Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tigraan, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Please join our discussions! To reply, use the edit button across from the title ↓

How should one deal with original research being readded into an article?

I removed an entire section of original research in the fork bomb article a while ago, in line with what I read at Wikipedia:No original research. Today that same content was readded verbatim with no change in the lack of references. I have left a message for the user, but assuming that they do not engage me, how should one best deal with this situation? — cdwn 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi cdwn, and welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at the two links (Thanks for providing them!), it seems like some editors just feel you removed too much information at one time. I would suggest going to the talk page and posting there about the issues you have with the section in question. There, other editors and yourself can talk about what needs to be done, before people just start doing things. If you need any more help, don't hesitate to ask me! gwickwire | Leave a message 21:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I already posted about this on the talk page prior to the removal, and have not since received any response from any other editor. I'm confused about your suggestion, is talk page discussion able to override site-wide policy? If not, why should one wait for discussion to remove prohibited content; surely if this is a problem the discussion should revolve around the policy and not the article? Thanks. — cdwn 21:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking for guidance on my first time article.

I seem to keep getting hit by the reference gods. I've included several outside sources. It is about a podcast that has been going for 5 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/WDWNewsToday

Thanks. Ericxedge (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Eric, thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. Looking at the article it has so far been declined three times on not establishing the notability of the podcast. You do have plenty of references but the problem is that most of them are related to the subject being mostly from other Disney sites. Your best bet is to find references from sites that are nothing to do with the Disney organisation in any shape or form.

Not directly related to the notability but looking at the content, I see that a lot of the episode guides are written in the first person, for example, "On this weeks show, we begin . . ." (my emphasis). Are you quoting the podcast summary in which case there are potential copyright issues are are you in some way connected with the podcast where you might have a conflict of interest. The summaries should be written in a neutral fashion, ideally in the third person. I'm sorry if this is coming over as bad news, especially when you have obviously put a lot of work into the article so far, but I'm afraid at the moment it isn't meeting some of the kjey principles of Wikipedia. NtheP (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you remove banner asking for citations from reliable and independent sources once you add them?

I recently edited and added citations to an article that had this banner at the top:

This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. Please add citations from reliable and independent sources. (July 2012)

Now that I fulfilled the request, is there a way to take it off?

Thanks very much.

Misssarta (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Which article is it? If you click edit on the whole page at the top it will have something like {{primarysources}} . Just delete that bit.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the quick reply, it's on journalist Chuck Philips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misssarta (talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How to delete a page that is redundant of another?

I work for EFILM and need to delete the EFILM page as the EFILM Digital Laboratories page has the correct and most current information. I created the EFILM page by mistake after not realizing a previous page had been created. This is an urgent issue as we are getting ready to launch a new website and all info needs to be correct. Thank you. Bydeluxe (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Bydeluxe, welcome to The Teahouse. Most editors cannot delete articles. This is left up to an administrator. I see that there are speedy deletion tags on the page; these will be reviewed by an administrator within the next day. Before I answer your question, I have a few concerns about what you are requesting. First, you said that you work for the company. Generally speaking, you should avoid creating articles about companies for which you are working because you have a conflict of interest and it is generally difficult to write the article from a neutral standpoint. Secondly, neither the company nor you has absolute authority over what the "correct" page on Wikipedia should be, as neither editors nor their subjects own articles here, and so the interests of your company are secondary to the goals of Wikipedia. However, if the name of the company has indeed officially changed, the article's title can likely be changed as well. So far, the current website uses the name EFILM, so it will likely stay that way until other evidence has arisen. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Also, it sounds like a merge proposal was made for contents to be moved into EFILM, which I think makes the most sense given the circumstances. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Hi Jethrobot, thank you for your time and info. I would like to merge the pages under the name EFILM Digital Laboratories. How can this be done? Also, when merging the pages, which article content takes the cake? Bydeluxe (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bydeluxe: the older article should take precedence, so here's what I'd do:

• Open the older of the two for editing, make any needed modifications including pasting in content from the newer, and leave a clear WP:Edit summary indicating that you're pasting in content from the newer, redudant version you created.
• Once you have everything you need from the newer version duplicated in the older version, go to the newer and request speedy deletion as a duplicate article, adding mention that you've successfully merged content into the older article. Once the new article is deleted, its space will be empty, and you'll be able to move the old article to the new title.

That said, both versions have significant issues in that they're written as advertising and don't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If having a good-looking and credible wiki page is important to y'all during whatever business changes you're making, I strongly advise you get the page right with Wiki guidelines. A page covered in tags or clearly "cheating" the advertising rules just looks sketchy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How do I split an article?

How do I split an article? There is an article on it: wikipedia:splitting, but it does not actually give a step-by-step guide to doing it. It tells when and when not to split, and not to just cut and paste.

So, if we're not supposed to cut and paste, how do you split an article?

I posed this question on the talk page a few days ago, underneath almost exactly the same question from another editor, who asked it a year ago, without a response.

Thanks!

