Wikipedia:Teahouse

Eman235, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

(edit) appears when you google our company name

hi there when you search Hookson in the para underneath (edit) appears - how do you remove that?

Hooked30 (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

captchas sometimes appear and sometimes do not

I'm curious what the rhyme or reason is for captchas sometimes appearing when saving an edit and sometimes not. I understand the rational for them. It just seems odd to me that they would be used sometimes but not all the time. Thanks, Steve Liebelt Steve.liebelt (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Steve! Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe the reason you're getting the captchas is because you're just adding external links to articles. With a low edit count, and primary contributions being just external link additions, you will occasionally have to enter a Captcha so Wikipedia knows you're not a bot just adding links for the sake of spam. I hope that helps :) I hope you'll keep contributing! SarahStierch (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, this should go away in about 3 days when you become autoconfirmed. :) gwickwire^talk_edits 02:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I need a bio page added

Hello, I am the manager of a television personality and I am trying to add her page here on Wikipedia, knowing it's not to be a self-promotional page. She is an inventor and business woman and some information is pertinent to be linked to other Wiki pages. I have tried this myself and it was deleted by a user. She tried on her own too, it was deleted. I included 10 sources of references but they were all deleted. I need someone to repost this page please as i'm having no luck. Her book was just published. — Whippet66 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the woman is notable and writes about her here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Although that may be true RH I think there is probably a nicer way to say it. Whippit66. Have you tried the Articles for Creation wizard. That has a review process and will generally provide feedback. COI is going to be a problem though. It might be better to just ask someone to create it and provide some refs. No blog posts, facebook, myspace or things of that nature though. You need to also ensure the person meets our Notability requirements. Kumioko (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

cool, that makes sense. thanks. Steve.liebelt (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Disappearing question

Earlier today I was typing a question into the text box on this page. I had typed about a paragraph when all of a sudden the whole thing just disappeared, and the previous version of the page without my question and without the text box was displayed. I know that I didn't click on the "cancel" button because it was off the screen at the time. This happened once before, only that time the section that I had typed was added to the page, ending in the middle of a sentence. Has anyone else had this experience, or is it something weird with my computer? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Anne! I don't know if this is the problem you had, but there's something similar that I've experienced. Basically, some browsers (such as Firefox, which I use) interpret hitting the Backspace key as hitting the Back button, taking you back to a different page. If you're typing text, the browser is smart enough to know that you meant to delete some text, rather than go back a page, but if I've accidentally clicked outside of the text box without noticing (which happens sometimes) and hit backspace, the browser reads it as the back button, since I'm no longer in the text box. Does that make sense? Like I say, I'm not sure that's the problem you're having, but it happens to me every now and then, and it's pretty frustrating. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Writ Keeper, I will watch for that. I have a new laptop, so I may have inadvertently hit something on an unfamiliar keyboard. I was surprised not to receive one of those "Do you really want to leave this page?" notices. And yes,I am using Firefox. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It may be possible to implement that here at the Teahouse page, I'll ask the relevant persons :) I understand you completely by the way, first time I used a laptop (way back when), I would always accidentally tap on the touchpad with my palm and it'd click somewhere, then I'd mess up.. Sorry! gwickwire^talk_edits 22:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm using a laptop now, but I'm so bad with the pad, I use a wireless mouse instead. Even with that I've experienced what you were talking about. It stinks. Go Phightins! 22:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that! In my experience, if you click off of the question box (on any other part of the page) it closes the box. If you click the button again, the box will come back with your previously typed text still inside. Your mileage may vary. heather walls (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That may be just the whatchamacall it responding box, but I'm not sure :) gwickwire^talk_edits 02:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You can try going to your preferences here and selecting "Warn me when I leave an edit page with unsaved changes (Vector skin only)" under Advanced Options. -- Ypnypn (talk)

Thanks everyone. I'll try not to click outside the box next time. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Replacing a picture on a page with a newer version

I added a picture to my page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandolin Society and then found I had a better version of the same picture. I managed to figure out how to upload the replacement, I thought, but now when I click on the picture instead of a larger version it sends me to the information page about the picture.

It also asks for categories. I managed to use something called Common Sense to find a couple of relevant categories. The picture info page said to put them in the photo discription, but didn't say where. I tried a couple of spots, but the page kept asking for categories. It also asked me to "notify the uploader", but didn't say how, so maybe this is the problem. Maybe the old version of the photo wasn't so bad... can anyone help? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's normal behaviour for images - clicking on them takes you to the info page. Note that at the moment there may be some issues with images as the data center is being moved. Another user has fixed the categories for you. I have also made a couple of edits to your draft article to comply with the manual of style. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm happy to accept help. How do I set up the image so that people can see the larger version?

Also, thanks to Nthep for fixing the categories. I think I can see how it was done. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Anne, sorry I forgot to reply. On the image page you'll see a box at the bottom that starts Categories± If you click on the ± you can add, delete or amend the categories. The first time you do this then adding any number of categories removes the {{uncategorised}} tag that gave you the message about the file not belonging to any categories.

You can change the size of the image on your Mandolin Society page by changing a parameter in [[File:The Mandolin Society of Peterborough's first concert, 9 June 2006, St John's Guild Hall, conductor Curtis Driedger standing at left.jpg|thumb|300px|The Mandolin Society of Peterborough's first concert, 9 June 2006, St John's Guild Hall, conductor Curtis Driedger standing at left]]. It's the 300px that controls size, increase that and you increase the size of the image on the page. Try experimenting by changing the figure and then previewing the result before you finally save. NtheP (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! This teahouse is very helpful. If only there were real tea....

—Anne Delong (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing article name to make it more relevant

I would like to change the article title of 'Helen Price (debater)' to just 'Helen Price' as I think it would make the page more relevant... Not sure how to do this. Martinstoshassociates (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done - I have moved the page to Helen Price. Please note that there are issues with notability as indicated by the maintenance template at the top of the page.--ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The article Plain Old C++ Object may be a fake

I have just improved a bit the quality of the article Plain Old C++ Object, but it seems this article looks like a fake. I need help from other software skilled contributors to check the relevance of this article.

First, it was the first time I heard about 'Plain Old C++ Object'. The term Plain Old Java Object (POJO) has been invented in 2000 (http://martinfowler.com/bliki/POJO.html). Then the term Plain old data structure (POD) has been invented. And finally the term Plain Old CLR Object (same POCO abbreviation). But I do not really see the need for such term 'Plain Old C++ Object' in C++. However, the GCC wiki mention POD and could refer to POCO standing for Plain Old C++ Object...

Second, this article has been written in 2007 by User:Kjin101, the owner of PocoCapsule software. His contributions was about adding links to his software project. This Wikipedia account has been use just for a couple a days, and has not been used to do something else.

