally agree with your accessment and that is normally NOT how I write. For this particular article, this is a translation from Chinese and I want to stay close to the sources. If I rewrite the article, using Judy Chicago as an example, it will no longer be a direct translation. Will that be OK? If yes, I certainly will rewrite the article without worrying about matching up "word for word". the sources as listed = one in English from DK and the others are in Chinese from China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHHistory (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Oh yes, absolutely, you can write it however you wish as long as it sticks to the sources. Also, don't forget to sign your posts (talk page, questions, etc) with four tildes: ~~~~ Looking forward to seeing the article evolve! SarahStierch (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement. I did a quick google :-) and found more articles (in Chinese) about the role he played in WWII in China. Again, thanks for you input and this has evolved into a bigger project that I first thought. Hope you will continue to advice...CHHistory (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of the fun about Wikipedia and research - but, I'm a researcher off wiki so it's something I love immensely ;) But soon you'll be finished and you'll have a bigger better article and Wikipedia will be better off because of it! We're always here to help! Thanks for being bold and asking questions! SarahStierch (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Library Digital Collections and copyright

Hi There, I am very new here. I work for the digital collections department of an academic library. We would like to create our own page and include images from our collection on it, and also share some of our images on Wiki articles that are pertinent to our collections. I have already experimented with uploading an image but it was rejected as an example of "blatant copyright infringement" (oops). We own the rights on all of our materials, but we only publish low-res images in our online collections with a rights statement. Is it possible for us to include our images on Wikipedia, or will we be limited to using only those images that fall under Public Domain? Is there a way for us to establish permission to use our images on Wikipedia? Thank you, Sopranojo (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can only post things which are free for other people to use. If you select a few of your images to release under a Creative Commons license (CC:BY) or (CC:BY-SA) that would be sufficient. But if they're not uploaded under a compatible license, Wikipedia cannot use them. For specific answers, try asking Commons Help desk.--Robert Keiden (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sopranojo! Thanks so much for wanting to share your libraries holdings with Wikipedia! What Robert states is true - Wikipedia cannot use images and media content that is copyrighted. Public domain images, of course, can be used. Your organization would have to release their images under the Creative Commons licenses that Robert mentioned in order to be used on Wikipedia. We're always happy to help lend a hand, here at the Teahouse or at Commons. Also, we have an entire outreach program called "GLAM WIKI" that focuses on developing partnerships with galleries, libraries, archives and museums. In fact, I'm the former Wikipedian in Residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives! You can learn more about GLAM here. Feel free to stop by my talk page if you need further assistance. Thank you!! SarahStierch (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review Resubmission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sridhar Lagadapati

I have resubmitted with changes made according to Txcrossbow's review first and later SarahStierch's pointers twice - its been sometime was trying to get Sarah's attention but havent got it yet.. :( and am hoping somebody would review my resubmission and help me get this article accepted..

Thank you so much! Meetzia

Meetzia (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meetzia, you will need to re-submit your article to Articles for Creation, by following the "When you are ready to resubmit, click here" instructions. But looking at your article, I would say there are still problems. There is little in your sources written about Lagadapati, in fact most news articles talk about his films or his company. There seems to be no sources at all for the personal information, such as date of birth, family details etc. As such, your article will probably be declined again because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's golden rule for notability. Can you find any other news or book sources that talk about him? Sionk (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ASIN references

I've been plugging away at an article in my sandbox, on an article about a small press publisher I know a bit about. Half of their publications don't have ISBN numbers, but ASIN numbers. With eBooks so prominent, and Amazon such a giant, do you think Wikipedia will add an ASIN option to the book citation template? SinMacD (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SinMacD. This capability already exists. Please see Template:Cite book#Identifiers. In short, just add the parameter |asin=. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit silly now. lol. I think a little more coffee and I can tackle that, making the references I've added much more consistent. Thank you! SinMacD (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google and other search engines to find new articles

How long does it take for an article to go into general circulation within Wikipedia? Next, approx. length of time per cycle before one can find a wiki piece by googling?? If we thank those who have helped us along the way in the teahouse talk, will they see them? or we need to go to their own talk page to offer thanks "in person"? As always, many thanks.CHHistory (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, CHHistory. I do see that you are writing an article at Articles for Creation. This is a special process for newer editors (but some experienced editors use it as well), to develop their articles over time in a much safer environment than the actual mainspace encyclopedia. It is basically a chance to have your article "reviewed" by one or more experienced editors before the article is created to reduce the occurrence of stressful deletions. Any confirmed editor (which you are) can create their articles directly in the main encyclopedia, but it is recommended that your first article be written at Articles for Creation.

In the case of Luo Xian Xiang, I see that the article is more of a list of facts than an encyclopedia entry. This is not a bad start, as Articles for Creation is the perfect place to develop your encyclopedic style. When you are reading highly regarded articles, such as Featured Articles, you will notice that these are not just lists of facts, but provide commentary from a wide variety of reliable sources. I think you would benefit greatly by reading Wikipedia:Your first article, which is an excellent primer on the encyclopedic paradigm.

As far as search engines go, these websites (especially Google) do not reveal their algorithms or processes of inclusion. So we have no way of knowing exactly how Wikipedia articles end up there, or how long a particular article will take to show up. From experience, it will depend on the subject and how prevalent other sources on that subject are. There is no real answer for this, but it could take anywhere from a couple days to many weeks. hajat vrc @ 18:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Teahouse hosts are adept at finding posts by guests no matter where they are. I saw you create your userpage offering your thanks just minutes after you did (if that could be any weirder). So in short, yes, we will see it if you post at the Teahouse talk. hajat vrc @ 18:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CHHistory, my experience is that once an article is live, Google indexes it within a few minutes at most. Rich Farmbrough, 04:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Many thanks for all the time and support you all have given, without which I will not be able to move forward. Hope to "pass it on" as I become more knowledgeale in the workings of this NGO. Further, to "Hajatvrc" - have taken your suggestion and will join the group that work on historical matters, though at the moment, I still need to narrow the field. Cheers.

Seem to be playing "ping pong" with another editor on the Robert Lustig page in the "Controversy" section

First, a bit about my background. I have a J.D. In law from the University of Georgia (1990) and a Ph.D. in international trade law and economics from the University of Konstanz, Germany (1994). I have published in numerous peer reviewed international journals and as an international litigator worked with scientific experts extensively.