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Buzfuz, though your wariness of copy-pasting is well-founded and appreciated, that mostly applies to moving an entire article to a different title, etc. Things like that. In the case of splitting, you do end up copy-pasting old content into a new article, but the main thing you want to do is make it very transparent that you've done so. WP:Splitting shows the templates you apply to both the Talk pages of both articles, and the edit summaries of the changes you make, so it's clear to everyone where the content came from. I realise it's a lot of templates and a little dense, but fundamentally you're using them to say "Hey guys, I'm splitting off part of Smith Dynasty to make a new article King Smith III. Hey readers of King Smith III, bear in mind this article was split off from Smith Dynasty on 13 October 2012. Hey readers of Smith Dynasty, I split off King Smith III from this article on..." etc. You get the basic idea.

I'd say go ahead and make the split, but past the new and old articles here for us to see what you did and make sure it's templated right. As you do it, just do the best you can to make the moves clear in edit summaries and Talk pages, ideally using the templates in "Splitting". But be bold and give it your best shot. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Writing wiki page for a company you work at

Hello,

This is the first wikipedia page I have contributed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maluuba Unfortunately it got flagged for deletion rather quickly. I want to make it an informative article for the company, and I kind of feel like an employee would know more about the company more than any outside source would. Is this type of thing generally frowned upon or is it encouraged? As long as I could stay most neutral and informative on the topic.

I also look at it's current state and I see some editors defending for the page to stay alive as well, but it is still a rather poor article. There are many different citations for it now I could add and make it a higher quality page, I am just curious if it would be worthwhile if it is doomed to be delete anyways.

Pdatnic (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pdatnic, the article you created was flagged for deletion rather quickly as we have a policy on the company's notability. Apparently, the company you wish to describe isn't notable enough, which is why it is flagged for deletion. Cheers! --Hydriz (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! If I can add to the above, the question in regard to notability isn't whether or not the company is important, but whether or not there are independent sources that people on Wikipedia can get access to in order to develop the article. The problem with relying on personal knowledge is that it isn't available for other people to use and check. In many cases, as in yours, that means Wikipedia has to miss out on good articles, but on the other hand it means that if someone invents negative comments about the topic they can't argue that it is personal knowledge and therefore must stay. So to develop the article, you need to dig up coverage of the company in some independent sources (such as newspapers, trade magazines, journals, and the like) that will provide contributors with a solid foundation on which to build. If you have those, then great!

From the above, I'm not sure if you were saying that you were an employee or not, but if so that raise's a bit of a complex issue. If you work there, some people will argue that you aren't truly independent, which tends to raise concerns. So it is generally recommended that people in that situation make suggestions on the article's discussion page rather than making major changes directly. That said, having their involvement is always much appreciated, and I'm not sure if that is the situation in which you find yourself. - Bilby (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Pdatnic, and thanks for dropping by the teahouse. Let me expand a bit on what what Hydriz said. Notability is (roughly) being mentioned in reliable sources of information, broadly construed as sources where people will go out of their way to get their facts straight. Blogs and press releases (generally) don't count. Newspapers and magazines (generally) do. If/when you start getting that kind of coverage then cite those sources and that should take care of the notability issue. For a sense of the details I've elided here, see WP:Notability, WP:CORP and WP:RS.

There will also be an issue about conflict of interest. This is an area I'm much less familiar with, so rather than summarize I'll just point you to WP:COI. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask here. GaramondLethe 05:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please make the changes and get it aprooved

Dear,

Thanks for your assistance. The link is:

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

Althoughm the changes have been done by me. If anyone can help in at least getting this published would be nice. The guitarist, on which this article I'm publishing is one of the prominent one but unfortunately unable to get it published since long time.

Would request an expert to review, edit or remove (if required)to at least get it published first as lately we may plan to add more content of his profile.

RegardsMrnit (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Mrnit, thanks for swinging by the Teahouse. I've done some copyediting of the article to make it more in line with article formatting. What the articles needs right now are independent sources that talk about the subject in-depth. All of the sources right now are primary sources, meaning they were created by the subject. In order to support the nobility of this person, they or their music needs to be discussed in other, reliable sources not created by the subject. I hope this answers your question, and helps you get your article into publication! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: the ZeeNews website crashed my browser with all its pop-ups, unresponsive scripts, etc. so I advice other editors don't click it.

Hello Mrnit, I've done some further formatting, and put a comment at the top of your article with some suggestions. Your current references aren't too strong; the ZeeNews once seems decent, The Hindu is only a passing mention in part of one sentence, the Broadway World ones seem decent, but not sure how serious a publication that is. Can you dig up a few more refs from major news sites?

Also, you need to tweak your citations, because as they're written now it makes it look like they were all written by Kapil, so you need to credit the proper author, and make sure the titles given in the citation are the proper titles of the article, that citations include the proper date of publication, etc. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How to retreive the last wikipedian's declined article' suggestion?

Sub: Can you guide on how to retreive the last wikipedian's declined suggestion?

Hello,

I am creating a page of an Indian Guitarist but unable to retrive what was suggested last due to which it has been declined?

I guess it was containing a point wise suggestion of it.

regardsMrnit (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, Mrnit! Since this is the first edit you have made with this account, we cannot see which article you are talking about. If you could link us or otherwise point us in the right direction to the page of which you speak, we could see what the problem is. Usually, when an article is declined the reason for the decline appears in a large box at the top of that page. If you cannot see this, we would need to know which page you are talking about so we can help you out. hajatvrc @ 21:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Photo needs deleting...

