Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlp17 (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 11 August 2013 (New question: archive box formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Cassiopeia, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host
New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.


archive box formatting

on a talk page im adding a archive box and i want to make it the same format as the talk header, but instead of an archive list thats automaticly made by the headr, have a archive box. this is what i've gotten so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlp17/sandbox how do i format it to look like the Talk header?♠|RP|♠ 21:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

New Article

How long does it take for a new article to show up on Wikipedia?Snowdy17 (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowdy, and thanks for your question. The answer is that it depends. If you submit your article through Articles for Creation, it will undergo a review and be approved for submission or you'll be given feedback on how to improve the article before it is approved. This can take a few days or a week or two, depending on the backlog of articles that have been submitted. On the other hand, you can simply create the article on your own by searching for the article title and starting a new article yourself. However, without a review, it means that the article may be subject to speedy deletion, so if you're writing your first article, it's best to go to down the Articles for Creation avenue. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would I request an assessment?

While working on disambig links I found this article it states is an un-assessed article. How would one tag it for assessment? And what exactly does that mean? Does it mean so it could be categorized as stub/start class etc? Thanks TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 16:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you at the Teahouse again, Tattoodwaitress. Any editor can assess an article as Stub, Start, C, B or A, and this is usually done by applicable Wikiprojects. The top assessments, namely Good article and Featured article, are formal processes done by groups of editors. The article is already tagged for assessment, and you can click the blue link at the top to learn more about assessment. You can see that it is assigned to Wikiproject Dentistry on the article's talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Cullen, and I shall go and check that out. I am having a hard time... how do i tell that it has already been tagged for assessment? Thanks Tattoodwaitress♥LetsTalk 18:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging it as unassessed, which has been done, amounts to a request for someone to assess it. It shows up on lists of unassessed articles, which are used by editors who like to work on assessments. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Userbox

Code Result
{{User:Sohambanerjee1998/Ocean's Eleven}} User:Sohambanerjee1998/Ocean's Eleven Usage

This is a Userbox I made 10 minutes ago.

  • In the ID Box I used the font AG Book Condensed BQ (bolded version used in the posters and credits) to denote 11. Now after comparing images of the font in Google Images somehow I have a feeling that the font is not rendered in the end. Is the font not supported by Wikipedia?
  • If not what about Standard Condensed, which was used in the film too?

Best --$oHƎM❊আড্ডা 15:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Sohambanerjee1998! Wikipedia doesn't determine what fonts are supported on individuals computers, instead that is handled by their operating system with few exceptions (some people may have installed programs that add fonts or manually added a few fonts themselves). I hope that helps, and I would be happy to poke around and try to find the page that gives an overview of what fonts are generally considered "safe" if a Google search doesn't turn up what you need. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Technical 13 but is the font supported by Wikipedia's database? I think not.$oHƎM❊আড্ডা 16:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any concept of a font being supported by Wikipedia. Our software just stores whatever name you specified and passes it on in the rendered html. You can write <font face="Madeupname">11</font> and the rendered page will say exactly that here: 11. It's your browser which determines how it's displayed. See also WP:FONTFAMILY and Font family (HTML). PrimeHunter (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criterions for File mover?

Hi everyone

As the summary suggests now I want to a know a few things about file mover rights -

  1. Is there a minimum edit number for being a File mover?
  2. Where (who) to ask for a File mover rights?

I went to WP:FMV but unfortunately these queries of mine were not fulfilled. I work with a lot of articles and make a few typos here and there so it would be nice to be mover.

Best $oHƎM❊আড্ডা 14:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sohambanerjee1998 and welcome to the Teahouse. I've noticed that your contributions to the file namespace are rather extensive, but you do not seem to have requested any file renames. Also, while requesting renames on Wikimedia Commons is great, requesting renames here on the English Wikipedia is more likely to help get you filemover rights. I'd recommend at least 20 or so rename requests before requesting filemover. Use the {{rename media}} template. Filemover rights can be requested at WP:PERM/F. King Jakob C2 14:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, King, that was my real question, Where (who) to ask for a File mover rights?. Rarely I make typos while uploading a file, I am cautious as a fox while uploading. Thanks once again.$oHƎM❊আড্ডা 14:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status indicator

Is there a way to have a status indicator on your user page to tell other users if you are online or offline? George8211 (talk | mail) 10:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to update the status with an edit but see Wikipedia:Editor activity indicator. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse in other languages?

Tim Moritz Hector and Lydia Pintscher of WMDE talked at Wikimania about porting the Teahouse to other languages. They want to try to do it for de.wp in 2014. I will present the idea to my fellow board members at the board retreat two weeks from now. We want to learn from your experiences and we need your help. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ad Huikeshoven, and I hope you are enjoying Hong Kong. I visited there 21 years ago. Please note that SarahStierch is attending Wikimania and was instrumental in the early days of the Teahouse. Please discuss the idea with her. You can ask me any questions you want about being a host, but I kniw little about the "back office" or technical aspects. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes?