My personal conclusion is that the term 'Plain Old C++ Object' has been invented by User:Kjin101, and he has created this article in order to add links to his software project...

We may add a banner or mention that in the article... What do you think?

Please answer within the talk page Talk:Plain Old C++ Object.

Oliver H (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

change article name

I made a typing error in the article name and I can not change it nor can i delete the articleMgha (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mgha and welcome to the Teahouse! An article with a misspelled title need not be deleted; it can just be moved to a new title. Autoconfirmed users (those with 4 days of editing and 10 edits) can move pages. As you are not autoconfirmed yet, I can move it to Cojitambo, which seems to be the right name according to the body text. Is this correct? - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 15:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Userbox template

Is there any userboxes which say how much time I've been on wikipedia and how many edits I've done? If there are, what are their templates? -Yashowardhani (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Yashowardhani and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, the userboxes do exist - they are here for how long you've been around and here for how many edits you've made. Hope this helped! - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 15:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes it did. Thank you so much. --Yashowardhani (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Translation to improve article

Hi, I believe that the article Deine Lakaien will be improved by a translation of the German version. I prepared this translation in my sandbox, so I do not request a translation. But what do I have to do now? As far as I understood, an admin has to import the German article - is this true? And how/where do I post such a request? Sorry for the stupid question, and thx for your help, CarbonWoman (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi CarbonWoman. Not a stupid question at all - I wish more of our contributors were as concerned to get this sort of thing right! The most straightforward solution is to copy-paste the German text and/or it's translation, but add a {{Translated page}} template to the article's talkpage (and to your sandbox talkpage, if you work on it there). The template format would be as follows:

{{translated page|de|Deine Lakaien}}

There are additional parameters that you should fill in (notably the |version= and |insertversion= ones, there are details of how to fill these in at the template's documentation page), but the above code will suffice for basic attribution to be maintained. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick answer, Yunshui! Sounds much simpler than I expected :) CarbonWoman (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

When I click the Edit button at the end of an article, I only get a part of the article to edit.

Try, for example, Photon Paint. When I try to edit it, I get the subject of the article and (Section) displayed next to it. How do I edit the entire (short :-) article?

Many thanks,

Yuval

Yuvalg9 (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yuval, welcome to the Teahouse, it sounds like you've hit a section edit button rather than the article edit button. At the top of the page you should see a row of buttons like the ones in this screenshot (ignore the step one, step two)

Click on the button that says edit and you should open the entire page for editing. If it doesn't work, please stop by here again. NtheP (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Arcillaroja

Hello, I have a problem with the user Arcillaroja in the article Western Europe. He reverted all my edits without a good explanation, after I reverted his with an explanation. I explained that there is a distinction between western Europe and Western Europe, that western Europe is a purely geographic term, and Western Europe has a fixed two meanings - the Cold War one (countries of the Western Bloc) and cultural one (countries of Western Christianity): http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node27.html http://dd.dgacm.org/editorialmanual/ed-guidelines/style/capitalization.htm What should I do to make him stop destroying my work? :( Would you mind to mediate? The same happened with the article Eastern Europe. He wouldn't listen that there is geographically one centre of Europe, and some centers are either old measurements, without professional equipment, confused claims or centres of Eurozone or the European Union, which do not equate Europe. Please see that article Geographical midpoint of Europe. --Martina Moreau (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Martina Moreau, thanks for dropping by the teahouse. First off, take a deep breath, have a nice cup of tea and relax a bit. This kind of disagreement happens all the time here, and learning how to handle someone reverting your edits is a big part of becoming and effective editor. I'll take a look at the article and get back to you with more specific advice. GaramondLethe 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So I've done a bit of looking around and I think User:Arcillaroja has done the correct thing here (although the explanation was a bit terse). I'll focus on one example. You added an image with the caption: Europe's geographic midpoint in the continent's centre of gravity, Lithuania. West of that point, there is geographical western Europe. I assume you know this to be true, but unfortunately we can't just accept your assurance to that effect. At minimum, you'll need to provide what we call a reliable source that says this, whether that be an atlas, almanac or geography textbook. There are many rules regarding what is and is not a reliable source and you can find all the details of the currently policy here.

There's a second issue you need to be aware of. I assume there are dozens of definitions as to what "western Europe" means. Most of the time, it's not appropriate to try to include every definition, and it's almost always a bad idea to try to include just your preferred definition. So even if you find one or more reliable sources that support this particular definition, they're still going to be weighed against the other sources we know about and potentially be excluded because they give undue weight to a minority opinion. (The details of that policy can be found at WP:UNDUE. Generally, if someone gives you a cryptic acronym and expects you to know what it means, just type (for example) WP:NPOV into the wikipedia search box and you'll be taken to the document in question.)

So see what sources you can find and let me know how it turns out! Good luck! GaramondLethe 17:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a look in a few sources many times during my studies. I know that there are quite a few definitions of 'Western Europe' (non-geographic term), but 'western Europe' (geographic term) is very straightforward. As soon as we have geographical midpoint, we can indicate northern, southern, eastern and western Europe. Additionally, central Europe is distinguished.

When talking about European cultural (not always geographic) regions, there are always countries that are always considered to be in that region, the core countries. For example, France is always associated with Western Europe, Russia with Eastern Europe, Sweden with Northern Europe, Italy and Greece with Southern Europe and Germany with Central Europe. perhaps we should create maps similar to that:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Eastern-Europe-map2.svg but indicating which countries are always considered Eastern Europe, in vast majority of definitions, then lighter colour - countries that are often considered... and so on.

If Arcilla did not agree with the notion, then why to delete the part in which I explained the difference when we capitalise it? That surely is not a matter of opinion, but... orthography...

--Martina Moreau (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• The geographic term "western Europe" may be straightforward to you, but another editor has reverted your edit to this effect and so, despite it being a bit of a bother, you do have to go dig up a reliable source that lays this out. (There are a small set of facts that the community would probably agree do not need reliable sources, but even something as seemingly obvious as "The sky is blue" has drawn differing opinions).

As to the capitalization issue, I'm not sure this belongs in an encyclopedia. That information would be more at home in a style guide, unless you have a source that isn't a style guide that explains why the distinction is important.

It might be helpful to tell you how I started editing. I found a wonderful single-volume encyclopedia in a used bookstore: Robbins's The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology (1954, back when witchcraft was only a historical-social field of academic study rather than new-age silliness). I went through that book and compared its entries to the matching entries in wikipedia and added (and cited!) information as appropriate. Since I was starting from a solid academic source I didn't run into the issues you're encountering.

Hope that helps! GaramondLethe 19:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martina!

It would be very convenient and also polite to ask me directly in my talk page why did I revert your edits. In general I think that you will get more information and people will be friendlier that what I think you assume. A revert is more often than not not a warmongering act. By the way, I've noticed that you have been reverted in all articles relating to this topic... You might want to consider why that is. Not saying that Wikipedia is a democracy, but when many experienced editor come to the same behavior then there is something going on Arcillaroja (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arcillaroja!