Can you point me to a place where I can learn how to delete a photo of someone (not living) that is incorrect on the wikipedia page? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.34.191 (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and the Teahouse! Could you please provide us with some more information about the article and photo in question? Preferably, you can post links to the article by using [[(article name)]] and to the file by using [[File:(name)]] or just copy the http:// link here surrounded by [ and ]. If you provide this, I can go take a look for you and see what I can do about it. Also, do you have another image in mind that you would like it to be replaced with? If so, I'd need some more information about this image before I could add it. Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 16:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Trying to find Abilene Reporter Newspaper Obituaries March 15, 1971 Abilene, Tx 79601

Hello, I am trying to find the Obituaries Abilene, Texas from Abilene Reporter Newspaper dated March 15th, 1971 Tona Worthington Age 10 years oldCathy Simmons (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Cathy, and welcome to the teahouse! There's a website called the newspaperarchive that has scanned in the Abilene newpaper from that day. It's a pay site; if that's a problem you might want to drop by the wikipedia resource exchange and see if someone has a subscription or lives in the area and can drop in at the library for you. Good luck! GaramondLethe 10:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

talk pages

How do I talk on talk pages?DeeElf (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, DeeElf! That's a great question. I'll divide my answer up into several parts: finding the talk page, opening the editor, a few editing conventions, and two really important things to remember.

• At the top left corner of your browser window you should see two tabs. One will be labelled "Project page" or "Article" or "Template" depending on the content of that wikipedia page. In these cases (and most other cases) there will be a second tab labelled "Talk". If you click on that you'll be taken to the talk page of the item you were looking at.
• Once you're at the talk page you have the ability to contribute to the conversation. Talk pages are divided into sections and at the right of each section is a link labelled "edit": click that to edit just that section (that's probably what you'll want to do most of the time). If you want to start a new section &mdash if you have a new question or would like to raise a new topic — then click on the "New section" link in the group of tabs at the top right of your browser window. If you want to be able to edit anywhere in the talk page at once, there's an "Edit" link in the same group of tabs that will give you that ability.
• At this point you should have a text editor on your screen with the text and markup of the existing comments. Here are a few conventions to get you started.

If you're replying to someone, you should generally reply underneath what they said and indent your text one level deeper than theirs. To indent, use one or more colons (":") at the beginning of your paragraph and just keep typing — no need to hit return to make a new line.

This line is indented with three colons (":::"),

This one with four ("::::").

And this one with five (":::::").

When the comment nesting starts to get unreadable you can "outdent" using the outdent template {{od}}.

• If you want to create a link to a wikipedia page, use double square brackets: [[Elf]] turns into Elf and [[User:Garamond Lethe|Garamond Lethe]] turns into Garamond Lethe. Links outside of wikipedia just take a single square bracket: [http://www.nytimes.com New York Times] turns into New York Times.
• When you're done with your comment there are three final things to do before hitting the "Save page" button at the bottom of the page. First, remember to sign your comment: just type in ~~~~. (There's also a button at the top of the edit box that will do this for you.) Second, take advantage of the "Show preview" button. Finally, fill in the "Edit summary" box just underneath the edit window.

The above should take care of 98% of your editing. There's a much more complete writeup at WP:Talk and WP:Edit, but they're probably best read after you've made a few dozen edits. If there was some aspect of editing talk pages that you needed that I didn't cover, go ahead and edit this page and let me know and either I or somebody else will help.

Have fun!

GaramondLethe 17:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Starting a Project

I had a Wikipedia deleted and need to start it over I would like to start with a name and add from there.

Also I still have the old one if one would like to proof it and help me improve it Thanks in Advance.

Drofmicrocaps (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like your last article was deleted because it another user judged it to be an attack page on a living person. It also like you want to rewrite the article in a more neutral tone, which is definitely the right way to be going. It's fine to have opinions about the content in which you are writing, but your opinions must not come out in how you write about the topics in the article, and particularly not about the living person. You might want to start by submitting your article to the New article wizard to get it reviewed. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Renaming an article / deleting page

I have accidently published a page which is not finished in any shape or form - I do not want them to appear in that format .. help. Francesca JFERG0001 (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, JFERG000! The article on which you are working is currently in your own userspace, meaning it's page name has the User: prefix. This means that it is not considered part of the encyclopedia a this time, and no one will find it unless they are looking at your userspage. I would advise moving your work-in-progress to your sandbox, which is located at User:JFERG0001/sandbox. If you move it there, it will not be easily visible to anyone unless you give them the link. You main userpage, which is where your article is right now, can be used to tell other editors something about yourself, such as in what academic areas you are interested or what your education has been. You can see my userpage at User:Hajatvrc for some ideas. If you have further questions, please reply to this thread. hajatvrc @ 15:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will look at this tomorrow but note that a google search of Andrew Thompson Ferguson shows the page eeeeekkkk... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JFERG0001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFERG0001 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You are concerned about the Google indexing so I have moved User:JFERG0001 to User:JFERG0001/sandbox and added {{User sandbox}} which prevents search indexing by Google and others respecting noindex. A page move leaves a redirect behind but I have removed the redirect from User:JFERG0001 so people coming in from a Google search will see a blank page and not be redirected to the sandbox. We don't control Google directly but they should remove your user page from searches on Andrew Thompson Ferguson when they visit the page next time and don't find the text there. If you don't want the page to be indexed by Google at all then you can add {{NOINDEX}} to it. All saved pages can be seen by everybody but few people should now notice the existance of the sandbox. If you don't want something to be visible at all then you have to work on it off line. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Encouraging academic editing

Hello again and thank you to everyone who has been encouraging my efforts to help bring about large-scale increases in the number of academic wikipedia editors. I have one more question:

1. Is it OK to create a factual page about a current academic (incl area of research and most notable publications?) [not about myself though].