I have created 2 userboxes in my user page. But how can I make it a template??BenisonPBaby 06:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the "auto" in wikiproject template?

I've seen a few descriptions about it being related to bots, but after googling it's still not clear what it does. In particular this user appears to be a bot that's removing the "auto" parameter across hundreds of pages, but I have no idea why this would be desirable or (if this is a vandal bot) undesirable. Vzaak (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Category:Automatically assessed biography articles, for example, says "This category contains articles that have been automatically assessed. Editors should confirm or amend the assessment made by the bot and then remove the |auto=??? parameter..". If the IP editor to which you refer were a bot, it ought presumably to have been approved as such. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I got that far already, and it's still not clear. When the auto tag is removed, what are the practical implications? Automatically assessed by bots or humans? What does the automatic assessment entail? What's the purpose of removing the tag across hundreds of pages, as that IP is doing? Vzaak (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK but I still have the same questions above. Vzaak (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review Poaching editing history and Talk:Poaching to see if I am off base.

I am very new here nad seem to have gotten myself involved in an editing war almost immedialtely. I am concerned that undue weight is being given to one particularly broad definition gleaned from acedemic sources. I did come in kind of heavy at the very first but I attempted to regroup and work on a solution that included as much of the source material as possible. I do not feel my efforts are yeilding a ballanced lede. Could someone please take a look at what has been going on and let me know if I have missed something. I am having a really hard time with assuming good faith. Thank You Economic Refugee (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review and feedback?

Could you please give feedback on a page I am currently writing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Patrick_Mott.

Thank you! Eli Magoo (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Eli Magoo. I'd say the article kind of misses the point of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source where articles are to be based upon secondary sources, not WP:Primary ones. I hope that helps! Read the info at the link to primary about primary sources, secondary sources, etc. Also see WP:42. Best wishes.Biosthmors (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it against the rules to not give a summary of an edit on your userpage?

Is it against the rules to not give a summary of an edit on your userpage?Dognut98 (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dognut98. While it is not against the rules to leave the edit summary box blank, edit summaries are very helpful to other editors, and I suggest that you get into the habit of using them. You can read more at WP:EDITSUMMARY, and the relevant sentence from there is, "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit." Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dognut98. I don't leave edit summaries on mine, since it is mine. On articles, I of course try to always remember to leave them. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dognut98, I am also guilty of not always leaving an edit summary for edits on my user page, however I agree with Cullen328 that it is a good habit to get into since it helps communicate to other editors. I learnt a great deal from edit summaries on talk and user pages when I first started editing and doesn't take long to leave a quick summary. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 04:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I insert an image in an article

I have just put up a new article on entitled "Saint Maighneann". I have also uploaded an image of Saint Maighneann to Wiki Commons. However I cannot understand why I can't add that image to the article . Why is it so difficult.Msriposte (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question, Msriposte. For uploading pictures and other media, it's easiest to go to Wikimedia Commons (you can use your Wikipedia credentials if you're not logged in already) and visit the Upload Wizard. Wikimedia Commons can only accept files which anyone can use for any purpose. That means most content you find on the web is not acceptable. But for example, most photos that you've taken yourself are OK to upload.

Here's a screenshot of the Upload Wizard:

You start by selecting the files you want to upload, then you go step by step through the process. In the final step, you'll get some wiki markup that you can copy into a Wikipedia article. Let me know if I can help. :-) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Msriposte said, the image is already uploaded. It's commons:File:Saint Maighneann of Cill Mhaighneann (Kilmainham).jpg. The attempt [1] at adding it to an article was misformatted. This code would work: [[File:Saint Maighneann of Cill Mhaighneann (Kilmainham).jpg|thumb|Saint Maighneann]]. But I'm not sure it's a good idea to add your own painting based on imagination of somebody who lived centuries ago. When our articles have paintings of the subject, they are usually made by somebody who either saw the subject or is a well-known painter. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"When our articles have paintings of the subject, they are usually made by somebody who either saw the subject or is a well-known painter. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)"

Amazingly small-minded ........ most of the paintings of famous Saints were painted in the late middle ages, hundreds of years after they lived. There are no photos St. Anthony, St. John, St. James, St. Nicholas or Jesus ..... and who's to decide who is a well known painter. The painting that I am discussing is the only extant image of Saint Maighneann.Msriposte (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it's the only extant image? Considering your Internet posts are the only Google hits on "Saint Maighneann" you might be right, but there could be others who have made images without advertising them on the Internet. I guess those middle age paintings are publicly known and have been published in reliable sources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how to edit a page

i want to know how to change the page name and linking the same page with two name like redirectering of pages can anybody please tell meK dileep chowdary (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Welcome to Teahouse. Thanks for your question and I think it is one of your first edits. You still need more practice for redirecting and renaming a page. By the way, you may see this page or this page for further information.Hope this will be beneficial. BenisonPBaby 16:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello User:K dileep chowdary. You might also find the H:Cheatsheet helpful. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to participate in an article's 'talk' page

I was recently looking into Bond Equivalent Yield and saw there was a talk page as the article was a stub.