I am a new editor. This is my very first foray into Wikipedia editing, although I have been using Wikipedia as a reader for a very long time. In general I have been very impressed with Wikipedia as a source and have, by practice when using it, always referred to the source material in the footnotes in order to understand a subject better or double check the accuracy of an article.

So far, I have been impressed with the accuracy of articles and the efficacy of source material; that is, until I read the Robert Lustig article, "Controversy over fructose" section.

The first sentence of this section stated, and now states again after my several attempts to correct it, that the "majority of scientific evidence does not support" Lustig's position, and the sentence ends with two cites as source material for this statement. I have read both articles and they do not support the statement made. In fact, the lead source supports Lustig's conclusions.

The final paragraph and source for the section does support the view that the majority opinion does not support Lustig's position, but the author, John S. White, of that source is a paid consultant to the beverage and High-Fructose industry. This source is not used above to back the statement made in the first sentence, but below at the end.

I have attempted twice only to add to that sentence White's affiliation with the beverage and fructose industry so that readers may be informed of his affiliation and can therefore draw their own conclusions as to the quality of his research.

Needless to say, this article is a hotspot for industry advocates who want to ensure that their interests are represented. Unfortunately, the quality of the article and its credibility is being negatively affected and its contents will continue to mislead readers as to the controversy over fructose unless certain edits are made.

The edits I have made deal only with the source material offered in the original article and are not a comment or evaluation of whether Lustig's position is ultimately correct or not. Simply put, the source material offered in this article so far either supports his position or, if it is against, is tainted by economic bias.

The reasons I have become interested in editing this particular article are two-fold: 1. I have discussed the issues with a biochemist friend at a cocktail party recently, and at her suggestion; 2. Watched Prof. Lustig's extensive lecture on YouTube. After the lecture I visited the Wikipedia page in order to get to possible sources and scientific articles on the subject. I discovered the problematic nature of the articles assertions upon reading the source material cited as described above.

I would like the article to reflect the source material accurately and any bias in the sources to be transparent to readers.

Kind regards,

Thomas J. Dillon, Jr.

Thomasdillon01 (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thomas, and welcome to the Teahouse! Firstly, whenever you have a content dispute, you should attempt to discuss it with the editor(s) involved at the article's talk page. If you reach an impasse there, you can ask for a third opinion. There are steps beyond that too, but lets start with the simple stuff, ok? If you are questioning the sources, you can take that to the reliable sources noticeboard, but the noticeboards are very legalistic and kinda tough for a newcomer. (You are an attorney, so maybe that won't apply to you.) Finally, I put a tag on the article asking for attention from someone from WikiProject Medicine to come take a look and help if they can. Come back if we can be of more help! Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can one add diacritics?

1) The page on Tian Tian, the giant panda, needs to have diacritics added to the name, Tian Tian. Specifically, there needs to be a short horizontal line over the 'a' both times to show that the word is pronounced with first tone. How does one add diacritics to letters? 2) I am not yet an editor, and I'm not sure if I have the time to learn how to be one. Is there no easy place to post the above need and have someone who is an editor and who knows how to do this make the change? NC Daoist (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, NC. First, I disagree that the name needs to be changed. Wikipedia's naming convention specifies that English is preferred. On diacritics, the policy says, "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)." All of the references cited in the Tian Tian article show the name exactly as it is used in Wikipedia.

Adding letters with diacritics is easy and requires no special skill. Below the edit window and the "Save page / Preview / Changes" buttons is another button that most likely says "Insert." Click on that button for a drop-down menu and choose "Latin." You will see every variety of mark that is in common use. Just click on the letter or symbol that you want to use and it is added to the end of the text in your edit window. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 00:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NC Daoist and Welcome to Teahouse. Firstly, you ARE an editor on Wikipedia. You became one of us when you posted your question here. That is all it takes! Regarding your question on diacritics, we have a rather confusing guideline on that. In short, it says whenever possible, use English, and as you know, English doesn't use diacritics. If English sources, when speaking of Tian Tian, don't use diacritics, then we don't on Wikipedia either. And since the place where Tian Tian lives, the National Zoo, writes about him without diacritics, then we should too. Hope this helps, and thank you for letting me make my first official reply at Teahouse to you! Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style/China-related articles recommends using Template:Zh to embed the Chinese characters, their pronunciation, and (optionally) their meaning in English in the lede (the first sentence of the article). I will add the Zh template around the Chinese characters, and leave it up to you to add the pronunciation as a homework exercise ;-) If you click on the Tai Shan link in the Tian Tian article then you can see an example of how it is done. This is not the only way to do it; you will notice that the Pearl Buck article uses this template together with Template:Linktext to allow readers to look up the individual characters of her Chinese name in Wiktionary.
Ideally any foreign language characters embedded in English Wikipedia should be embedded inside any of the several foreign language templates including Template:Lang, so that the semantic markup of the web page is correct. Many countries have strict laws about web accessibility. Wikipedia also has web accessibility guidelines, but not many editors seem to have heard of them yet. I believe that the Zh and other foreign language templates include the semantic markup functions of Template:Lang, but I haven't confirmed this yet. LittleBen (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo up for deletion

Can someone please explain this to me. I uploaded with permission of the photographer and rec'd an email stating,

The Wikipedia page "File:Danny O'Connor throwing a punch.jpg" has been changed on 8 September 2012 by January, with the edit summary: This file is up for deletion, per CSD F7 (replaceable fair use). (TW)

How does this work? It is my 1st article and want to add the photos. what is the terms of this? Tirrnanogirl (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Tirrnanogirl. In the template that was placed on the photo's File: page, it says: "This file may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information." This is a common reason for deleting non-free images. Wikipedia would rather use free images than non-free images, even if the permission of the original photographer is given. I would suggest that you search for another image of the same subject that is free, or be able to provide evidence that a suitable free alternative does not exist. If you do wish to contest the deletion, do so on the file's talk page (it does not exist right now, you will have to create it by adding your text). Good luck! hajat vrc @ 00:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the photographer is willing to release the picture under a free license, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons, however you'll need explicit permission in writing. The process for that is through Commons:OTRS. If the photographer is willing to let you upload it to Wikipedia, but not willing to give it away for free, then what Hajatvrc says applies, and we probably can't use it. --Robert Keiden (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to insert photo into an article?