Best wishes to all and many thanks Open Research (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• So long as the article is referenced to reliable third party sources, is written neutrally, and the person passes this guideline. I've written several myself, including Mely G. Tan and Leo Suryadinata. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh *Wow!* I didn't know there were guidelines for this - the link you gave me solves the puzzle completely. Thanks very much Crisco. Open Research (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Open Research , not in general medicine articles most likely. All sources would need to be considered reliable and articles would need to pass notability. If an academic is notable per guidelines, that might go on their individual pages. I can't speak for others but I'd need a clear example of what you're proposing to tell you exactly. An article like Research in sports and social media would probably be viewed as unencyclopediac. Long story short: I'm confused by the question. :( --LauraHale (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Laura. My question is about whether it is OK to create pages like this one. Specific, not general. The link that Crisco posted gives the criteria I was looking for :) Thanks both. I'll avoid general medicine Open Research (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Glad you found it useful, Open Research. To clarify Laura's note, medical specialists (i.e. biographies) are fine and don't fall under the guideline Laura was referring to. Some medical articles which are not biographies also don't need to worry about it, but those are generally only tangentially related to medicine. The example I'm thinking of, NSFW of course, is a series of photographs of an intersex person dating from the 1800s. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I was thinking more of an article titled Research in cerebral palsy or Research in vaccinations. These sort of articles would run afoul of of WP:MEDRS in some cases depending on how they are formatted. Articles about academics need to pass WP:SCHOLAR, and then comply with neutral point of view and living person guidelines. --LauraHale (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

where did my answer go

I got a message that my question was answer but i cant find it, can you help me? Zeroro (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I would think you need to post pictures. Does this happen to be the right one? Rcsprinter (rap) @

Hi Zeroro, it was archived a while ago, you can find it here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 46#how to post pictures. In the future you can see the archives (click where it says Previous questions) to the right of the questions above the list of current questions (which we call the table of contents). Hope this helps! heather walls (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I found incorrect information in an article.

In the article on "Custos Brevium" a person is listed as serving in that position, but there is evidence he never served. How do I contact the editor of that item to give the correct information? 131.191.20.199 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 131.191.20.199! Nobody owns any article on Wikipedia and anyone can edit (almost – not if it's protected) any article. Because of this, you can make the changes yourself. However, do keep in mind that content must be verifiable – confirmed by reliable sources. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask them here or at my talk page. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a really helpful video as an introduction too. Open Research (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing- correct publisher

While I am editing, which publisher would be correct to use for a url address, the copyright publishing co. or the actual url address co.? Rubycrystal (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)RubycrystalRubycrystal (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rubycrystal, can you give us an example? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for responding. I believe that I figured it out. However, here is an example: http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280091610/Amazon-UK-business-founder-backs-Shutl-online-delivery-service TechTarget is the copyright publisher |ComputerWeekly is the url address that published the article, Amazon UK business founder backs Shutl online delivery service. I assumed the correct publisher was ComputerWeekly but questioned after. Which publisher is correct?

Thank you, Rubycrystal (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Rubycrystal

Continued assistance readying "Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant"

Good afternoon, Teahouse,

I wanted to see if any experienced editors might be available to help finalize the page referenced here - Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_40#Assistance with finalizing page for Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant

I've made several additions and changes as suggested by DocTree, but hoping there's someone with more experience editing for Wikipedia who might be able to check for anything else I missed and help it be submitted and approved for inclusion.

Thanks again to the community for all of the help to this point.

J brown99 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, J brown99, and welcome back.

• I made a couple of minor punctuation/ref correction in the article that you should check out.

• At the moment, you have the following sentence in your draft:

There are numerous species of both [http://www.iisgcp.org/catalog/downlds_09/iap.pdf plants] and animals that can be considered invasive, but special attention has been paid in recent years to Asian carp, Eurasian watermilfoil, round goby, zebra mussels, and other [http://ri.ijc.org/node/2714 plants] and animals that can have a negative impact on ecology, industry, and public health in and around Lake Michigan.

This renders as follows

There are numerous species of both plants and animals that can be considered invasive, but special attention has been paid in recent years to Asian carp, Eurasian watermilfoil, round goby, zebra mussels, and other plants and animals that can have a negative impact on ecology, industry, and public health in and around Lake Michigan.

As a reader, it's not clear why you're pointing me to a pdf on plants and to a different "plant" link later in the sentence. Both of these appear to be reliable sources, so I think you would make the draft significantly stronger if you treated them as references instead of links.

• Next, the external link section could stand a bit of explanatory text for each link instead of the bare url.