I acknowledged the points you made. Now - please understand mine. I observed that my edits were reverted and there was either no reason given why the revert was made or the reason was irrelevant. The edits were also reverted fully. That is to say that all the changes(e.g.: orthography matters that are beyond discussion), rather than those which disturbed you were reverted. This is the reason why I decided to talk directly to other people. I concluded that it may be a more efficient approach. I read about vandalism on Wikipedia. I know it is common and I did expect you to be a vandal. Now, on the bright side, I look forward to future positive collaboration and, perhaps a better relationship. :) --Martina Moreau (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S: I actually still do not know. There was an user who has different, but similar objections to mine, back in 2010. Her or his name was Stubes99. His entry was deleted from your log by you. Why would you do that, Arcillaroja? I am also concerned that your talk page seems also rather interesting, to put it mildly...--Martina Moreau (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I need help

I need help with two things:

1) I'm trying to upload a picture (File:Lawrance A. Bohm from Bohm Law Group website.jpg). I sent an email to the permissions email showing that I had permission from the copyright holder to upload the picture, but nothing happened. See below.

2) Also, see message from Jim below. He stated "The third is that the WP:EN article-to-be (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lawrance A. Bohm) reads like a sales brochure for Mr. Bohm's services. I am uncomfortable with Commons supporting what looks like a publicist's work. Bradley J. Mancuso, who is our requester here and the sole author of the article at WP:EN, works for Mr. Bohm."

I have tried really hard to follow the instructions for creating a new page. I've provided a bunch of sources to demonstrate the notoriety of the subject and I've worked to keep the page neutral. I've followed formats of similar pages. This page is no different than these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lanier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Allred

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Dominguez_%28lawyer%29

I could list several more.

Can you please help me? What do I need to do?

Here are past messages regarding this page/image:

Regarding the below file/image, I was given this response: File:Lawrance A. Bohm from Bohm Law Group website.jpg

I have been given full permission to use this picture. The owner of this picture is Lawrance A. Bohm. He personally took the picture, posted it on another website, and owns the copyright. Mr. Bohm has given me full permission to use this picture. Bjm99c (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see below message from the copyright holder of this image giving permission to use this file/image.

Bradley J. Mancuso

From: Lawrance Bohm Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 2:04 PM

Yes to both questions.

Kind regards,

Lawrance A. Bohm

On Jan 7, 2013, at 3:53 PM

> Please respond to these questions: > > Are you the copyright holder of the attached picture? > Do I have permission to use the attached picture on Wikipedia? > > Image: Lawrance A. Bohm from Bohm Law Group website.jpg > > Bradley J. Mancuso > > <lawrance-bohm.jpg>

Bjm99c (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have three problems with this.

The first is that this appears to be a professional, posed, portrait. It looks to me very unlikely that the subject took it himself as claimed above. It is far more likely that the copyright is owned by the photographer.

The second is that the permission above is very casual. There is absolutely no indication that Mr. Bohm understands that he is licensing the use of his image for use anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. Although it doesn't say so, I think what appears above amounts to a Wikipedia only license.

The third is that the WP:EN article-to-be (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lawrance A. Bohm) reads like a sales brochure for Mr. Bohm's services. I am uncomfortable with Commons supporting what looks like a publicist's work. Bradley J. Mancuso, who is our requester here and the sole author of the article at WP:EN, works for Mr. Bohm.

Therefore, as INC says above, we need both a license from the actual photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS and some consideration of whether this violates COM:ADVERT. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Bjm99c (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bjm99c (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bjm99c; welcome to the Teahouse. I think Jim has explained the situation fairly well above, but I'll try to reiterate his key points.

Firstly, there is some apparent doubt over whether Mr Bohm is actually the copyright holder - just because he owns and uses the image does not necessarily mean he owns the copyright to it (this belongs to the photographer, by default). It would be necessary to show evidence that the photographer transferred copyright to Mr Bohm before his claim could be accepted.

Secondly, it's not possible to release an image only for use on Wikipedia, which is what Mr Bohm appears to be consenting to. The image must be released under a free licence, meaning that it must be free for anyone to reuse or alter, anywhere - not just on Wikipedia. The wording of the email above is not enough to constitute such a release - you need an email in which the copyright holder specifically states the licence or terms of the licence under which they release the photograph.

Finally, it seems as though you are editing under a conflict of interest - rather than editing to improve Wikipedia, you seem to be editing for the purpose of promoting your subject. Whilst I appreciate that you have made an effort to tone down the promotional language, the draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lawrance A. Bohm still lacks Wikipedia's necessary neutral tone of voice: it is phrased extensively to promote Mr Bohm's work (there's little information besides lists of his qualifications, successful cases, and awards; the information presented here would not look out of place on his CV). If you aren't able to see how this article advertises its subject, then you are clearly too closely involved with the topic - it might be better to post a request at requested articles to allow a neutral editor to create the page instead. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

i am a pr for a client of mines, need a bit of help

thank you for viewing my message basically i am a digital music platform, which consists of pr, public relations. i have an up an coming artist who is real hot, and i wanted to create a biography and submit it on wikipedia. i know that you guys don't encourage autobiographies because getting them verified can be a pain, plus they can be very one sided and biased. so of course HE ISN'T going to write his biography, but i am as his pr guy. is that ok, and if yes, how do i go about submitting it? i am new to wikipedia, today is my first day! thank you very much in advance

(Mutechqi (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fine you write an article, as long as it meets Wikipedia:Notability (music), you disclose your conflict of interest on your user page, and the article is neutral. See also the words at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. You should find the cheatsheet helpful. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm Go Phightins!, a Teahouse host. Wikipedia strongly discourages paid editing, because it usually is done to promote an entity, in this case your up-and-coming artist. That said, if you can write an article on him strictly using information from third party reliable sources, you are more than welcome to submit it to Articles for creation, where an experienced editor will review the article and either offer some constructive feedback and criticism, or move it to mainspace, where others can read about it. So, to summarize, I would discourage you from writing an article on this fellow, even though you're his public relations guy, because it is likely a conflict of interest, but if you can do so from reliable sources available on the internet or in books or other media, you're welcome to give it a shot. Feel free to ask me any further questions you may have. Happy editing! Go Phightins! 04:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:UPANDCOMING too. Roger (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Very early internet

I have written a summary about computer controlled communications I developed in 1967-68. I'm 81 years old and the only living person who knows and understands what was done in those early days. It's a tiny bit of history that will be lost with my passing.Lucas225 (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Could you please publish it somewhere other than Wikipedia? Wikipedia doesn't publish things that haven't been published elsewhere first. Biosthmors (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Posting information directly to an article that you cannot cite elsewhere (via a book, internet resource, article, etc.) is classified as original research, and unfortunately cannot be accepted on Wikipedia. Please, as was suggested, feel free to post your information elsewhere. Thank you for your consideration, and don't hesitate to ask any further questions. Respectfully, Go Phightins! 04:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way for me to be allowed to edit Semi-Locked Pages?