I have completed an article and have uploaded a photo in the wiki commons - how do I insert this photo into the article? In fact, do I need to upload the photo into the wiki common? If not, how do I delete that? Currently, I have placed the linked to the photo in the beginning of the article. There must be a way where the photo will show up together with the article. Help!! Much obliged and Many, many thanks. Mucho Gracis!! Merci! - :) CHHistory (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add the code

[[File:filename.jpg|right|thumb]]

into the edit window.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CHHistory! Gildrien is pretty right on with their suggestion. Also, if you look on the menu when you are editing (the "edit menu" I guess, next to the "bold" "italics" pencil, chain, icons) you'll see a "photo" icon which looks like a clipart image of a picture. Just click on that, and you can add the file name, a caption, the justification (left/center/right) and so forth. Just click it once you find the area in the article you want to place it, and follow through with it. Be sure to preview, of course, and then save. Let us know if it works out for you :) SarahStierch (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Success declared, thanks to Gilderien and to Sarah for taking the time to explain. Just hope that you'all will see this note, as unlike email, there is no reply icon ... One more question: How to add caption under the photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHHistory (talk • contribs) 17:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I'm going to do a little demonstration :) One of the best tricks I know when learning (and I am still learning, trust me) Wikipedia editing is to copy and paste others markup and use it for my own ;) So here is an example of adding a caption to an image. Let me know if that helps! (You put the caption after the justification (right/left). SarahStierch (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging of Errors

Forgive me if this question seems hopelessly obvious. Is it possible to flag an article that contains mistakes with only basic user privileges? If so, how? Osprey Ire (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Osprey Ire. Your question is soo b-r-o-a-d. Yes, you can tag and flag an article even as a newcomer. Start with simple tags that you can insert inline in the text. They are listed at Template:Inline tags and pick the one that is most appropriate for the error. So if you want to tell me that I need to give you some examples, insert {{Examples}} at the spot where you want examples and it will become this.^{[example needed]} If the problem is serious, then the entire page may be tagged. If you find an article with no references at all, the you would put {{subst:Unreferenced}} at the top of the page. For an article with inadequate references, use {{Refimprove}}. The list of all of these tags is at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. If you click on each tag between the curlies, you will be taken to a page that gives more detail. I suspect that you are interested in tagging an article that fails to maintain a neutral point of view. I'm not going to tell you where to find that tag so you will search for and find it and hopefully read the instructions and explanations on the page. If the article is so bad that you believe that it should be deleted from Wikipedia, come back here and I or another host will lead you through the process of nominating an article for speedy or normal deletion.

In less than two days and with two more edits, you will automagically become a confirmed user. I recommend that you do not yet install Twinkle, a Java script that automates tagging articles. You can get in trouble quickly with Twinkle, I did. My opinion is that Wikipedia editors should go through each process manually at least once to understand it and the implications and consequences of accusing another editor, at least in his or her mind, of being biased or incompetent. Some folks take every criticism of text that they wrote as a personal attack. It is important to keep discussions on track and about the text, list or image. After you do some tagging manually, you can contribute to Wikipedia with Twinkle, perhaps even joining the New Page Patrol. I hope this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 21:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doctree. Good advice.Osprey Ire (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent first edits! Grammar doesn't need {{tag}}, only a sharp pen. Thanks for lending yours.--Robert Keiden (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated violation of WP:ENGVAR

There is an IP user than keeps changing American English to British English across multiple articles. I have put the subst:uw-lang template on their talk page. Should I revert their edits as vandalism for ignoring the Manual of Style? Silvrous ^Talk 13:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If they are violating engvar but have only just been warned for the first time, their edits are not vandalism. They should be reverted and warned but neither the edit summaries nor the warning should use the word "vandalism" (and the revert should not be done using rollback). Vandalism is about intent. On the other hand, an edit that was at first made out of ignorance can be converted into vandalism if done repeatedly and made after the person has (or should have) knowledge of the issue. So if they continue to make engvar violating edits after being informed of the issue a few times, that could be vandalism and labeled as such – it's contextual. In either case, you should revert. One more issue. I have seen people reverting supposed engvar violations where they are not because they haven't read MOS:TIES. I haven't tracked down the actual edits you are referring to here, but if the article at issue has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, it should use the variety of English of that nation so changing American Spellings to British spellings, for example, if the topic is British specific, would not be an engvar violation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any lists of article requests for development?

As a researcher and journalist, is there a list of topics that require research and development? How long does it take for an article to be released into the main stream? When will I be able to upload a photo to accompany the article? Further, any request for article translation -- from Chinese into English? I can help and better yet, may be able to recruit a former linguistics professor (specialty in Asian languages). Thanks CHHistory (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CHHistory, and thank you for wanting to share your knowledge! The most common and easy way to find articles that need expansion is to find a WikiProject in the area in which you are interested. WikiProjects are groups of editors that come together to work on a particular content area. Their pages list articles that need to be worked on in that area. It appears that you are interested in history, and we do have a number of WikiProjects dedicated to it. You can find a list of these here. On that page is a complete list of WikiProjects that you can look through if you wish.

Articles are "released into the mainstream" as soon as they are created. It may take some time for an article to show up on search engine results (Wikipedia has no control over this), but it can be immediately found by anyone who searches Wikipedia for it.

You can upload a photo to Wikipedia at any time by using the "Upload file" function in the "Toolbox" section on the vertical bar to the left of this page (what a mouthful :P).

All of the information you need on translating pages from other languages, including a list of pages needing translation, can be found at Wikipedia:Translation. hajat vrc @ 18:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your feedback! Will do accordinglyCHHistory (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I upload pictures from this source?

The source in question is the ARGOLIKOS ARCHIVAL LIBRARY HISTORY AND CULTURE, a nonprofit foundation in Aegina, Greece. It has some excellent images of the Greek phoenix (early modern greek currency) which I would like to use on the wikipedia article of the same name. The photos are found here http://argolikivivliothiki.gr/2011/01/25/%CE%B5%CE%B8%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C-%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BF-%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%82/

Terms of use http://argolikivivliothiki.gr/%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%8B%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%B8%CE%AD%CF%83%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%82-%CF%87%CF%81%CE%AE%CF%83%CE%B7%CF%82/

These say that copying any of their works in part or in full for personal or educational use, so long as it is not for a commercial purpose is allowed. They also require attribution.