• Perhaps a "selected publications" section, although you'll want to take care and list their more important works rather than a random sampling of the search results. (Let me know if you need a hand doing this.)

• It looks like you've gone to the other extreme in not having any links at all to other wikipedia articles. You might want to make a pass and wikifiy terms like watershed, Sea Grant (but look at the source of how I wrote that link, it should point to "National Sea College Program" not "Sea Grant"), water use planning (but verify that to make sure it makes sense), etc. (Definitely invasive species, watermilfoil, Round goby, Zebra mussel.)

• The "healthy lawn and landscape practices" needs a citation. Yes, I know you intended the link earlier in the sentence to be the cite. I've had my knuckes rapped for the same problem.

• You have two cites for "invasive species research and prevention" as examples of that work rather that stating that the work is done. It's a small point, but that might be a little more clear if you had "invasive species research (e.g., zebra mussels<ref>)...."

• More nit-picking.... cite for the 30th aniversary?

I'm happy to take a look at your next draft. I don't stop the teahouse as often as I used to, so don't be shy about pinging my talk page.

Best,

GaramondLethe 06:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Start new Sandbox

How do I start another saandbox so I can start fresh. I am lost in my efforts and feel I am best to just start again. Want to get rid of all the errors on current Sandbox and start fresh. It keeps going back to the old sandbox Sandrasmission (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, Sandrasmission! To start a new sandbox, I recommend you create another page titled /sandbox1 (or any number). Also, if you need help clearing your current sandbox, please let us know. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

different people get different results from the same URL?

some very simple url's such as www.animallaw.com which I have attached to an article return a different website or no website or an error message depending on which of my friends tries it on their computer. What should I do?King.parker3 (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, King.parker3! What web browsers are running on those computers? Is the website you are linking to working if you type it in directly to your web browser? I have looked at your links and they do not appear to be incorrectly formed.

You might also want to get help at the Computer Reference Desk.

–– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

topics covered not so well, or not much?

Hi. I want to encourage local academic research professors to contribute to Wikipedia, and I would like to focus on subject areas that are not covered well (or much) currently. How do I find data on the topics that are covered well, and not so well? best wishes, Open Research (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Open Research. Welcome to the Teahouse (and it's an especially warm welcome, because what you're proposing sounds like a really good way of improving the encyclopedia). I would suggest you begin by taking a look at Requested articles; it's organised by topic so should make it easy to find subject areas that are of interest to individual researchers. There are also numerous subject-specific projects which list articles in their topic areas that are in need of improvement.

You may also find it useful to have your charges read Wikipedia editing for research scientists, which will give them a sound introduction to the basics of Wikipedia editing in their professional capacity. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If I can add to that, Wikipedia's list of vital articles shows areas where we haven't been able to fully develop core concepts - there are a lot of gaps there. I find academics can often bring both knowledge of specific areas and an understanding of how to build up the more general topics.

Keep in mind that they don't have to edit in their core areas of interest, although many do. An academic is also, by definition, a person who is good at research, so they can help in areas outside of their strict academic interests. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Yunshui and Bilby! This is really useful information. Exactly what I was looking for. It looks like that if I focus on areas that have lots of C class articles and stubs on vital articles I would make a bigger difference, yes? And that Wikipedia editing for research scientists will be a great help reference to develop further. Many thanks. Open Research (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Are there any quality data for subject categories? A recent survey done? Data mashups? Open Research (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any hard-core statistical analyses done, but I can tell you that, having worked here for a long time, subjects where the coverage at Wikipedia is relatively complete and universally of a high quality across the whole subject is actually the exception, and not the norm. Some subjects have the (rather arbitrary) benefit of having people around here who have been active for years on Wikipedia and have a passion and/or expertise in the subject. I can think of a few subject areas, some rather broad, and others narrow, where we have consistently great articles like Tropical Storms or Military History or Anglo-Saxon Kings of England. This is largely because a small group of dedicated editors maintains those projects (sometimes as few as one, but never more than a half dozen or so, from my observation). The Tropical Storm project is particularly well known, if for no other reason than such a large fraction of our featured articles are about tropical storms that a disproportionate number of them appear on the main page as the "Today's Featured Article" entry. They're great articles and deserve to be recognized, but we always get a complaint or two of "Not another Hurricane article!!!". Our response is usually "Well then, you find another field to improve a bunch of articles in. The Hurricane articles are usually great!" Which they are. Sorry for the long, rambling explanation here, but just trying to give you some insight into how Wikipedia works. Keeping an entire subjects worth of Wikipedia articles up to the highest quality requires a certain level of dedication and passion. We would absolutely welcome such dedication from anyone who is willing to give it. One area I can think of, off hand, that really needs help is articles in the technical or scientific fields. Physics (especially higher order physics like quantum theory, particle physics, astrophysics, etc.) and Chemistry articles are especially esoteric in their presentation, and mostly are impenetrable to anyone who isn't an expert in the specific field of the article. If I can think of an area that needs the most help, it is in adding to or rewriting parts of scientific and technical articles to make them accessible to the lay person or non-expert. --Jayron32 13:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Open Research, I'd just babble that the importance of academic articles working on vital articles or higher level topic articles is great. Most people may have familiarity with a topic, but not enough with the complete body of research to write about it well. Picture trying to write about Cancer. What does the literature say? How do you avoid undue weight on a topic? I'm in the process of completing a PhD on sport in Australia and so I occasionally on that article. I've got probably 200 books that connect to the topic. I talk to other specialist. I can tell you that the organisation for that article like the one used in this article isn't actually supported by the research and literature, which uses completely different breaks and doesn't have Kickball, but would integrate that into the narrative differently. As for mashups being done, not sure? I'm doing a postdoc on women's sport in Australia and Wikipedia. I've made some blog posts about parts that will appear in my final research on things like websites used as sources and types of sources, languages translated, Olympic effects, editing nodes and category nodes, and mentions on Twitter. I also wrote a summary of relevant data for the London 2012 Paralympics related to this content for the HOPAU projects, where amongst other things, I went to London with another Wikinewie and assisted in publishing 70 news articles that fed to Google News. Understanding what is happening often requires multiple data types. --LauraHale (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both very much, this is great - good to get a wider view of article quality, as you say, and the need to use multiple data types is also very helpful. I am going to ask two more questions further up, then I will stop pestering you guys for a while and I will... be bold! :) Open Research (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Creating an article with few formal references