I am a fan of WWE and the wikipedia pages they have, I'd also like to contribute to one of their pages in particular "List of WWE Personnel, however it is semi-protected is there a way for me to be allowed to edit this or get permission to do so? If so please tell me. (Olfert12 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! You may request your change to be made at the article's talk page with {{edit semi-protected}}, along with your reasoning, or request confirmed rights, although it unlikely your request will be accepted. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Edited with reliable links still pending for creation.

Dear Host,

I wrote this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abhijeet_Sinha_Sinha/sandbox but it got declined due to inadequate reliable sources. I edited it again and attached reliable sources. But Its not getting any response from editors, I don’t know how to send it or make it visible to editors. Please help.

Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Abhijeet, welcome to the Teahouse. The article is now in the right place to be seen as it's been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abhijeet Sinha. If you now want it to be reviewed then you should add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page to add it to the list of articles to be assessed. This might take some time as there are about 400 articles awaiting assessment/review. Can I ask you one question now - your username and the article subject are the same. Are you writing about yourself? If so, you should be aware that autobiographies are discouraged as, even with the best intentions, staying neutral can be very difficult. NtheP (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Abhijeet. Althho you have a few reliable sources on your article (NYT ,Times of India, a TV station, and IBT), none of those sources mention the subject of your article by name at all. Wikipedia only publishes articles about what others are writing about, so unless you can find reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, books, and TV and radio news websites, academic journals, etc.--things that are fact-checked in some way), independent of the subject of the article, that are writing about the subject of your article, in a significant way (the majority of the article is about the subject of your article), you are probably not going to be able to get an article in the encyclopedia on him yet. Wikipedia only covers what other sources are already writing about. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Organizing aritlces in sandbox

Wh46 2013 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC) I created an article(Wassim Michael Haddad) in sandbox and it has been published. However, I mistakenly created several other same pages(User:Wh46 2013/Sandbox, Wassim M. Haddad, Wikipedia:Wassim Michael Haddad). Can anybody help me to delete or remove them? I already put proposed deletion. But I still want the deletion faster, as they are really confusing.

Another question. The wiki link for the published article is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wassim_Michael_Haddad". Can someone help me to change it to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassim_Michael_Haddad"? Wh46 2013 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for the new article! I've taken care of the redirects by removing the redirects, and requested that the one page beginning in User: be deleted, as that user doesn't exist. Don't worry, your article should still be fine. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask me! gwickwire^talk_edits 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wh46 2013 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! But when I tried to google "wassim haddad wikipedia", the resulted wiki pages are the delete ones, not the article "Wassim Michael Haddad". Wh46 2013 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Google and other search engines learns about a page's existence and provides search results by first spidering it. Until that indexing occurs, Google and its algorithms will find nothing. As the page was just moved, you need but wait a few days.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn´t found the way to ask for a English to Spanish translation of an article and need help to do so.

Hello,

I´ve read Emmanuel Jal´s Wikipedia english version article, but I am spanish speaker, and thing it will be useful for spanish language natives to access a spanish version of the article.

In "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation" I found that sentence: "To request a translation of an English Wikipedia article into another language, click on a sidebar link to do so at the appropriate foreign-language Wikipedia."

Following that indication I went to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Jal" looked at the sidebar, and under Languages didn't found a "Spanish" Link. How my I preoceed to ask for that traduction then ?

I aknowledge in advance any help you can bring me on this,

Cordially Marcelo Mas, Montevideo,Uruguay 190.135.23.40 (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Marcelo! I'm not exactly sure on the Spanish Wikipedia's policies regarding translation, as I only do work there sparingly, but it should be fine to use the article in the English Wikipedia to translate it into Spanish. When it meant a sidebar link, it meant on the Wikipedia:Translaton page, not on the original page :) That should to take you to es:Wikipedia:Transliteración or something similar. Then you can request it there. gwickwire^talk_edits 17:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This was an easy confusion to have given the language in the banner at Wikipedia:Translation, so I have made this change (we'll see if it sticks).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Formatting Wikipedia articles

Where can I learn easy to use formats for pages, that can be given a more attractive look? Does Wikipedia offer any course for such a need? Ajayupai95 (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ajay, do you mean your user page or article pages? If it's article page then how they look and are laid out is guided by the Manual of Style and you should follow the layouts laid out there. If it's your user page you want to style then you need to check out the User page design center which will probably contain most information you want. NtheP (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Inventing a Wikpedia bot language

(Discussion moved) --Carrot Lord (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Carrot Lord. Your thoughts and efforts are appreciated, but this is a forum for answering newcomer's questions, and as such, this would probably be better posted at the Village Pump. Thanks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah sorry about that. I wasn't aware that was what the Village Pump was for. Thank you. I will remove this content and move it over. --Carrot Lord (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

About subpages and user pages

I have taken a look at Wikipedia:Subpages. However, I am confused on a few points:

1. Is there a limit to the amount of data that you can hold inside subpages of your user page? For instance, right now I only have 1 or 2 sandbox-style articles that are not my own user page, but would there be a maximum limit on the number of articles a user space can hold?
2. Is it really possible to edit common.js to change the way your user page and subpages work? How would you execute custom JavaScript? Is that possible on Wikipedia?
3. Do content forking rules, such as "don't make a fork of some article to avoid NPOV" apply to sandboxes?

Thanks for the help! --Carrot Lord (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carrot and Welcome Back.

Sandboxes and Subpages are places where you can make test edits that cannot be added to the article space. Most users also use them to develop articles (that would otherwise be deleted at that time) to meet Wikipedia standards and then move them to the article space.

No. There is no upper limit on the amount of data/ number of sandbox/user pages that you can have.

I have no idea about how common.js works. You may try and look at the codes of the Common js [ages of a few users to see how it works. Here is mine

No. The user page is your own and you have absolute liberty over it, save a few boundaries (like hoax, vandalism etc). So you need not worry about those rules. But if you are developing a page to send to the article space, it would be a good idea for you to meet all the rules and guidelines while your article is in the userspace (Or you might have it deleted once you take it to the article space)

Hope it helped.