So my question is, is it OK to add these pictures to wikipedia? Thank you Blex areton (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blex, welcome to editing Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions (section)! Unfortunately Wikipedia requires images to be licensed in a way that also permits commercial use. So these images cannot be used under their current license. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with Demiurge in the main, some of these images look like they may be in the public domain, and so the license the website states its images are under may be irrelevant for some of them (they can't license anything that they don't own). Unfortunately, from what I've read the issue of copyright and public domain in Greece, and specifically in the area of postage stamps, is murky. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Greece. While in Greece, generally, images enter the public domain "70 years after the death of the creator, or 70 years after the date of publication for anonymous and pseudonymous works" there's an exception to this where "the State, represented by the Minister of Culture," exercises certain rights as to the image, and it goes on to state that "Official state, government and judicial texts" are an exception and further that "It is not clear if pictures of postage stamps (pre 1970), revenue stamps and currency (coins only) are covered by this clause." The whole section is not very clear, and unfortunately, we always assume full copyright unless something is clearly public domain. You might try tapping the expertise at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as to any specific image.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. The site also says that any image may be used for commercial purposes or loaded onto another site with the permission of the Library. Otherwise, since I own one of the coins in question, would an image produced by myself of that coin and placed in the public domain be OK? Blex areton (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blex :) Welcome to Wikipedia! Yup, if you decide to upload the images yourself that you took, that's totally cool! You can even use the fairly easy Upload Wizard at our sister site, Wikimedia Commons, to do it. Then, you can use the images in any Wikipedia article related to the subject in any Wikipedia language (we have over 240!). Thanks so much for considering taking those photos and sharing them with the world! SarahStierch (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, what Sarah says it true but only if the coin is itself in the public domain. This area can be slippery. It is true of many things that if you take the photo, you then own the photo and can release it under a free license or into the public domain, but it's not true if the photograph is of something that is itself copyrighted--a coin, a painting, etc. Instead this may be a derivative work if not a slavish copy but is non-free because the owner of the coin/painting's copyright remains.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To make things even clearer

since no free image of a non-free work can be created, such images tend to fall within Wikipedia's very strict non-free exceptions, to be used only to illustrate the item they are an image of. These rules are based on the US "fair use" laws, and of course you might need to consider whether the laws of other countries need to be taken into account. Also Commons will not accept any non-free image. Rich Farmbrough, 04:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

How will I request an article for creation?

Hi there, It's a long time since I've been here. How can I request an article for creation?Unpresidented welcome to almaat chat 05:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You go to Wikipedia:Article Wizard OMGuyZ (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was rather curt, and not right. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mir Almaat 1 S1, and welcome to the Teahouse! I believe you go to WP:Requested articles to request articles for creation. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to make changes to an edit and how to cite a reference?

I believe that this is the fourth time I've asked these questions referring to my attempts to correct errors in your entry on "Nevado del Tolima". The previous three times have been via your "Help" feature. My first problem is to find the result of my first editing attempt (rejected for lack of reference(s)). The second is that, once found, I can see no way of re-editing it. The third is that no-one has told me whether the reference I've told them about is suitable. The editors that have responded have done so in computerspeak with just a touch of academic superiority. I have tried to understand all the stuff I been told to read but it's not been helpful. The editor that has tried the hardest to help is Ariconte but I've found no way of communicating with him/her. Ariconte's talk page seems not to have a way of asking questions. In short, I have three questions. First, where do I find my previous (rejected) edit)? Secondly,how do I make changes to this and cite a reference? Thirdly, how can I find out if this reference is acceptable? (It comes from a website called Peakware.com). Any help (in plain English) would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Steve InghamInghams3 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve and welcome to the teahouse. At the top of any talk page you will find a tab called "new section". Click this to start a conversation.--Charles (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Steve. One point at a time:

To find your edit, go to the Nevado del Tolima article. In the upper right, look for "View history." Click on that "View history" tab and look for your username. On the left side of the white space, you will see (cur | prev). Click on "prev" and when you scroll down, you will see your edit. You can highlight and copy the text and save it to a text editor like Notepad (if you use a Microsoft Windows operating system). It is often good to edit off-line until you are satisfied with your work, saving your draft often so you don't lose it if there is a power surge or your PC decides to reboot for some reason.
I'm not sure what you mean by "this' in your second question. To edit, i.e., change, text, click the edit tab. To add a reference, the video that Ariconte left on your talk page shows the easiest way. If you have a problem, come back and ask and I will help with specific questions.
I checked the entry in peakware.com. It is definitely not a reliable source. That web site contains first person accounts by contributors with no editorial checks or peer review. A couple of minutes on Google show that the peakware.com article is demonstrably inaccurate. For example, the peakware.com article states that the first successful ascent of Nevado del Tolima was in 1928 while the first team actually reached the summit in December 1926. A reliable source at nevadodeltolima.info includes images of magazine articles about that climb with photographs. Copies of those magazines can still be retrieved from archives. Another example, peakware.com states the second party to reach the peak did so in in 1942. An official biography of Rev. Emilio Jesus Ramirez, SJ states that he reached the summit in 1941 with a group of his students. I hope someone takes on the task of writing an article about Ramirez; scanning through his bio showed that his is definitely notable and downright fascinating.

I hope this answered your questions. Editing and referencing will quickly get easier as you get a bit of experience. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 02:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inghams3 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Many thanks to you and Ariconte for answering my questions. It seems that I'm flogging a dead horse without a reliable reference. You're right; Padre Ramirez was quite a guy. I met him twice: once in 1966 to ask him the best way to get to the mountain and again in 1967 to give him a set of photos (which I no longer have) of the new crater. He was amazed to see it. Steve Ingham Inghams3 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Having read the "El Grafico" article, I see that at the bottom of page 714 (first column) is a detailed description of the summit. NO CRATER! Is it worthwhile translating this or extracting it and have you guys do the translation? Steve Ingham Inghams3 (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do we close discussions concerning article cleanup?

Hello teahouse, thanks for the invitation to visit you here for advice. I have got off to a bad start I am afraid. I have come across an article which I believe seriously contravenes content guidelines. I offered a few examples on the article talk page after being challenged to do so. Other contributors there have defended the article content against some of my concerns, but not mentioned or attempted to defend it against others. The discussion isn't very productive as the other contributors seem to resent any contribution at all from me. Today I tried to improve the compliance of the article with one of the points I had made (one which hasn't been challenged or contradicted) but one of the other contributors reverted my edits and placed a warning on my talk page, claiming I was being disruptive. The reason given was that the dead discussion wasn't closed.