I was thinking of creating an article on a quite prolific author and editor of children's books who does not, yet, have a page at Wikipedia. I am married to her daughter so have direct access to lots of information on her life, career and an almost complete collection of her books. However I have very few, if any, formal references to work from. As far as I know there is very little biographical information on her other than that included on the dust jackets of her books, certainly no actual biography. So any information I include will simply be what I am told by members of her family.

Would such an article be OK on Wikipedia? What is the correct way to "reference" such a page if the sources are purely interviews with people who knew her? Thanks for any help.MJLemin (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi MJLemin, Welcome to Wikipedia. It is highly recommended not to create such an article. As per the policy Wikipedia:No original research, you should not write an article by conducting interviews yourself. All information in wikipedia articles should be referenced from reliable published sources. Further, there is also a guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, that discourages family members or friends to write an article about a person. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi MJLemin, and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer to your question is that no, unfortunately such an article would not be permitted here. The slightly longer answer is that Wikipedia articles must concern subjects who meet the notablility criteria, which are quite specific. To be included in the encyclopedia, a subject must have been discussed in independent, reliable sources, that is to say, newspapers, magazines, books (but not her own books), web articles, TV programmes and so forth. Personal recollections, unless published in such a source, are not sufficient.

In addition, even if sufficient reliable sources exist to establish notability, Wikipedia's content must be verifiable. That means that readers must be able to confirm the information by checking with the source, which is not the case for things told to you by the subject's friends and family. Biographical details can be drawn from published sources (and, assuming notability is met, to a limited extent from sources published by the subject), but not from unpublished interviews.

I'm sorry if this reply appears harsh, but I'd hate to see you waste your time painstakingly building an article only to have it deleted within minutes of it going up. If you have a few references that you think would meet the guidelines laid out for reliable sourcing I'd be happy to look them over for you and give you a more detailed analysis; feel free to contact me on my talkpage if this would be useful. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi. This is a great idea and would be a valid addition if the author satisfies the notability requirements (e.g. WP:AUTHOR). But without at least some published references in reliable sources, readers will have no assurance of the article's accuracy. I sometimes wonder, for example, about whether anything was published about Jayne Fisher, but who knows.

Anyway, in this specific case you could perhaps consider any article entries on her books as a starting point. Publishing information on Wikipedia (e.g. as a result of speaking with family members) would be classified as original research and would be questioned by other editors. However, if such interviews were to be published in multiple independent sources, then that may be a starting point. Are any of her works still being printed? If so, then you may be able to garner some media interest, depending on just how notable such media consider her to be.

Sorry to disappoint and I'd encourage you to consider things further before pursuing the creation of the article you propose. -- Trevj (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of new article for NPOV

Could someone please review my company's article for Neutral Point of View so the Conflict of Interest tag can be eventually removed please? I would appreciate it. The article is PARISOMA Msingularian (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done as requested. Thanks for coming to The Teahouse, Msingularian. I think you've done an excellent job writing a neutral and well-sourced article about your company. This is a very unusual experience on Wikipedia in regards to people making articles about their own companies. I've made a few small changes to the article, but I am very impressed with your work. I hope you will continue contributing. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Cut and paste question

Is it permitted to cut and paste (and then correct the language) when we see this instruction "this article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia." ? - Yorkshiresoul (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yorkshiresoul, welcome to the Teahouse. Short answer: if they're under the same copyright licence as en-wiki (and to my knowledge, they all are) then yes, it is. However, you should fill out the {{Interwiki copy}} template and add it to the article's talkpage, to maintain attribution for the content. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also credit the source with a link in the edit summary for the edit which adds the content. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Trouting

Can someone explain to me what a "Trout" is? Thanks. SchizophrenicDingo (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure SchizophrenicDingo, it's a tongue-in-cheek method of reminding experienced people on Wikipedia that they're being stupid. See WP:TROUT. It's a big fish that you slap someone upside the head with to "wake them up" and make them realize they are being stupid. It is only given in good humor, never in anger, and only given to very experienced Wikipedians who should "know better" about something. Does that make sense? --Jayron32 03:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. Awesome username, BTW.