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, again, Carrot Lord. You can use your userpages pretty much as you wish, but remember, no matter where you are writing, be it your userpage, your talk page or in a sandbox, everything on Wikipedia must conform to BLP policy. Wikipedia is very insistent that anything written about a living person be sourced to reliable sources. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

However, fictional items such as fictional people and fictional cities would not require any sort of BLP, right? (Note: still talking about user sandboxes, and not actual articles) --Carrot Lord (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Fictional people do not have BLP. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

How to replace/update an existing image without creating a new page? i.e. adds to chronology/thumbnail instead

This is to do with a problem with the graph chronology for next UK election. Note: when a small image appears, hover over it with your mouse to read the complete the sentence.

Ok, so this page has always had a chart but due to the continuous updates with the addition of new polls the chart needs updating every once in a while. This has meant that there are now an abundance of unwanted/out of date files on wikipedia, which should really belong in the chronology of the . As you can see from the chronology all is well for the chronology of that page until it stops at May 2012, the final update.

The next image to be uploaded was a , this chart and the were used simultaneously for a period. That is until the data for 2011 and 2012 was updated to the 30px|talk page to accommodate the new format (due to the addition of UKIP's column). This is a recent occurance. I was the one that uploaded the new data a few days ago, I also created a to see us through until we could get a new version of the favoured chart to cover May 2010-Present Day.

A exists, this preceded my chart, it was made in error, I discovered the lines were too thick for interpretation, therefore this image needs to be deleted, as it is in effect a duplicate. I do not know how to delete this image, or suggest deletion, can someone help/delete it for me? I'll see to it that there are comments on that page.

Since my chart was uploaded, I have uploaded the data to the talk page, for User:Wavehunter to update the chart that preceded mine to include the data from 2010 and 2011. The reason for this is that Wavehunter's chart was the one that had consensus. In the meantime Impru20 has uploaded . Since then Wavehunter has uploaded his updated chart which is now (by consensus) the .

To summarise what I need help with doing/for someone to do for me:

All of these listed graphs need to be added to the chronology of the and not be as separate pages. In chronological order the follow should be added to the chronology:

• (or deleted)
• 
• 
• (current)

Note: Please do not include: the as it is useful on other pages and does not fit in the chronology (as does not include 2010or11!

I would really appreciate someone doing this for me, as I am likely to make a mistake with it being multiple edits and my 1st time doing this. Could you also leave a note explaining how to do this for future reference on the talk page for the benefit of myself and future editors.

I also want to know how to do this so that I can use my new skill on another page, I have another picture that I need to replace/update but I want to do it properly! So once I know what I'm doing and once someone has done this for me I will be able to see to things like this in the future.

Many ThanksSheffno1gunner (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sheff, welcome to the Teahouse. There are a number of things that could be done. One would be to create a category that contains all these images so they could be seen together. Another, and this maybe what you are referring to is to upload a new version of an existing file. This is an option for any image and at the bottom of the image page you get a thumbnail view of all the previous versions. The advantage is that you don't have to keep changing the article the image is used in as the image file name remains the same. The disadvantage is if someone wants to maintain a static link to one of the previous versions of the image elsewhere. I'd suggest that if you want to do this you raise it on the talk page of a candidate image page and leave a note at the original editors talk page as well. NtheP (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This didn't answer my question! I was indeed talking about the 2nd thing you described with thumbnails. Could you please tell me how to link all these images under 1 tittle with one set of thumbnails as you described. All you have done is described back to me what I had described to you, except in better terminology! That was not at all helpful! I will ask this for the 4th time on wiki (in various places) HOW DO I DO THIS? Please cut the crap and just tell me! I'm not studying for a degree in bullsh1t so please spare me the opening lecture!

All images apart from the 2012 image need to be included as they replace one another! How do you this? Or could you do it for me?Sheffno1gunner (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

How to link to sections of sections?

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, and I have a question regarding section links.

I already know how to provide links in Wikipedia articles to sections of other articles, but how would I create a link to a section within one of these sections, such as one with a heading of "===(text)==="?

I would greatly appreciate your response.

JPaestpreornJeolhlna (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)JPaestpreornJeolhlna (즈팻프럴느 젏흘나)JPaestpreornJeolhlna (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, JPaestpreornJeolhlna. Welcome to the Teahouse. The easiest way is to click on the section title in the Contents of the article. For example, in the Article National Audubon Society, the society's journal, Audubon magazine, is last in the Contents box. Click on Audubon magazine and then look at the link shown in your browser. You will see: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Audubon_Society#Audubon_magazine" Use the part after "/wiki/" as your link. The link "National_Audubon_Society#Audubon_magazine" is used in several redirects. If you put Audubon (magazine) or Audubon magazine or Bird Lore (a former name of the society's magazine) into the Wikipedia search box, you will end up at the same place. Hope this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 05:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia,

The procedure for linking one of the sections inside the section is the same as the one for the sections themselves. See where this link goes - Earth#Weather_and_climate.

Hope this helped.

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I definitely recommend you read WP:ANCHOR which outlines several ways to accomplish this, and encourage use of the {{anchor}} template because section headers are changed at times which would break the link while an anchored link remains functional. --My76Strat (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you make background information box

Tedakaemod (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC) With color and no inner lines.Tedakaemod (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Infobox. Amadscientist (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

how would I look at existing usernames?

for signup, how would I look at existing usernames? example wwwqwww 69.248.170.139 (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad to see that you're interested in creating an account! You can go to Special:ListUsers and search for the username there. In this search you can see that wwwqwww was created in 2008, but hasn't edited at all. Ryan Vesey 00:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Square brackets in URLs

I am having trouble getting one of my references to format properly in the page that I am working on at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandolin Society. The URL has square brackets in it. I've tried both the usual "ref" format and the "cite" format, and the whole URL is not being accepted, only the part up to the square bracket. Is there a trick? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Anne, welcome back. As you've realised the square brackets in the URL mess up the reference formatting. The trick is to replace them with a percent-encoded code. For square brackets replace [ with %5B and ] with %5D. If you have problems with these or any other special character have a look at Help:URL or come back and ask here. NtheP (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne. I had fixed them and was coming her to tell you how I did so and NtheP beat me to the punch. The answer to this issue is also provided in the documentation for the citation templates. See e.g., Template:Cite news#URL. See also Percent-encoding. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I should have thought of trying that myself, since I am familiar with ASCII coding. I'll know what to do next time. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia video tutorials (Feedback welcome)

watch?v=Swund4B3-2k&list=PLO-lWlZQoUgvnAwawLZRZAOGEbi5ZOzb9

Put www.youtube.com/ in front of that page query. This is a playlist on YouTube describing how to use Wiki Markup.

Constructive criticism is welcome. Would this be useful for people who have not tried MediaWiki markup, or not? What can be improved?

In this video, we construct a new article known as interdimensional being, add some scholarly citations, and much more. We encourage newcomers to begin by editing existing articles, and then move on to creating articles (notable ones) only when they are experienced enough.

2 out of 4 videos have been uploaded as of this writing.