My question is this: when or how does asuch a discussion become closed, and what do we do about articles which contravene guidelines is no-one else agrees, or even if no-one else disagrees? Eff Won (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eff Won! Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you please tell me which article you are referring to? I'd like to have a look. Usually, if everyone disagrees you should not take action. Such a discussion will close at consensus. Someone needs to summarise and ask for !votes. It's not a good idea to remove or alter content prior to that if everyone disagrees. It could be that you misinterpereted the guidelines or something similar. I'd like to take a look and then I can see what can be done. As you are quite a new user, major changes will not be looked upon due to the worries you may not know policies and guidelines well. Adam Mugliston Talk 20:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, thanks for offering to help me get to grips with this. It now appears, from a comment that just arrived on my talk page, that they may be a law unto themselves at the article in question. It is 2012 Formula One season, and the discussion is on it's talk page under the section headed "Serious level of non-compliance with key Wikipedia guidelines". I did read some of the guidelines that were suggested to me shortly after I first started using Wikipedia quite thoroughly, and cannot see any ambiguity there, but I suppose I could be barking up the wrong tree. Thanks for any further advice you might have. Best, Eff Won (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a look, I have a couple of suggestions so here you are:

I cannot see any violation of MOS:BOLD
You can solve the MOS:LINK issue, by removing the link and writing See also: (put link here) immediately after the sections. Make sure it's in italics.
Colour is allowed in results tables to show winners, losers etc.
MOS:FLAG isn't a strict guideline, so don't worry about that
And as for WP:LENGTH, the table and colours in it bulk out the article quite a lot and there are many things to add to it. There are images etc. and probably plenty of formatting, all of which add to the size of the article.

I hope this addresses your issues, let me know if you have more. Adam Mugliston Talk 21:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Can you explain again what you mean about the links. There are many instances where links to the same article are made umpteen times throughout the article (22 for Sebastian Vettel, for example). There are duplicated links in almost every section. It doesn't seem practical to add half a dozen, or more, "see alsos" to each and every section. Or do I misunderstand?

MOS:BOLD says don't use bold for emphasis, yet every entry in the second column of the first table is emboldened. Is that okay do you think? Eff Won (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe I wasn't quite clear. All you do in the section is : Main article: (insert link from the section title). Just the one that was in the title and then remove it from the title. You can remove some duplicates, but certainly keep one per section. The bold is fine. Adam Mugliston Talk 21:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay - the ones on the section titles you mean. Thanks. Do you think it's okay though to duplicate all the other links in each and every section? Don't forget that by the end of the season there will be at least 20 of the short "Race summaries" sub-sections and each will then have their own links to each of the top drivers, to each of the top car makes and to each of the top engine suppliers, at least! That means that the "Race summaries" section could easily have 10-20 links to each of the Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Button, Webber, Räikkönen, McLaren, Red Bull, Lotus Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault articles by the end of November. Eff Won (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that shouldn't be a problem. Adam Mugliston Talk 22:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome again, Eff Won. I offer a different explanation and perspective. Many articles in Wikipedia are part of a WikiProject. The 2012 Formula One season article is part of WikiProject Formula one. Within articles about Formula One racing, members of that WikiProject are, as you put it, "a law unto themselves." Years ago, editors discussed the format for recording Formula One racing seasons and settled on a format and style. Some elements were settled on and incorporated into a lot of articles before the current Manual of Style even existed. Those interested in Formula One racing look at the articles for any season and see the same format and style, making it easy to find and compare information. To keep the articles consistent, any significant change to the 2012 article would cause ripple changes to dozens of other pages to maintain consistency. Such changes could confuse and disrupt readers who have expectations when they look at Formula One articles. Set in their ways? Yes. Are your edits and changes really significant improvements to the encyclopedia?

I'm a bird geek. For hundreds of years, ornithologists and birders followed conventions in naming birds with common and scientific names in the English language. Members of WikiProject Birds got so tired of other editors changing the names of our articles by removing capital letters that we edited some Wikipolicy and the Manual of Style. Watch for "See also the special rules on capitalization in bird naming." sprinkled here and there. Do the names of articles about birds comply with the naming policies and guidelines of Wikipedia? They do after reaching a consensus and closing the discussion and adding the special rules. Even with those rules in place for bird article names, I have undone a couple of article moves caused by well-intentioned newcomers who missed the fact that there are specific rules for specific topics that violate the general rules. Make sense?

I recommend you take a break from the Formula One project pages. Since you are interested in cleaning up in Wikipedia, there is a Cleanup Taskforce that could really use your help. Oh, and please take the template I added to your talk page in the manner intended (lighten things up) and not as an insult. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 04:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, so they, in effect, ARE a law unto themselves. Perhaps this "newbie trap" needs to be better documented, and an appropriate warning disributed to new starters, along with the links to the already numerous policies, guidelines, etc. that are already given. Something like "Take what is written in these with a pinch of salt" needs to be added to the top of each, and the list of exempt articles provided. I feel now that by attemping, in a modest way, to do the right thing by the guidelines, that all I have done is to make a right arse of myself! I have certainly alienated myself from those working in that particular clique. The least that should have happened is that the extralegal status of articles under that project should have been explained to me as my first edit was unceremoniously dumped. Eff Won (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Doctree is saying is that WikiProject Formula One has its own, slightly altered Manual of Style. It is not a law, nor it is a clique, it is a series community agreements made over time by a wide variety of editors to suit the Formula One articles and make them better for their readers.

The top of every Manual of Style article clearly states that all guidelines have exceptions, and that common sense must come into play. A list of exempt articles could never exist because any article can be exempt if the edits are better for Wikipedia. The only "newbie trap" is that you, as a newbie, chose to argue against those who tried to warn you and explain things to you, and laid claims of a grand conspiracy of wrongdoing when their answers did not match your interpretations. Certainly, your very first edits (adding links to a calendar) were quite repeatedly explained to you as a choice made by consensus. Consensus will always be able to overrule the Manual of Style. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite repeated requests though, evidence of that consensus was never shown, and that, rightly or wrongly, led me to the conclusion that it was all bluff. Eff Won (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing Conflicts...