Yes,I think I get it now. It's just a cute reminder to keep people on their toes, is that what you're saying? P.S. Thanks for the compliment. :) SchizophrenicDingo (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically. It's just a friendly way of saying "You shoulda known that already, silly!" It's also not to be thrown in anger, or given to noobs who a) won't get the humor and b) shouldn't have known Wikipedia rules already. --Jayron32 04:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

what is meant by cryptic e-mail notices

I get e-mail notices about my Wikipedia editing which I can not understand in any way as they do not list exactly what they refer to only that I may have done something that is not approved. Then another cryptic note that I should refer to the guidlines for content. I have started a page on John J. Ensminger, LLM who is considered one of the leading experts on the law regarding Police dogs, Military dogs and service dogs in the nation only to find that someone has some kind of issue with his notability. It is a lot of work to track down all these references which are mostly buried in journals but I have posted enough so far that I would like someone to tell me exactly what they want. Is such a request out of line? Or impossible to discuss? Can I talk to this person? how do I do that?50.46.242.166 (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello IP! Messages sent to your personal email address, or posted on your Talk page? Can you quote these cryptic notices for us so we can figure out what kind of messages you're getting?

Also, is this King.parker3, originator of John J. Ensminger? If so, it'd be great if you could log-in to your Wikipedia account so it's easier to get ahold of you to reply to your messages. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Heart Tab.

Can someone tell me how I can get the heart tab to appear at the top of my talk page? Krueg (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure that there is a way to have it appear on your own talk page, at least not one that I've found. the heart button is for what is known as WikiLove, which includes food, drinks, and barnstars. These are made to give to other editors who you feel really deserve it. If you want some WikiLove for yourself, try going and giving some to other editors that really deserve it. Sorry I couldn't be of more help! gwickwire | Leave a message 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding a photo that's not my own

Hi there, I work with the Baumann Foundation, and I'm trying to add a small photo to the article about Peter Baumann that Baumann himself has provided (it's a small image, 188x234 pixels; he uses it for PR purposes). I'm really new at Wikipedia editing, and I understand that I need to prove the photo has been licensed for free use, but I'm not sure what the most straightforward way to do that would be. Meeralee (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind—I think I've figured out how to answer my own question. Thanks! Meeralee (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Meeralee! Welcome, even if you answered your own question! I do want to provide one tip. To make sure that permission really is granted (while I believe you work for Baumann, others might not - and anyone can say anything on the internet :)) to use that photograph under the Creative Commons Share Alike license, we need a letter saying so. So, if you can email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org this template (just fill in the appropriate information). Then, click edit on the photograph's Wikipedia page and paste this: {{subst:OP}}. That will let Wikipedians who monitor for illegal uploads know that your email is waiting review. Feel free to state her when you send that email in - also make sure you send it from your work email - and then we'll get it approved. Thank you!! SarahStierch (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, thanks! The foundation (or one of its initiatives, anyway) has an official Flickr stream. Would it be equally effective to have the image uploaded to that stream and licensed with a Creative Commons Share Alike license? That's what I thought would be the simplest solution. Meeralee (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

tag

How do you remove the Help improve this page tag at the bottom of an article? (Libby995 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Libby, welcome back. There are several possibilities but probably it's some template suggesting that the article needs improving. Can you supply a link to an article where you are seeing this that we could look at. NtheP (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is Catherine of Aragon, it has been improved over the weeks and I thought the template should be removed if it can. thanks (Libby995 (talk))

That is not a template. It is Article Feedback tool. It is being gradually implemented on all Wikipedia pages. On the top of the talk page, you can see a link "View Reader Feedback". That will display the comments given by readers of the article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Libby, if you don't want to see this message any more on any page then you can switch off the article feedback tool by going to the Appearance tab of My preferences and ticking the bottom box Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages. NtheP (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable References

Hey! Im planning on revising the page "Education in Haiti" and I've been working on collecting references/sources. I'm having trouble finding substantial articles in scholarly journals. So now I've just been doing a google search and I've been finding a lot of info. My question is how can I be sure that the articles that I am finding are reliable?

Kdumelle13 (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

V byenvini, Kdumelle13! That's always a great question, and on controversial subjects folks can spend a lot of time debating which references take precedence over others. Generally speaking, the issue of "peer review" and accountability come into play: if the New York Times publishes inaccurate info on Haiti, their reputation takes a hit and they loose money, so that adds to their Reliability. "Caribbean Quarterly" or whatever academic journal has the articles reviewed by other PhDs, so we'd tend to trust those since they've been approved by the larger body of academics. If a book is published on Haiti, we want it to be from a) someone who's cited by others who write about Haiti b) a book carried by a publisher with a good reputation for being choosy about their books. That's the short-sweet of it; have you read WP:Reliable sources yet?