Thanks for any responses. --Carrot Lord (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Could not really understand the sound, as it was too soft. You might also want to see this - Outreach Bookshelf, Video Tutorials and Videos on Wikipedia --TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How loud is your volume, and which operating system are you applying?

I usually use a Windows 8 with 51% of the maximum volume (live speakers). Do not attempt such a level of volume if you have headphones or earphones. --Carrot Lord (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Full volume and on speakers. W7. Doesnt really happen with other videos. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That is extremely weird. By other videos, you mean YouTube content by other people, correct? --Carrot Lord (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

References - question

If the same reference is used several times in an article, how do you format to prevent duplication in the reference list? Case in point: Sarah Reinertsen Sportygeek (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sportygeek and welcome to the Teahouse. References can be given a "name" by adding <ref name=Test> to the reference tag. For example, instead of...

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.challengedathletes.org/atf/cf/{10e89006-a432-401e-bc75-805e68ce5c27}/SarahReinertsen.pdf|title=Sarah Reinertsen|publisher=Challenged Athletes Foundation|accessdate=18 Jan 2013}}</ref>

...it could be...

<ref name=ChallengedAthletes>{{cite web|url=http://www.challengedathletes.org/atf/cf/{10e89006-a432-401e-bc75-805e68ce5c27}/SarahReinertsen.pdf|title=Sarah Reinertsen|publisher=Challenged Athletes Foundation|accessdate=18 Jan 2013}}</ref>

After a reference is given a name, they can be added again anywhere in the article by clicking "Cite" → "Named references" in the editing toolbar. See the screenshot below for an example. For more information, see WP:Named references. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 08:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I found that one (and will use next time!). It's not really ease of adding references I'm concerned about, tho - more an unnecessarily long (because of duplication) reference list. Would named references fix that? Other ways? Sportygeek (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

After naming a reference, it can be used anywhere again with the code <ref name="Test" /> without being duplicated in the reference list. Basic steps:

1. Name (all of?) the references
2. Replace the duplicates with <ref name="Name of reference" />

Sorry if I can't explain this well – it's rather technical.

The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 09:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try it and see what happens. I understand naming things (done some web design/basic web dev), but I'm a total Wikipedia newbie. Sportygeek (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to remove some of the duplicates. See if you can make sense out of them!

Cheers,TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: you can use the 'Error check' button (see toolbar image above). ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC) P.s.: It found one and I repaired it. ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Major Revisions

How appropriate is it to make major revisions to an article? I've been looking at trying to revise the article Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act for at least an hour now, and I'm not exactly sure where I should begin, since this is my first real attempt at trying to fix up a Wikipedia article. Part of me just wants to get in there and go all gung-ho English Professor on it, but I'd like to get some feedback from the rest of the Wikipedia community before I just start fixing huge chunks of an article. Henrythekittie (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Henrythekittie and welcome to the Teahouse. Here on Wikipedia, we have a saying "be bold", which means something like "just do it!". You can make as big of changes as you want, and any mistakes can easily be corrected or undid by you or other users. Also, if you need any specific editing help, feel free to ask here, or contact me at my talk page. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 07:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility is to discuss the changes you want to make on the article's talk page, where people interested in that article are likely to see it. --ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How long before unaccepted articles are deleted?

I have tried 4 times to get a Wiki page accepted for the Bosman Twins. They are accomplished, EMMY Award Winners and are respected musicians within the Jazz Genre. Wikipedia has allowed pages for other jazz musicians with much less in terms of history and credentials. I am so confused. What am I doing wrong? I put a lot of work into the article and I don't want to lose this valuable history. How long can I keep the article in the sandbox as I find additional 3rd party sources to support my case?

108.203.30.123 (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse! There are many criteria an article must try and meet to remain on Wikipedia. Where is the copy of the article that you are currently working on? Which sandbox are you using? You can, in theory, keep your content in the sandbox for as long as you need but if other people come and use the same sandbox your content will be overwritten (you will still be able to see it in the history tab). It might be a good idea to create an account and then create a user subpage for the article and work on it there. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 02:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It exists at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dwayne and Dwight Bosman. Ryan Vesey 02:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

So, the good thing is, articles created through articles for creation aren't deleted while they're there so you have forever to work on it. The article needs a bit of work to match Wikipedia's tone and style, it reads a bit promotional right now. I did some checking and I'm fairly certain they're notable, so I asked for some elaboration from the editor who most recently declined it. By the way, I listened to their music on their website and it's great. Ryan Vesey 02:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it really depends, if WP:SPEEDY is applicable. My first article on Wikipedia was nominated for speedy deletion in approximately five seconds after page creation. Right now, that first article has been reduced (again!) to stub status. --Carrot Lord (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help and for welcoming me into the community. I was beginning to feel really defeated. I can continue to work on the style and hopefully get it accepted next time. 108.203.30.123 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I get the footnote numbers to appear in the "Notes" section?

If you take a look at the article on "Solomon Kimball House (Wenham, Massachusetts)" you'll see that the footnote reference numbers appear inline with text, but don't appear in the "Notes" section. What am I doing wrong?108.20.20.229 (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Welcome to the Teahouse. I am guessing that you mean in regards to Solomon Kimball House (Wenham, Massachusetts) which looks like you have just managed to add the references section. To get the list simply add either <references/> or {{reflist}} to the bottom of the page and this will add your reference list with numbers! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 02:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How did you manage to do that? Anything within reference tags will create a big red YOU DID NOT PUT A REFLIST OR REFERENCES AT THE BOTTOM

warning. Anyway, <references /> can have a space between the slash and the word, just like in HTML5. Moreover, please do not forget that references is plural. MediaWiki will not understand <reference />, which is singular. --Carrot Lord (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I fix the formatting on my inline citations?

I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia and my first article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_Malka) has a note saying my inline citations aren't properly formatted. Can someone help me figure out what is wrong with them and how to fix them? Lagirl24 (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hey Lagirl, thanks for swinging by The Teahouse. It looks like there's some details missing about the references in your article, which should be included in footnotes when possible.

There is a "Cite" toolbar at the top of the edit window which allows you to automatically generate the required wiki code.

You click one of the templates, e.g. "book", and fill in the details.