I feel as if there isn't a whole lot of consistency with the reviewers and referencing. One reviewer told me that a reference I had used (to cite as a source within my article), was great, but that I needed to change one or two of the others. The next time I submitted my article for review, a different reviewer decided he didn't like the "great" reference and called it a "blog", which it wasn't. It was clearly a third party website powered by WordPress (CNN, Forbes, Reuters, etc., are all powered by WordPress...and maybe he's confused because he thinks WordPress is only for blogs). I am beginning to think reviewers accept/decline just based on their own opinion and don't really research the references offered. Am I wrong to think this? Maybe I'm missing something. Someone clarify this for me, please.CityDoors 17:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litraj (talk • contribs)

Hey, Litraj! You are correct that article reviewing is a somewhat subjective process. But Wikipedia is built to accommodate discussion, and the best bet for understanding the opinions of reviewers is to contact them on their talk pages. While you must always be civil, you also have the right to ask hard questions. This will help the reviewers question their own methods, which is what makes a good Wikipedian. hajat vrc @ 18:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember to sign posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) Thanks. Adam Mugliston Talk 18:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with erroneous information in article and deleting it without arguing with anyone

I am new to wikipedia and I was told that we could make corrections to inaccuracies. I made corrections with supported references and they keep getting deleted or reversed. I was accused of threatening other users which I never did. I stated that the information that originally posted was inaccurate and no longer factual and that I had contacted those sources off wikipedia through legal means to get them to reverse or retract their information. I politely asked them to retract got no where and then asked an attorney to contact them. I noted this on the wikipedia entry and I was informed that this was a violation. I never directed my comments to anyone just stated FACTS that were untrue.Adecoratingmom (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adecoratingmom. I'm sorry to see that you seem to be having trouble. Please read the Wikipedia policies titled Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be changed or added to based on information which is publicly availible in reliable published sources. Additionally, changes are made to articles by free negotation between Wikipedia editors who reach a consensus. Both of these principles are non-negotiable. That is, contacting someone doesn't count as a reliable source, you need to show where the information you have is already published elsewhere. And you can't get what you want by using the threat of legal action. Doing so will get you blocked very fast, because using legal action to coerce others to do what you want has a Chilling effect on the free exhange of ideas. Therefore, if you want to make a change to the article in question, present evidence in the form of reliable publications (not just "I asked someone and they said it was so") and refrain from using the threats of legal action to enforce what you want. That is the best advice I have to offer. --Jayron32 14:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I do not want to offend anyone but you are not reading what I am saying. I will repeat myself again. I NEVER threatened any SOURCE with legal action. Here is the example. A person on this article referenced a published article that has been retracted. I notified that person that the article has a retraction because the facts in the original article (OFF wikipedia) is not true. The article was written and reprinted in other sources. The facts from the original article were NOT factual. I contacted the person on wikipedia who wrote to inform him that the information is not factual. He is posting erroneous information on his blog and his website that is not factual. I provided wikipedia and the source with the NEW information showing the retraction and errors from the sourced material. AGAIN never threatened a source on wikipedia. Never threatened anyone off wikipedia. I contacted the newspaper who wrote the original article, asked them nicely to review the article and to kindly check the facts. They did not respond. I had our attorney send them a nice letter with the TRUE facts and copy of the legal records that clearly contradict their original story. We asked for a retraction. They authenicated the documents through the legal system and stated the would retract. This is OFF of wikipedia. So again, the original published article has now been retracted and I have contacted OFF wikipedia the other two sources using the NEW retracted buried article to get them to write retractions. This has nothing to do with WIKIPEDIA. The source that posted or used these articles has been contacted also and shown this new information. So as I stated before the original published article that the "Source" is using as reliable information has been presented the new article and still will not retract. So what do I do now. Again, read what I said I never threatened anyone off on or off the site. The source is using outdated and published in error material. How do I fix this other then what I have tried to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adecoratingmom (talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link or reference to the published retraction? That's essentially what we need. We can't just take your word for it that the original sources were retracted, not that we don't trust you one way or the other, but the key here would be proof that the source is outdated by showing us the newer source material that directly contradicts it. Does that make sense? --Jayron32 15:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with low-level anonymous vandalism

Someone seems intent on including minor rubbish in Guelph/Eramosa. Each time I clean it up, it's been undone by an anonymous user with the comment "fixed vandalism". The latest instance is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guelph%2FEramosa&diff=511173128&oldid=509081036. Since the IP addresses involved are always different, there is no user talk page on which I can productively post a comment. When I posted a comment on the article talk page, the response was abusive: Talk:Guelph/Eramosa.

Any suggestions on how to deal with this more effectively? Tunborough (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tunborough. Yeah, I looked it over, and this is the sort of low-level vandalism that is best dealt with by reverting and ignoring. As you note, the vandalism happens from different IPs, so it makes no sense to block them. Also, it doesn't seem to happen often enough to deal with via page protection. Looking over the history of the article, the recent vandalism you reverted happened four times in the past month. That really isn't often enough to justify locking the page down. When you get this sort of stuff, the only thing we can do is exactly what you have already done: be vigilant and revert. If it becomes more prevalent, like if it starts happening every day, or if the person who is doing it confines themself to a single IP, we can block them or protect the page. Use WP:AIV to request a block or WP:RFPP to request a protection if it ever gets to that point. I just don't see that there's anything we can do right now. --Jayron32 14:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translating an English article to another language

Greetings,

I would like to ask for clarification regarding the translation of Wikipedia articles from one language (English for example) to another (in my case, Greek). The focus will be mainly on expanding existing entries, and adding sub-entries from the original article as needed, until the translation is completed in a 1:1 scale.

While I am willing and able to complete a reliable translation of many articles, I am wondering whether I am allowed to use the same sources as linked in the original (English) article.

While the article will be Greek, the sources will be in English (unless I can add a translation somewhere, though I fear that would perhaps be too much work).

The reason I am asking is because there are many great articles (especially socio-political ones), and I respectfully doubt there are available source materials to use for references when expanding said articles.