If you haven't already, also try searching just on GoogleBooks, which is often a great way to find Reliable material. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

how to add an image to an existing page?

honest, i have looked hard through a lot of the Help pages but can't find how to get started ... thought i would add some photos to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parc_Ph%C5%93nix&action=history if possible. thanks, Bill (tennisjazz) 96.54.179.62 (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bill, you must be a registered user to upload images. I take it you have photos that you personally took of the park? In that case, permissions are very easy. I'd suggest logging-in to Wikimedia Commons (since you can upload your pics for Public Domain everywhere), and just follow the instructions there, which are pretty straightforward for photos to which you own the rights. The main issue is just that you have to log-in first. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of my first article

How long does it generally take before articles gets reviewed? I've submitted my first article and it has been declined several times in the summer. Now I've made a bigger effort though, so I am excited to see if it goes through! Tine Reingaard (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

_{Tine's article is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Søren Solkær Starbird}

Hej Tine, I took a quick glance, and though I think it looks good I'm not spun up on photography issues, and can't read Danish. I suggest you also post this same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Denmark, and ask them to come here to the Teahouse to help advise us here on the Danish sourcing. Just make sure you use a clear title on that page so they know what you're asking (generic titles easily get passed over). MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you MatthewVanitas, I'll try and get some danish eyes on it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tine Reingaard (talk • contribs) 07:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup template

Hi, a few days agao I started having problems with the cleanup-linkrot template. When I use it, the system says:

Please sign in (top right) and click "Save page" below when done.
If you get a blank screen or an edit box you did something wrong.
Vote for Bug 32013 so Wikimedia fixes this.

If you take a look at the this edit y'll see what happens now. Anyone who has an idea on what to do? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

moved this heather walls (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Is Bug 32013 (to which no comments have been made since Apr 2012) directly related? For signing in and usingToolserver's Reflinks (as advised at {{Cleanup-link rot}}), does the "Get my credentials" bit work? -- Trevj (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Trevj, I used the "Get my credentials" and now it works perfect, as you see from my last edit. Thanks a lot. Lotje (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Clickable button

How did the Teahouse make their clickable buttons clickable anywhere on the button? The {{Template:Clickable button}} template is only clickable on the link. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole button is inside the link. It uses code in Wikipedia:Teahouse/Question-form2 and MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse.css. Below is a simplified version not needing the gadget css to avoid the external link icon. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

<span style="cursor:pointer;" class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions|action=edit&section=new}} {{Clickable button|Ask a question}}]</span>

Ask a question

Thank you as always, PrimeHunter! –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you happen to know what that button style is, or is a part of, and if it's something that should be used? That set is probably the most aesthetically pleasing I have seen on the project, but the only places I've really seen it used are here (well, the template, rather) and special:newpagesfeed. -— Isarra ༆ 19:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The button is a template called Template:Clickable button, and it's very easy to use. Since it's a template and it's used here, I'm pretty sure it's fine to use. The thing I was asking about, however, was how to make the button link by clickable in the entire button, because the default template does not allow that. If you have any more questions about the button, please feel free to ask here. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually created the clickable button template based on what was started here. I used to use it on my user talk page to link to a random page in the category of unsourced BLP's. PrimeHunter, would it be possible to use a named parameter of sorts to make the entire button clickable? I'd think it would be some combination of the if function and a named parameter to the page you want it to link to. Ryan Vesey 22:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I modified the code for the clickable button, but it broke the Teahouse links. The sandbox version at User:Ryan Vesey/Template sandbox works fine. Does anyone know what's wrong? Ryan Vesey 22:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to test the sandbox version, you need to provide two parameters. full=yes and link=(page) I thought that modifying the template wouldn't affect anything else because I created it to only change if full=anything was provided. Ryan Vesey 22:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... please keep us posted on any further news about the button, Ryan Vesey. I might be able to help/test if needed. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't examined your code but it's certainly possible if the template doesn't get a piped link as one parameter. I posted to Template talk:Clickable button earlier. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The template appears to be using javascript to actually become a button (and thus apply the styles) - any idea how that works or why it would also be ignoring red, orange, green and blue button styles? And is this completely the wrong place to be asking that? This is, isn't it? -— Isarra ༆ 17:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

New Article - Chip Chick

Hi there, I'm struggling a bit with this one - would you be able to give me some advice and guidance on how best to improve this entry so it is strong enough to consider for publication? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2003/Chip_Chick G2003 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there. As far as your article goes, I think it's a bit short right now. If you could get more information on it for the article, it would probably help. Thanks for asking! Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I agree with Discuss-Dubious! It is rather short, but, that doesn't mean it can't be in Wikipedia! A few tips:

• I'd advise against citing the actual Chip Chick website, like you do in the first paragraph. I think it's okay, as long as there are reliable sources, to mention the founders, and if anyone notable (who, for example, has their own Wikipedia article) writes for it. But, it's not really encyclopedic information, in my opinion. I'd just remove anything that can't be cited using reliable sources. (Or someone else might do it!)
• Please make the two bottom external links into citations, like you did the other two listed in the reference section.
• Any claims stating that the blog is one of the first needs to be backed up with a reliable source, a few, if possible. Uncited claims will be removed.
• I'd also italicize Chip Chick, throughout the article, since it the title of a blog. You can do that by highlighting the name and clicking the I button.
• Remember, the more reliable sources (media, news, not blogs unless it's the New York Times or something) you have the less problems you will have :)

Great start, and thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! I hope you'll continue to contribute! SarahStierch (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice All - really helpful. I'll keep working on it!G2003 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)