Looking at the talk page, someone had asked a question about bond equivalent yields, in an economic context, but had completely the wrong end of the stick. I would like to "reply" to the question and to pose my own questions about bond equivalent yields, however the "talk" page is not really a forum so I am unsure how can I "reply" or participate in the discussion without deleting the previous "post"/question.

Richard.peter3 (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richard. You can participate in a discussion the same way I have here, by appending your comments after the existing ones. Use a colon (':') at the beginning of the line to indent, and more colons to indent more deeply, in order to clarify the sequence of the discussion. And remember to sign your posts as you have here.
You are right that a talk page is not a forum: any discussion to the end of improving the article is appropriate; any other discussion is not. --ColinFine (talk)
Hello Richard and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you are correct about the talk pages not being forums where editors discuss the subject or topic. The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. I would simply answer their question on the editor's own talk page where such discussion is permitted.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

images

how do I add an image to an article? FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FockeWulf FW 190.
It is a piece of cake, you'll see. You just have to enclose the name of the image between these guys [[]]
This way ---> [[File:Bono_i_motljus.jpg|100px]] The 100px gives you the size for the image
If you want to add a caption
use this ---> [[File:Bono_i_motljus.jpg|100px|thumb|This is the comment for this picture]]
And It will look like this:
This is the comment for this picture

Hope this helps! Miss Bono [zootalk] 19:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with my article - how to resolve them?

I had to contribute to an existing article (Mark Chan) as part of a school project. I did a lot of research for my article (references are provided in the article) but it is flagged as being biased, written like an advertisement, and showing a close connection to the composer I wrote about. I would appreciate any assistance, please. Thank you very much. Jwyj (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does read like an essay. Encyclopedia articles are written differently and aren't about putting all the favorable reviews about an artist into an article or putting in quotes from him. It's more putting in just the facts. Look at the article for Philip Glass. Read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The first paragraph should be a summary of the whole article. Put his education in a separate section. Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Jwyj. I don't have time to review the whole article, but I did look at the lead paragraph. Your sentences about how great this composer is are cited to a website that hasn't been updated in ten years, plus an interview of the composer on another website that may not have an established reputation for evaluating a composer's career. The enthusiastic brief blurbs that many websites and publications run, praising the people they are interviewing, should not be used as references for sweeping assessments of their music. The bottom line is that you need more solid sources for such conclusions. Examine all of your prose to be sure that it complies with the neutral point of view, and cite the most reliable sources you can find. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear StarryGrandma and Cullen328, thank you for your invaluable advice. I thought encyclopedia articles were about putting as much information I could find about the subject as possible, and did not realize by doing this, it made me sound biased. I re-read my article, took out all reviews and used neutral language as much as possible. If you could kindly review my article again and advise me how else to improve it (and what more to omit), I would be most obliged. Thank you again for your help and time. Jwyj (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you to consider whether or not the blurb at the beginning of the Fridae is a reliable source for how his reputation is "widely considered". I have my doubts, but am not familiar with the Singapore music scene. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cullen328! The version of the article before I contributed stated that the subject is "recognized as one of Singapore's premier composers." There was no reference though, that's why I changed it. I'll revert to the old phrase since that wasn't a problem with it. I shouldn't have meddled! Thanks! Jwyj (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't revert to something unreferenced just because no one objected previously. Probably, no one was paying close attention. Instead, summarize what the very best sources say about him. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Cullen328. I managed to get some assistance using the Help Me code as well. An editor told me to use a phrase from a Hong Kong government site instead, which referred to the subject as a "renowned Singaporean composer." Wiki is hard for a newbie like me! I'm so glad there have been kind souls like you and the people at Teahouse. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwyj (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Jwyj! That seems like a much stronger source to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change name of an Article

I need to change the name of an article: Dik Evans for Dick Evans, the musician's name is actually Dick no Dik, I made an extensive research including the official biography of U2, and I'm afraid the current name of the article it's the wrong one. I need help, please. Miss Bono [zootalk] 12:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOVE, especially the little "step one", "step two" graphic on the right. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need help from someone who understands music, to improve a song article

I began a song article, 'Villikins and his Dinah', about a London traditional street ballad which mutated into a hit comic song in 1853.

I can deal with the stuff about the history of how the lyrics changed, but I do not read/understand music, so the section on the tune is very weak. And the tune is the more important component - apparently many other folk songs have evolved from it.

Any musical editors able to help?RLamb (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rlamb. One route might be maybe a post asking for assistance at the talk page of one or more musical wikiprojects. A list of them is provided at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Music. I'm not sure which particular ones to recommend. Note that the ones in the list with a green background are active and those in gray are inactive. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll give it a go.RLamb (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But remember that if you write anything about the tune that does not come from a referenced source, that will be original research, and should not appear in the article. Much better would be to find reliable sources that discuss the tune and its use, and write the article from them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, my problem is that I can find (and reference) remarks like this: 'Members of the “Villikins” tune family are most easily spotted by the introductory tonic, then the outline of the major triad in the first bar(s) and the repeated fifth that follows immediately.' While I'm sure this is absolutely right, I don't know if it's relevant to include it because I don't actually understand what it means.RLamb (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Math?