More information can be found in Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or the citations tutorial (the below video will play best in Firefox or Chrome):

Hope this helps, I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Much appreciated. Is there any way to bring up the citations tool box for citations that I've already created, so that I can add in additional information? Or do I have to completely re-do my citations from scratch?Lagirl24 (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadly no, there isn't a way to reverse engineer your citations like that; you'll have to do it from scratch! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding a personal page? Deleted twice :-(

My daughter has been part of two movies and her name appears both on IMDB and in Swedish Filminstitute database. The moviepage (Once upon a time in Phuket) has her name and when I tried to add very basic information about her this was deleted twice even though I made reference to both the sites. Why is this? All the other actors and actresses have their personal page so what is different? Erfo02 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Erfo02, and welcome! The standards for maintaining a stand-alone Wikipedia article are not based on what someone has or has not done in their life, but rather on the existence of reliable source texts which we can use to help us write the article. Websites like IMDB and the Swedish database aren't anything more than directories: they prove that a) your daughter exists and b) that she has had jobs. There's nothing at either site which represents reliable scholarship about her life beyond those two facts. Now, if there are extensive biographies written about your daughters life, and those biographies were written by respected scholars and published in respected sources, then you have some good sources to use to write the article. This concept at Wikipedia is explained at Wikipedia:Notability. The entire point is that Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable scholarship so that people can verify the contents of Wikipedia articles. If the major facts of your daughter's life aren't published anywhere except Wikipedia, then later readers will have no way to verify anything that is written here. That's why we need good sources, and having a name in a database isn't enough of a source to hang an entire article on; most of the Western world has their name listed on a website somewhere, but that doesn't make every employee of every company listed on every website automatically valid subjects for a Wikipedia article. Does this help answer your questions? --Jayron32 21:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron, except for one quibble: it doesn't have to be scholars and scholarly work. In-depth articles in reliable newspapers ormagazines would be just as good. --ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Verifying an article in the sandbox

I've recently had an article removed as it was deemed too promotional and not ambiguous enough, is there an editor who could check my sandbox before making the article Live to check it is inline with the Wiki guidelines?. Thanks, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Murklemark/sandbox (Murklemark (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC))

Hello Murklemark and welcome to Wikipedia! The main problem I can see with your article is that it does not tell us why the company is famous. Unless there is a specific reason why the company should have an article (if they are well known or made some news), they cannot be added. So do add any secondary sources before trying to get the article into article space.

(Secondary sources are those sources which are not related to the article subject. So your company's website will not be a secondary source, but a major newspaper will be)

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi TheOriginalSoni, thanks for your input, the company is famous throughout the UK specifically within it's industry but also within the (and my) local community. I've seen a number of other companies with similar pages but no secondary sources so I was wondering if there was anything else I can do to see if it is OK to go live.

Thanks again for your help! (Murklemark (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC))

Is there any way you can show that? Maybe a newspaper or a journal or a magazine? Anything from that specific industry which might show that the company is noteworthy? If not, then I dont think it will be possible for your article to survive the article space.

Do you mind linking a few of the companies you are speaking of? I might like to check how we can have articles without any secondary sources or established notablity. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you able to reference printed articles / journals or do they have to be web articles, I'm sure I can find something from within the news or industry journals. One of the articles I was looking at was B. Braun Melsungen which looks to be a similar company, but most of their references don't work so I wondered why my page was different as I originally had more live references.

Thanks, (Murklemark (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC))

They can be anything- Print/Journal/Web. As long as it is reliable, its allowed.

As for the article you mentioned, it probably will need to be deleted. It does not look like it meets our notablity guidelines. Do tell if you find any other similar articles. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

We should be careful not to equate "fame" with "notability". For Wikipedia, notability is the key and the guidelines for the notability of companies can be found here.--ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi TheOriginalSoni and ukexpat, the article was speedily deleted straight out of my Sandbox while I was editing it for review as it was deemed too promotional, again I searched for similar article such as ICU Medical and Medtronic and baed my style of referenced information based on what these article displayed. I'm surprised it was deleted straight out of my sandbox before it was even finished. Thanks, (Murklemark (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC))

How to resolve issues on a new wiki page

The wiki entry Women Live is an attempt to archive a women’s magazine. Because I was involved in the magazine it seems that I have a too ‘close connection ‘ to the subject. How can this be overcome?

How does one achieve apparent objectivity when involved in setting up a wiki page, when one has been connected with that project??

Gillian Young (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, Gillian, and thank you for asking the question. Wikipedia's guidance on such cases of conflict of interest is at WP:COI. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

... and I've changed the internet url in your link to a wikilink to make it more readable. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "attempt to archive" is problematic. Wikipedia is not a web host for random stuff, it is an encyclopedia with strict content rules. Roger (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am struggling to understand the responses* which seem ignorant and a little arrogant. All written by men. ‘Notable’ means worthy of attention or notice. To anyone studying subjects such as: autobiographical writing and the development of women’s magazines would find this item relevant within that context. The Women’s Library (see link) agreed to house the archive exactly because it recognises it within a historical context.

I am trying to get advice as to how to make the Women Live article comply with standards - and am gobsmacked that people can ignorantly suggest it should be ‘deleted’. More useful would be some SIMPLE suggestions as to how to strengthen it in terms of Wiki standards. Please note some of us struggle to comprehend these processes.

• A magazine that cease publication after six issues can hardly be notable. If it had been notable, it would no doubt have continued being published.

Gillian Young (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

neutral language and the Mandolin Society of Peterborough

Hi! I've been working on a page about the Mandolin Society of Peterborough. I decided to put it through the Articles for Creation process to see what others thought about its notability. It didn't get that far, however. It was rejected because the reviewer said it sounded like an advertisement. I have read it over, and can't find any biased language or unsupported praise, so I'm not sure what I need to change in this respect. I'd welcome any advice. The page is at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mandolin_Society. I've added a few more references since it was reviewed, and reorganized it a bit. Thanks, —Anne Delong (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It does read like a press release rather than a Wikipedia article. Take the same material and organize it differently. Describe the society in the opening section. Then write a history section. Leave out the history of mandolin groups. Provide a wikilink in the text to Mandolin orchestra instead, in the first paragraphs. What motivated Curtis Driedger to found the group? When did they start giving concerts? The group participates in many events. That probably didn't happen all at once. Introduce them as part of the history. Introduce the smaller groups and the reason they were formed as part of the history too. Are any of your guest artists well known? Make a guest artists section. Then look at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles to see if you can make the case for notability for the group. Good luck. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And references don't need to be online. Maybe someone in the group keeps a scrapbook. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course the scrapbook itself would not be a reliable source, but any newspaper articles therein could be cited appropriately with {{cite news}}.--ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the hints. I will try to reorganize as suggested. And I found a newspaper clipping and a printout from a web site that has since changed in my own file drawer! (duh) —Anne Delong (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How to replace/update an existing image without creating a new page? i.e. adds to chronology instead

This is to do with a problem with the graph chronology for next UK election. Note: when a small image appears, hover over it with your mouse to read the complete the sentence.

Ok, so this page has always had a chart but due to the continuous updates with the addition of new polls the chart needs updating every once in a while. This has meant that there are now an abundance of unwanted/out of date files on wikipedia, which should really belong in the chronology of the . As you can see from the chronology all is well for the chronology of that page until it stops at May 2012, the final update.