Thank you for your time, Alexbeav Alexbeav (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexbeav, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's perfectly fine to use English sources in the translated article (especially if there are no Greek ones) and at the English Wikipedia we occasionally cite non-English sources. You might want to see WP:Translate us, which gives some tips on translating from the English Wikipedia to another language. We appreciate your effort to improve the encyclopedia, whether it is here or in another language. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification

Hi, I'm new for wikipedia, I have written one biographical article for Sri Prakash Lohia, however it keeps on giving 2 messages on the top of articles, I have tried all the citation I know, but still coming those 2 messages, does it need some time or there is such procedure for approval?Thanks/Thomas Thomas Sumartono (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thomas, and welcome to the Teahouse! The notes at the top are added manually by a user so they have to be removed manually. I don't know about the citations, but if there's a notability problem, as it says at the second tag, I'm not sure if there's much anyone can do. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 10:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i made some improvement on my submission, can anyone help me and point out my problems?

here's my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Zorro_Macsk and one more thing why There are currently 907 submissions waiting for review at this page. the no. of submissions is adding up but i still didn't get a chance to be reviewed. how did this happen?Machsucq (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thomas, and welcome to the Teahouse! There normally is a backlog at the Articles for Creation page, and if there is an increase in the number of submissions it's just adding to the backlog. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reviewed and declined it. Perhaps if you remove some biased language it will be quite good. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary vs Subpage

If I am doing a page for an singer/songwriter and I want to link under the discography section to go to a page for a particular album, is it better to do a subpage or another primary page?

PRPerformerResearch (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PerformerReasearch! Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you please clarify what you are trying to do, you simply want to place a link to a page about an album? Not a redirect? Adam Mugliston Talk 15:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, PR! Welcome to the Teahouse, as Adam said. If I understand correctly, you're trying to add links on an artist's page to separate pages about each of their albums - the way to do this is to simply type [[TITLE]] (replacing title with the title of the album) where you want it to be listed (on the artist pge). Then hit save. After saving, you should see some red-looking text where each album name is... if you click on the red text, it will bring you to a new blank page, where you can type out the details on that particular album. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Theopolisme 23:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as an aside, subpages are typically almost never used... so creating them as new root pages is the way to go. Theopolisme 23:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerformerResearch (talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait a minute. I just that, however, I still know if I am in the sandbox or not. Am I only allowed one page in the sandbox? PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerformerResearch (talk • contribs) 03:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a good idea to only have one article per sandbox but you can have as many sandbox pages as you like, they just have to have different names like User:PerformerResearch/sandbox, User:PerformerResearch/sandbox2, User:PerformerResearch/sandbox3 etc. NtheP (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse question template

Hi team, I'm a user of mediawiki on another project, I love the 'Ask a question' template that you've used here. Tried to look at the code but can't see how you've done it, can anyone direct me to the correct template or extension page? Many thanks Ctrace (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ctrace, welcome! The source is here. Share and enjoy! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I name it? Do I click on the link from the first sandbox page and when it takes me to a blank page, type usersandbox2? Sorry for all the dumb questions. PR — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerformerResearch (talk • contribs) 02:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

article creation help--backfilling through live posting?

Hi--For years I've enjoyed wikipedia, especially learning odd bits of history associated with the saint-of-the-day on various religious calendars. I decided to give back by backfilling on the few people on the Anglican calendars that don't have wikipedia pages yet. My first attempt was through the Articles for Creation process a year ago, and finally got published when I attended wikimania in Washington DC this past July (and met some friendly teahouse types).

I used the same process for a second article about a week ago, and haven't yet gotten a response, although I noticed that somehow the saint's name was mistaken in the AFC header--as her maiden name instead of her name in the calendar (and first paragraph of the semi-created article and included photo). Of course, I might've messed up even though I used a existing article as a template, but frankly I would just like to get the article posted (though she's on the calendar for March 26) -- so I can get started on un-wikified saint No. 3, whose feast day is Nov. 20.

At the risk of violating wikipedia civility standards, I'll be frank and admit I have no idea on how to just post "Harriet Monsell" live as I saw mentioned somewhere in these bulletin board. Seems the AFC process is badly backlogged. Plus, when I used the process last year, the reviewers co-mments were more jobsworthy (to use a British colloquialism that's become my word-of-the-month even if somewhat rude) rather than helpful (I learned this summer that I had a space in the previous article's first line, which messed things up, even if the sandbox version looked fine). 03:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jweaver28 (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome to the TeaHouse Jweaver28. If there is already a consensus that a subject or series of subjects is notable, then you can just create edit any page (including your sandbox) to include [[Harriet Monsell]] which will display as Harriet Monsell and give you a red link to create your page. Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints can help you determine whether your saints are notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JWeaver28. Please never do a copy-and-paste into a red link. In your sandbox, at the top of the page, hover your cursor over the down arrow and look for "Move" to move your draft to article space. When you click "Move", you get a form to complete with drop-down menu options. Most are clear. If you get lost, just close the page and start over. After doing a couple, it will become easy. If you want details, check How to move a page for a complete description.

If you decide to do all the work in article space, be sure to put a {{newpage}} template at the top so reviewers and patrollers don't tag it for deletion before you get a chance to flesh it out. I consider it better to complete a new article in your sandbox and then move it to article space. Hope this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 03:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doctree and Stuartyeates, but I'm confused. I don't see a down arrow, though if I hover over the down-and-right arrow in my sandbox, the link is a redirect to the incorrect "Harriet O'Brien" rather than "Harriet Monsell" (which is the missing saint article). Unfortunately, the Saints portal seems inactive for now, and the Anglican portal has a bunch of names for prospective pages, but none are of the three 19th century women who are the red name links in the Church of England's liturgical calendar. I don't want to whine, but unless I've overlooked something on my sandbox page (which is always a real possibility), it seems that by using the Articles for Creation route, the article space/live posting route's foreclosed. Or is the problem that I've recently added a https preference for my firefox browser--and while I've been around on wikipedia over a year, the learning or good behavior or whatever period's now restarted. Clearly, lots of semi-newbie confusion. Jweaver28 (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a confirmed editor, up near the top of the page, you should see "Read | Edit | View History | * | Rate | ♥ |"(except it's a down arrow and not a heart) as shown in the pictures. Shouldn't matter that you now use the secure site. You should get a "Move" dialog box like shown in the right hand picture. Hope so. Let us know if there's a problem and maybe take a screen shot of what your header looks like? Hope this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 05:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A picture is worth 1,000 words sometimes. So that's an arrow and not a dropdown triangle thingie. LOL. Anyway, I moved the article into livespace with the correct name, and put the newpage template you wrote about at the top without removing the articles for creation one, though maybe I should've. Golly, I never thought of myself as a confirmed editor before! Maybe I'll find the time over the weekend (especially if my doggie feels better) to learn how to spruce up my userpage....Jweaver28 (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on Nathalie Cely article