Is there some sort of template that automatically does math for numbers which automatically update from time to time? Specifically I want to find a template that will find the average of the Harry Potter (film series) films' Rotten Tomatoes tomatometer percentages in the critical reception table. They update automatically as the numbers come from Template:Rots, whose RT numbers are updated manually by a bot. Thanks! Koopatrev (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you want is the #expr function. This is quite advanced-level stuff. You probably want something like {{#expr:(<rating 1>+<rating 2>+ ...)/8 round0}}%. Be warned, it takes a few minutes for Template:Rots to return the correct value, and until then #expr will break because it won't accept non-numeric input. --LukeSurl t c 12:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a registered user

How long dos it take to become a registered user? Amadeo17 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You are registered. If you mean autoconfirmed, that takes 4 days (+ at least 10 edits which you already have). - David Biddulph (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific layout policy

Is there a style policy on wikipedia? Because all the pages I visited are of poor quality and some are even a little cluttered! BeijingMan2008 (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BeijingMan2008! Feel free to check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout and to browse some WP:Featured articles to see what are well-organized pages! Best wishes, and happy editing. =) Biosthmors (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Where does one find the templates that allow insertion of editorial comments into articles, e.g. the superscript "who?" etc, and the notes about what needs doing, including the catch-all "this article has multiple issues". Is there a template wizard or does one hand-code them? Chrismorey (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrismorey. Templates are encoded by placing their names within double curly brackets (e.g. {{Name of template}}). So to make the [who?] template, simply type {{who}} where you want to place it; for the [citation needed] template, type {{citation needed}}; for the {{Multiple issues}} template, type {{multiple issues}} (on its own line); etc. You can also use template shortcuts, such as {{cn}} for {{Citation needed}} and others. However, there is no "template wizard", since using templates is fairly easy in this way. If you want to create a template, you can use this tool. — |J~Pæst|  06:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And lists of the cleanup templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Deor (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating tree diagrams

Hello. Mainly for my own userspace purposes, I would like to be able to add neatly constructed tree diagrams to pages as extra visual aids in displaying information. These will provide an easily comprehended manner of communicating schemes of category relationships, etc. among pages within both the template namespace and my own userspace, for example, as well as possibly improve the content of certain articles for which such diagrams would be beneficial. Preferably, they should be downward-facing (i.e. branching downwards and outwards) for clarity. However, I am not aware of any templates that provide a format for displaying downward-facing tree diagrams in this way (perhaps I am simply not experienced enough), and I would greatly appreciate any help. Thank you. — |J~Pæst|  04:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stumped. You probably already know that for sideways display there is Template:Clade, for example: E_coli#Phylogeny_of_Escherichia_coli_strains. Post here if you find an answer. I'm curious. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could try {{Tree list}} and its associated branches to see if that does what you're after. NtheP (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. I was in fact aware of the {{Clade}} template, which only displays branches of the diagram in a left-to-right manner. However, I am beginning to think that no such template for creating top-to-bottom tree diagrams even exists, and that the function should be added to {{Tree list}} or, if not, built into a new template altogether. The existing templates will do for now, but my search for the aforementioned template continues. Thanks again. — |J~Pæst|  03:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Wizard 101

I'm about to use the Article Wizard for the first time. In the template, I find the lines:

Subject of my article is ...

Does this mean that the subject has to be entered twice in the second line? - e.g. My Subject is My Subject

If not, what does it mean please? Chrismorey (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure I understand the question. Could you please elaborate more about the situation. I have never used the article wizard and when I click on it there is a box that asks for the subject to search Wikipedia to make sure it is not already covered in an article. Where are you seeing the question posed?--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 00:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris, thanks for your question. The part that you're referring to is called the lead of the article. In the lead, you generally want to make a statement generally identifying the name of the article in bold letters like this and write a few sentences summarizing what will be in the rest of the article. If your topic is, say, the Duke of Earl, the line there...
Subject of my article is...
should be replaced with something like:
The Duke of Earl is a royal title first used in Briton in 1612 that designates...
Does that answer your question? (Note: I know absolutely nothing about The Duke of Earl and made those details up!) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I understand the issue now. Hope that helped Chrismorey. Thanks Jethrobot!--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you deal with editors and/or admins who try to block any improvement of an article?