The next image to be uploaded was a , this chart and the were used simultaneously for a period. That is until the data for 2011 and 2012 was updated to the 30px|talk page to accommodate the new format (due to the addition of UKIP's column). This is a recent occurance. I was the one that uploaded the new data a few days ago, I also created a to see us through until we could get a new version of the favoured chart to cover May 2010-Present Day.

A exists, this preceded my chart, it was made in error, I discovered the lines were too thick for interpretation, therefore this image needs to be deleted, as it is in effect a duplicate. I do not know how to delete this image, or suggest deletion, can someone help/delete it for me? I'll see to it that there are comments on that page.

Since my chart was uploaded, I have uploaded the data to the talk page, for User:Wavehunter to update the chart that preceded mine to include the data from 2010 and 2011. The reason for this is that Wavehunter's chart was the one that had consensus. In the meantime Impru20 has uploaded . Since then Wavehunter has uploaded his updated chart which is now (by consensus) the .

To summarise what I need help with doing/for someone to do for me:

All of these listed graphs need to be added to the chronology of the and not be as separate pages. In chronological order the follow should be added to the chronology:

• (or deleted)
• 
• 
• (current)

Note: Please do not include: the as it is useful on other pages and does not fit in the chronology (as does not include 2010or11!

I would really appreciate someone doing this for me, as I am likely to make a mistake with it being multiple edits and my 1st time doing this. Could you also leave a note explaining how to do this for future reference on the talk page for the benefit of myself and future editors.

I also want to know how to do this so that I can use my new skill on another page, I have another picture that I need to replace/update but I want to do it properly! So once I know what I'm doing and once someone has done this for me I will be able to see to things like this in the future.

Many ThanksSheffno1gunner (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sheff, welcome to the Teahouse. There are a number of things that could be done. One would be to create a category that contains all these images so they could be seen together. Another, and this maybe what you are referring to is to upload a new version of an existing file. This is an option for any image and at the bottom of the image page you get a thumbnail view of all the previous versions. The advantage is that you don't have to keep changing the article the image is used in as the image file name remains the same. The disadvantage is if someone wants to maintain a static link to one of the previous versions of the image elsewhere. I'd suggest that if you want to do this you raise it on the talk page of a candidate image page and leave a note at the original editors talk page as well. NtheP (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This didn't answer my question. I was indeed talking about the 2nd thing you described with thumbnails. Coud you please tell me how to link all thesem images under 1 thumbnal. All images apart from the 2012 image need to be included as they replace one another! How do you this? Or could you do it for me?Sheffno1gunner (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Basically in short: I want to know how to replace an image. There are a number of images on wiki, that replace one another other. I.e. instead of loading up a new seperate file (which is what I've been doing), I want to know how to just replace the existing, so that the old image isn't left lieing around, it is dumped as a thumbnail at the bottom of the page. An example of what I want to do can be seen here: (File:Euro_accession.svg) under "File history". I want this instead of having seperate files. If your struggling to understand my above text because there are bits missing, just hover over the graphs and you'll see the text.Sheffno1gunner (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What am I missing in Sandbox?

I am part of a group working on content for a new Wiki page. I will not be submitting material but thought I should learn the editing process to be able to participate in refinement once a page is established. To that end I have been reading the edit tutorials and went to sandbox to get started.

Where in sandbox is there a "read/write" window on which to type? For example, to correct a typo such as a mispelled word, I assume word processing conventions are used such as those at work in this textbox. I cannot enter or select any portion of sandbox that accepts the cursor. I cannot make changes. On one page there is a phrase to the effect "edit below this line", bolow which the window is blank. Although I can type in this area, there is no text there to revise.

What am I missingCrodney (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Crodney. Welcome to the Teahouse. The sandbox should be able to be edited just like any other page.--Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Crodney, you need to open the edit window by clicking the "edit" tab at the top right of the screen. That'll let you play around in your sandbox. The save button is below. Sadly, using Wiki isn't as easy as using a word processor yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"using Wiki isn't as easy as using a word processor" - it is if you remember WordPerfect for DOS :-) NtheP (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It is also much easier than my old Royal and White-out. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no "edit" in upper right. There is an edit tab, and there are other "Edits" and "Heres" as well. None of these activate text for read/write. I was able to activate the blank area of the window - I wonder how I did that. I typed a sentence and hit preview. A long incomprehensible explanation of an editing conflict displayed including a mysterious reference to Copy and Paste??

Possibly, am I to copy material I wish to edit, paste it into the blank area, then proceed to edit in that presentation? I could spend my life in this trial and error. Is there no ABC narrative for learners that lays out the architecture of editing? I cannot understand Sandbox without an explanation much less serious editing. I fear this editing process was assembled by computer techs. Where were the English Majors? Crodney Crodney (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking for jobs? J/k. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, though...I am guessing you are using the communal Sandbox. You should just make your own and you won't have any edit conflicts. Click this redlink: User:Crodney/sandbox and follow the instructions to "Create this page". For your first edit copy and paste this template into it and save: {{User sandbox}}. Now you have your own sandbox! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Gtwfan52

Thanks. I'm working on it. The real problem is cultural. At 83, there is an underlying chasm for many elders that the digital world will never understand. We are not privileged with time to bridge that chasm. My universe allowed me a "professional" contributing life experience without keyboard skills, with no computerization of analysis or anything else for that matter and no digital media of any kind. I have no effective contacts for explanations, learning or "tech services". Consequently, navigation and protocol for Wiki editing is more obstacle than aid. Sadly, the tool is so foreign and complex for the ignorant that participation may be impossible. Crodney (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Crodney. Have you looked at WP:Tutorial/Editing? Does that help? --ColinFine (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

IW's messed up at WP-hr

Can someone help with the iw links at hr:Naglasak? I am trying to fix confused iw's across 60 projects, but the WP-hr article has been protected; that one project will disrupt all the rest once the iw bot starts. (The confusion is accent = stress vs. accent = regional speech. It's a real mess.) Thanks, — kwami (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the problem on en.wiki or on hr.wiki? Which article and link(s) are you having trouble changing? What change should be made? If you need an admin here, there are several who can help - if you need an admin there, see hr:Special:ListAdmins. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mistake question

I made a mistake on interstate rose ouarter max station i edited it but it still showed the mistake on the page what do i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfgg (talk • contribs) 07:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You did indeed make a number of mistakes at Rose Quarter Transit Center. Links you added were ambiguous, and it was malformatted because you had leading spaces on a line. I don't know why Wikipedia failed to accept your edit if you were trying to correct your errors; perhaps you hit the "Show preview" but forgot the "Save" stage? Anyway, I've corrected it for you. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In here...

.. the dark blue segment indicates edits I've made on Wikipedia. I don't understand, does it mean edits I've did excluding the rest categories? If that is so, then what does the light blue sector mean? --Yashowardhani (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)