Hello,

I saw that the article Nathalie Cely was lacking in references, so I added a couple. However, I have some questions that I'm wondering if you can help me with. In other articles I've seen, the endnotes have their own section header. How do I do that? Also, two of the sources I used give different accounts of the ambassador's role within the organization Stratega. One says she was the founder and president, and the other describes her as a vice president. How are factual inconsistencies of this nature generally dealt with? Finally, on the "Talk" page for some articles, there are banners categorizing them (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Embassy_of_Ecuador_in_Washington,_D.C. In this case it's the International Relations project). I think the Nathalie Cely page also belongs within the purview of that project. How do I recommend that, and to whom? Or can I do it myself?

Thank you. Numera astra (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Numera astra. To add the references section, in the edit mode, add below the body of text:

==References==

As far as adding categories and talk page templates, be BOLD and add those that you believe are appropriate. Go ahead and add {{WikiProject International relations|class=stub|importance=low}} to the top of the talk page. Take caree, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 03:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've seen categories at the bottom of page, but how do I decide which categories are applicable? Is there a master list of available categories to choose from, for instance? As to the inconsistency between sources, I think I'll just say that she served as an executive at Stratega. The ambiguity at least ensures that it's not false. Numera astra (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Update: I found a category from another page and copied it onto this one. I then tried searching for another category (Ambasadors of Ecuador), and I noted that it contains several sub-categories, such as "Ambassador of Ecuador to France," "Ambassador of Ecuador to Russia," and so on. Is there a category for Ambassadors of Ecuador to the United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numera astra (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a category Ambassadors of Ecuador to the United States but you could create one if you want. There is a full index of categories that can be found at Special:Categories. NtheP (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding brackets around John F. Kennedy School of Government to create a wikilink in the Nathalie Cely article stimulated one of the many Wikipedia bots to add the category John F. Kennedy School of Government alumni, Just adding new material in Wikipedia style and format will fill in some categories for you, Astra. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 03:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was the one who added that category, but I see what you mean. So there are automated bots that read metadata on all the articles and add categories to them? If so, that's pretty cool. Thanks for all your helpful suggestions. I'll probably be back.Numera astra (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Problem/ How does one delete an article?

I've think I've discovered a case where an ordinary/ marginally employed journalist is trying to pass themselves off as "notable" in an effort to, in effect, post their résumé on wiki. I tagged the entry for review on the notability test but nothing is progressing. How do I get the ball rolling? MalibuSurfKing (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MalibuSurfKing, welcome to the Teahouse! Could you give the link to the article please? I'll take a look and see what can be done, it is possible it can be speedy deleted. Adam Mugliston Talk 21:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking through your contributions, I think the article you may be referring to is Candace Dempsey. The article seems sourced well enough and so there wouldn't really be any grounds for deletion. I don't think notability is a big issue there, but some expansion would certainly benefit that article. Adam Mugliston Talk 21:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! As Adam said, notability doesn't appear to be an issue. However, I'll tag it for expansion. See you soon, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam & Nathan. Thank you for your replies. The article I was referring to is, indeed, the one on Candace Dempsey. Seems this person has published just ONE book based on her amateur "readers blog" (readers writing for other readers) hosted by the Seattle P.I.. Does one book and one amateur blog meet the test for "notable"? There are only 3 references: one is to her own website and the other 2 are related to her interviews promoting her lone book and blog. Looks like a case of 'self-referential self-promotion'.MalibuSurfKing (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article subject is non notable and can't be improved to establish notability then you can either propose the article for deletion or nominate the article for deletion. But for both you need to have grounds for supporting your contention that the subject isn't notable. NtheP (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Garry Sahota

Hi

Dear Sir /Madam i'm here for the deletion of the page Garry Sahota. Garry sahota is an very good know indian model and the iformation i gave about him is true so why his your team delete his page? I saw many indian punjabi models page on wikipedia already so why not Garry Sahota? Please let his page be in wikipedia. If you need more info about Mr Sahota please ask me.

Thanks Suyash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garry Sahotaa (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Suyash and welcome to the Teahouse. The main problem with User:Garry Sahotaa/Sandbox is a lack of sources. To be included in wikipedia articles needs to be written about in detail in independent sources and those sources need to be in the article. For more details on this requirement, see WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your reply. so is it possible if i re-edit the page and sort-out the issue about lack of sourcess then save it?? and pls do mention that what i have to edit Thanks alot Regards Suyash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garry Sahotaa (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Suyash, Yes if you can provide sufficient independent sources like newspapers, books, websites, then Garry Sahota could be able to have an article.

Adam Mugliston Talk 13:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks alot and what about link of the videos in that he performed as an actor?

No problem, could you give me one of the links, I'd have to have a look. You must have sources from books or newspapers though. Also, please remember to sign your posts with 4 tildas (~~~~). Thanks. Adam Mugliston Talk 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dear Adam Mugliston am sending you the couple of links where Mr. Garry Sahota did a role in just have a look Thanks alot

Thanks Alot Regards Suyash (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos are not generally considered "reliable sources". However, official YouTube channels (like setindia's) could be reliable. Wikipedia:NOYT#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources? A source from a printed book or printed magazine would be best. An online magazine, or entertainment-news website might be RS, depending on the site.--Robert Keiden (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks Sir Robert Keiden i'll b back to you shortly. Suyash (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just wana knw does newspaper scan cuting will work?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garry Sahotaa (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garry. We don't normally go to the lengths of uploading scans of cuttings of newspapers. (Amongst other things, there's a risk that would be a copyright infringement.) Instead, one can cite a newspaper piece by providing its title, the page number that it was on, the name of the newspaper, the publisher of the newspaper, the author of the piece, and the date published. (The idea is that this would allow someone else to verify the information - checking what the newspaper actually said - if they really wanted to.) Additionally, if the newspaper has also published the piece on its own website, one could link to that in one's citation, for readers' convenience. But that last part is not required or essential, just a convenience. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]