Hi, I've been following an article for a period of time and decided I would try to engage the community around it to try and improve it. I have significant experience in the topic area (Information technology) and noticed that there was a flaw in the definition and thought it would be nice to contribute. Rather than directly editing the page without vetting it with others, I thought it better protocol to try and engage the community via the talk page. I first proposed some ideas for change and later even submitted a draft of a rewrite for a certain section. The only responses that come back seem to be attacks, both, regarding the content and on me, and there are no attempts from anyone to work towards improvement of the article. For example, I have one user openly writing that he knows more than me on the topic and that I know very little, and he doesn't even know who I am or what my experience might be. I even did some research and found that one of the editors has had a history of problems with WP. Anyhow, I was wondering, what your opinions are on how best to handle these types of situations? -- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the discussion, I see some unpleasantness but mostly just other users who disagree with you. You may not be able to convince others that your approach is the correct one. If you would like to get broader input from other users to see how others (besides the two currently involved) view your changes, I'd post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing with a neutral message soliciting input. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Calliopejen1, thanks for your quick response. I like the idea of soliciting input from the computing project. As you suggested, I'll spend more time continuing to work with the existing editors and admins to see if there's a way to achieve some progress and, if not, then reach out to the computing project and see what happens, there. There's certainly no rush and I'd rather find a way to resolve any conflicts directly as I think it builds stronger long term relationships. -- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello FGuerino and welcome to the Teahouse. Is it really accurate to say that "The only responses that come back seem to be attacks, both, regarding the content and on me"? It seems you got a very reasonable and well thought out response. I also note that no one really said they do know more than you, but responded to your statement: "The simple fact is that anyone who does know anything about Information Technology, and who reads this article, realizes that it is a very poor representation of what Information Technology really is.". The editor simply asked you not to assume they are one of those that know nothing about the subject and suggested that they might know more about the subject than even you, which seems reasonable from the text I am reading. Just suggesting one might have more knowledge than another is not an attack. In fact it seems this is really nothing more than what we call a content dispute. The discussion is ongoing. I suggest continuing to engage the other editors. If you feel that your input is being ignored for no apparent reason (it looks apparent to me) you could take further steps to gain wider community input. I would normally suggest an RFC (request for comment) but in this situation I wonder if you might be better off for now by asking if there is anything in your draft that they agree with and work from there.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 19:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mark, thanks for your quick response. I do see what you're saying and I will gladly keep an open mind about trying to find alternate ways to make my point. I would like to point out, though, that like many of you, I've been working with people for many decades so, at this point, I'd say I can easily tell the difference between people who really want to move things forward and people who like to be speedbumps. When I put an idea out there and one of the first responses I get is something along the lines of "You know nothing of this topic and I know more than you," without that person having any clue as to my experience or background, I can pretty much assume I'm dealing with a stonewaller or someone who wants complete control of a page and who refuses to work with others for fear of losing control. My goal, here, is to learn what the best and most constructive ways are to handle these types of things so that progress can be made. I'm always ok with not getting my way if I see real progress but I'll be honest and say that I see no progress (or even a plan for progress) in this space. I do see endless arguments about minute things, like what should or shouldn't be capitalized. Anyhow, thanks again for your feedback and advice. I'll absolutely digest it and see what I can do to improve my approaches. -- My Best --FGuerino (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have an excellent outlook, but you need to adjust one thing. Your perception of the criticism is being taken too personally. There is nothing to indicate that such was the case here. No one was telling you outright that they know more than you. It was a response to an aggressive statement you made that could be perceived as an attack on the other editors. See where they are coming from. Also, I suggest you engage directly with the editors on their talk page. one of the editors involved is, perhaps, one of Wikipedia's finest content contributors (this of course being only my opinion). I find that when you speak directly to them, asking relevant questions in a neutral manner, will get you much further than just arguing on the article talk page.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mark, thanks again for the advice. I'm trying to learn as I go along and I'm trying to find what the most constructive paths are for actually getting things done. You're advice on not taking things too personally is well taken, as I take very few things personally. Please know that I was reacting to very explicit statements where the editor openly stated: "It's quite likely that I know a great deal more about it than you do." and "I don't think you've got the faintest idea of what you're talking about." (both being said without knowing me or my background). While I don't take such statements personally, I'm certainly not used to such statements coming from professionals. Also, I do know about and respect his long list of content contributions, which is why I've specifically asked for his opinions on potential improvements. However, I'd expect far more constructive criticism and contribution from someone so experienced in the ways of WP (and life). In all cases, the responses have been direct blasts with no contributions for moving things forward. In professional circles, when someone does nothing but criticize while offering up no other options to try and work towards a progressive solution, it's usually a big red flag. I came to the Teahouse with this question because I sensed the red flag (not assuming that I was either right or wrong) and wanted to understand the most constructive ways of dealing with it, as I'm bound to see it again, if not with this article, I'm sure with others. Anyhow, I thank you again for your words. I really like your suggestion of reaching out, directly on editor's talk pages, and I've already reached to him via his own. Hopefully, I'll find what can be done to make it all move forward in a way where everyone is happy. -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official name of the country - FYROM

Hi, I am using the name FYROM as the standard form recognized by UN and international diplomacy, but is see it is being continuously and edited/changed to Macedonia.

Shouldn't we follow the standard UN naming convention?

Thanks

Mondiad (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mondiad: the naming convention for Macedonia on Wikipedia has been determined via community discussion and subsequent arbitration. You can find more details of the decision at this guideline. If you want to discuss that guideline, you may do so at the guideline's talk page. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Mondiad: Without knowing anything about the particular circumstances of either the country or its article, we generally use the common name of something, not its formally correct name. In this case, Macedonia is more common than FYROM in everyday conversation, so I suspect this is a large part of why you are being reverted. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I am OK with it. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't a political thing.

Mondiad (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should I edit?

I have recently been upgraded to autoconfirmed status, because now I can now edit semi-protectected articles. But what should I edit? Please help! User:castigonia Castigonia (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should edit any article that interests you. Also, there always seems to be a backlog at semi-protected edit requests, if you want to help there. RudolfRed (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bot that submits suggestions of articles that you may be interested in on user talk pages. I have no idea how or when this bot places these suggestions on your page. I wonder if any other Teahouse host knows if there is a way to get the bot to make suggestions on a specific user page?--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Suggestbot for instructions. RudolfRed (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 21:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can also use Special:Random to find a random article to edit - click on it a few times (or a few dozen) and maybe you'll find something interesting! – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys! I have used all of your advice and putting them to effect. Keep on editing! Castigonia (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article pending approval

Hello. I would like to know how long does it usually take to get an article published? Thank you. Curnau (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Curnau. Welcome to the Teahouse. Most articles submitted at Articles for Creation do not ever get published. The most common reason for this is that they do not establish the notability of the subject by including references to significant coverage of it in multiple independent reliable sources, as explained in WP:VRS.
Those submissions that do get accepted, usually take between a few days and a few weeks to be accepted. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Curnau, welcome to the Teahouse! There are currently 2,954 drafts in the queue awaiting review just like the one that you created. The reviewers at AFC tend to look at an average of about 65-75 drafts per day unless there is a backlog drive running. This means, that your draft will likely get reviewed sometime in the next 10-14 days. No worries though, this gives you time to make sure that your topic is adequately backed up with independent reliable sources and makes good on the golden rule. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Source Tips

Hi Teahouse. Edit source is kinda complicated. Could you give me some tips on how to add boxes in edit source, because it's really hard.

P.S. The promotional singles I'm adding are "Confetti Falling" and "We Are". The music video I'm adding is "We Are".IGotProof (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "add boxes"? Could you be more specific? (Maybe giving an example of an article with the type of box you would like to add.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a lot of people do this by going to a similar article and copying the WP:Infoboxes to the new one. Then you can just change the "answers" to the right information for the article you're working on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a recipe to redirect a link

I would like to link the word "Myopia" in an article about equine vision, to Myopia in animals, so that a person clicking on Myopia would end up here Myopia in animals and NOT here Myopia Help appreciated!Nicoderno1 (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. The technique is known as "piping", and the syntax is [[Myopia in animals|Myopia]], giving this result: Myopia. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I improve articles?

How can I improve the articles? Wangedgar (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to the teahouse. Could you be more specific?Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Active Wiki Fixup Projects
Main · Inactive · Mini
Hello Wangedgar! If you're looking for ways you can help out, the menu to the right of my post shows several "projects" which are working to improve Wikipedia overall by systematically improving articles. Maybe one of those projects looks fun to participate in? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I complete?

Hello, Earlier you help me suggesting I should i proper links and i did. I also add some photos this time. The only one thing i couldn't do was add resources, would be able to check if I am going the right wat and if i submit it will be accepted please.

Thanks Adoracionpuntual (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are referring to User:Adoracionpuntual/Lenny Flamenco, see #Trying to anderstand Wikipedia. below? You are going in the right direction, but you still have no references to published reliable sources. Without those, your submission would immediately be declined. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about now, Did i add the references properly? Thanks so much for guiding me in this Adoracionpuntual (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
also add lot of more references but they are not appearing for some reason. Adoracionpuntual (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the error which was stopping your references from being seen, but you then reinserted the same error. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much David, Im sorry I wasn't aware I was adding the error. I recently add a info box, with this references already fix and the infobox correct. Do you think its ready now to be submitted? Thanks so much for your patience and great help Adoracionpuntual (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any advice on how to deal with my first heavy editing of an article on Wikipedia?

I am working on improving a Wikipedia article. This is the first time I have really tried to improve an article,I usually just correct grammar or remove vandalism on pages I happen to be reading. The article I'm working on is Dance Moms. It is a hot mess. My problem is the every time I change what needs to be changed, like removing unsourced claims, or opinions, anonymous IP's or people with a user name but no talk page just change what I write back to how it was before I changed it, or they add in statements that are even worse. Their are boxes throughout the article stating what needs to be changed so that is what I try to do. I always explain my changes in the history and on the talk page. But I feel like I'm not getting anything accomplished on the article. Since Dance Moms is a popular show, it seems to attract a lot of fans who just don't understand the guidelines of Wikipedia and write statements that are nothing but opinions. I'm not trying to claim ownership of the article, I'm not even a fan of the show,but I have watched the show,which is why I looked up Dance Moms on WP in the first place. If anyone would care to look,they can read the history or the Dance Moms talk page to see the statements I have removed,to see if I am correct for removing them. I just feel like I'm going in a loop everyday trying to fix this article,removing the same things over and over again,yet accomplishing nothing for the article. Thanks for your time. BeckiGreen (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Becki. After a bit of page history exploration, I have semi-protected the article for three months. This means that editors without accounts, and those with accounts who are not autoconfirmed will be unable to edit the article during the span of protection. This should allow you more room to make good changes without all the hassle I see in the page history. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much for your help.BeckiGreen (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add Boxes to Graphs

Hi, Teahouse. I'm on Big Time Rush Discography and I'm trying to add two more promotional singles but I don't know how to. I'm in the beta editor, and I'm more used in editing with a transclusion. That's all, bye.IGotProof (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IGotProof. VisualEditor is still in development and has a lot of limitations. One of them is not being able to add rows to tables. Click "Edit source" instead to use the old source editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I ment to post in the top conversation. Sorry Adoracionpuntual (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to create an infobox

I'm currently making an article and I don't know how to create and infobox on the page. Help!ZeMusicFan (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ZeMusicFan, welcome to the Teahouse. To use an infobox, find the one you need first, at Category:Infobox templates. (From your name I suspect you may want Category:Music infobox templates). Once you find the one you need, copy the text between the {{curly brackets}} in the "Usage" section, and put it at the very top of the article. Then fill out all the fields you can, and delete any that don't apply. Howicus (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You also may not delete the ones that are left empty, because maybe other editor have such information :) Miss Bono [zootalk] 20:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info it helped out a lot. But, 1 more question. I looked it up on the search engine, but when I pressed search it took me to the page. How do I get the page to be in the results?ZeMusicFan (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ZeMusicFan. I'm guessing that you mean, how do you get the page to be in the suggestions that get offered. The answer is that you wait until thew relevant index gets updated. I don't know whether that is hours or days. --ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles whose titles are in italics: How do you make the title have italics?

I recently created a redirect from Meet Whiplash Willie to The Fortune Cookie. I note that we have The Fortune Cookie in italics but I couldn't make the title of my re-direct (Meet Whiplash Willie) appear in italics. How do we create an article and ensure its title is italicised? Jodosma (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jodosma! To make an article title appear in italics, you begin the page with {{italic title}}, although I'm not completely sure that it would work with a redirect. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've looked at some articles and now see the italic tag whereas I didn't notice it before because I wasn't looking for it. Also I now know that it doesn't work with a redirect. Jodosma (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I was told is that by using the infobox for a movie, the title appears in italics automatically.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem that way.Jodosma (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{Italic title}} only affects how the article name is displayed on the screen. A redirect page is never seen, as it seemlessly loads the target page instead, therefore visual presentation of the article name is irrelevant. But I get the sense of what you were wanting, and I think having that attention to details is a good thing, and most welcome here on Wikipedia.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  07:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ndash etc. in article titles

Why would anyone use an ndash in an article title. I've recently been viewing 2012-13 Football League Cup and found that it was a redirect because the article was created by using an ndash for 2012–13. I've noticed a few like this and just don't get it. Why not just use a hyphen to create the title; if you use an ndash you find that it doesn't work properly in the search box. How do you enter an ndash in the search box anyway? Jodosma (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jodosma. What I say here is my personal opinion, and doesn't represent any official stance. Some editors care deeply about the distinctions between various types of dashes and hyphens, and work diligently to make them all correct. Other editors, and I include myself in this group, simply don't know or care about these typographic distinctions, and couldn't describe the differences, or use one over the other properly if our lives depended on it. Those of us in the second group encourage those of you in the first group to copyedit to your heart's content, as long as you don't argue disruptively about these issues. In this case, why not just move the article to your preferred typographically correct title? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Cullen328's answer is quite good, both from a understanding of the situation and also what to do about it. And as an editor that cares more about typography and form (rather than the meaning), I can appreciate someone asking, "What's the difference between a hyphen and those dashes of various lengths?" (And let's not forget the hyphen-minus.)  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  08:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DASH says: "To aid searching and linking, provide a redirect from the corresponding article title with hyphens in place of en dashes". The redirect is there at 2012-13 Football League Cup so it does work in the search box in that case. When there is no redirect the en dash page is usually the first search result so it's only one click to get there. Entering an en dash in the search box would have been harder but see options at Dash#Rendering dashes on computers if you really want to know. If you see a case without a redirect then you can just create the redirect by copy-pasting the title from the en dash version. Don't worry when creating articles. Somebody, often a bot, will eventually move it to the en dash version when required by our guidelines. I think the real problem is categories. I don't like en dashes there. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback script error

A fault seems to have developed today with the Talkback script. I am getting an error message saying:

" There was an error requesting the page edit. Code: protectedpage": The "editprotected" right is required to edit this page. "

Have other users encountered the same problem? - David Biddulph (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had to move this section to the top of the page, in accordance with Teahouse conventions, as the "Ask a question" button put it at the foot of the page in line with normal Wikipedia practice. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if the problem was temporary, as it seems to be working again now. I'm now just curious as to what the problem was. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spoke too soon. Seems to be doing it again today. Has anybody got any idea why? - David Biddulph (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yours, for one. User talk:Nicoderno1 was another one earlier today. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article nees major corrections

How do I make major corrections, or complely delete and article? 70.183.27.180 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 70! Welcome to the teahouse. Your question would be much easier to answer if we knew specifically what article you are referring to. Could you share that with us? Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Hey person at IP address ending 27.180! If an article suffers from major problems, you can boldly edit it, including a complete rewrite. Please note that there's is something of a divide between articles that are well or fairly well sourced to reliable sources through citations, and those which are not. Often a complete rewrite or major edits to a sourced article should be done with more circumspection and note that removal of sourced content may be seen as a red flag for some editors, depending on the changes made. I suggest you take a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial to learn the basics of editing if you are going to undertake this task. I can only be general in my advice here, and very broad, because you haven't disclosed the particular article you are here about. Regarding deletion, there are four chief processes under which articles in the mainspace are deleted:
It really would help if you told us which article you are here about so we could target our advice. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is REVERSE MORTGAGE. The entire first page is misleading, and contains outright misinformation. The National Reverse Mortgage Loan Association has a much better explanation for reverse mortgages, and I would like to delete the present article, and replace it with truthful, substantiated information.

Thank you! RealronRlankford (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rlankford. I assume you are the editor that asked the original question? Although the above information is the correct procedures for attempting to get an article deleted (something only an administrator can do, after one of the above procedures is concluded), Reverse Mortgage would not be deletable by any of them. It is a completely referenced article. I have to point out to you that The National Reverse Mortgage Loan Association is a trade association for businesses engaged in selling reverse mortgages in the United States. The article is about reverse mortgages in several English-speaking countries around the world. Information from the NRMLA would only apply to the US. Further, since the NRMLA is a trade association for the reverse mortgage industry, it would not be an independent and unbiased source. Information sourced to them would undoubtedly be disputed if you put it into an article. Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced to independent secondary sources for all but the most uncontroversial information (addresses, etc). I hope this helps. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the article in question has multiple references and citations, and that the NRMLA is possibly biased. However, the truth from a biased source is still the truth, and the misinformation in the article is still misinformation, regardless of the references and citations. Oddly enough, some of the references are the exact same ones I would use to refute the improper facts stated in the article. So, with that in mind, how should I proceed to update the article to convey the truth about Reverse Mortgages?Rlankford (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claim an Article?

Hi, I wrote an article before I had an account. Can I 'claim' it? Piratenfiber (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Piratenfiber, sure why not! Best. =) Biosthmors (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Piratenfiber. It depends what you mean by 'claim' it. If you mean, can you say on your user page that you had a hand in writing it, certainly. If you mean, can you get the history changed so that it attributes the edits that you made to your current account, I'm afraid there is no way to do that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might not hurt to go to the Talk page of the article and post a section there stating that you were the initial contributor. Less so for the "fame", but it may be totally appropriate if it serves the purpose of helping people who want to discuss the start of the article to contact you if needed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism

Wasn't Buddhism founded in Nepal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhu20 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blackhu20, thanks for coming by The Teahouse. You might consider bringing this question to the reference desk, where editors can help answer questions about general knowledge. Thanks, I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

medical science club?

These claims in the lead at Mindfulness-based stress reduction seem to be promotional and without scientific evidence. "It is thought to be effective for treating ailments including alleviating pain and improving physical and emotional well being for individuals suffering from a variety of diseases and disorders…….Through meditation individuals increase their self-awareness, which leads to a greater unity between the mind and body. Research into meditation and its health benefits has been widely accepted and the concept of mindfulness-based stress reduction was created out of the desire to understand these benefits more closely. A mindfulness-based program is beneficial to those suffering from chronic illness, anxiety, depression, as well as other problems. The benefits of using a mindfulness-based program have been proven to be effect regardless of type of program or length." Is there a science-based medical reviewer or club that looks at this stuff? I asked for help at the Administration noticeboard but they said it's not their thing. Thanks.--LarEvee (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LarEvee, and thanks for bringing your concern to the Teahouse. It looks like you and Alexbrn (talk · contribs) already were bold and made the needed changes to reduce unverified and controversial claims in the article, which is a perfectly appropriate (and encouraged) course of action when you see it. The thing is, you don't (usually) need to be a scientific expert to be able to verify and fact check articles. If you cannot though, you can try to get an expert using the Expert subject template at the top of the page or post to the talk page of the relevant WikiProject (e.g. WikiProject Psychology in this case). Thanks for your hard work. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is helpful information.--LarEvee (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=568121456"