Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, 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

Scrutiny on new articles while bad, older articles are nurtured

I read through the interesting discussion (below) prompted by AugurNZ's question and the thread is so long, I'll just post my thought as a separate question.

I've been very active on Wikipedia (daily editing) for about two months now, before that I sporadically edited. But now that I'm on here so much and see so many pages, I can't count the number of articles I've placed {{refimprove}} on because they have few or no references at all. At this point, it's probably reached at least 100 articles because I do it, daily. This is especially the case with articles about TV episodes or other "fan topics" which are often unsourced and border on original research.

So my question is, why, when Editors (including me) see a poorly written article with major problems, we put tag on it so it can be improved while if the article has been newly created, it typically faces a speedy delete? Why do we give 10 year-old articles, that haven't been worked on for years, a chance to improve (even with "multiple issues") but if there are problems with a new article (which is inevitable with new editors), it's just deleted? I've seen articles with tags that date back to 2009 and, four years later, the article still exists with no improvement at all. I'm not familiar with AfC but do they offer suggestions to new editors on how they can improve their article and resubmit it or does it just get a swift delete?

I think this is what frustrates new article creators because I know I come across at least a dozen articles every day that would never pass today's AfC standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

AFC drafts are only ever deleted for a few narrow reasons, the main ones being copyright violation, blatant advertising, and abandoned drafts with no edits in six months. Other than that, the drafts that aren't accepted are declined with a message giving suggestions for improvement. I don't really know what to say with regards to the rest of your question, other than to say that a lot of editors monitor recent changes, and it's altogether easier to find and deal with new bad articles than old ones. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Liz and thanks for asking a great question. The first thing that I want to say is that deletion policy does not discriminate in any way based on the age of the article. Any article is subject to a speedy, a prod, or an AfD nomination, whether it is ten minutes old or ten years old. That being said, new articles, which flow in to Wikipedia in a constant and somewhat predicable fashion, are subject to more scrutiny than older articles. Since we have over 4.2 million existing articles, those editors interested in keeping garbage off the encyclopedia often gravitate toward evaluating new articles, since the percentage of problematic material there is so high. I am quite active at AfD, where careful analysis of borderline cases is common. It is common there to look at articles of all ages, and we evaluate them all by the same standards. I encourage you and other editors to participate in those debates whenever you have time and interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Can't tell if user's behavior is revertable/sanctionable

Hi there. An IP editor, 72.210.75.53, has been repeatedly adding names of chewing tobacco brands to disambiguation pages. For instance, here's a diff for Mammoth Cave: [1]. The chewing tobacco brands are real. The additions don't seem appropriate to me, but I couldn't tell from the guidelines on disambiguation pages whether my instinct is correct. I'm also puzzled by the slightly misleading edit summaries ("Adding an important detail, as well as a necessary hyperlink to another article") and the fact that this activity appears to be the only thing the IP editor is doing. Could someone please advise me on how to proceed? Should I revert the edits? Should I report the user at AN/I or elsewhere? Thanks much for your time. DoorsAjar (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello DoorsAjar, and welcome to the Teahouse. This one is tough for me, as I hate tobacco. Both of my parents were heavy smokers and both died prematurely as a result. That being said, this user is not adding spam external links. They are adding brand names to existing lists of tobacco brand names, and then disambiguating those names. At this point, I think that we should assume good faith, unless the IP editor's behavior takes a turn for the worse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Actually, they weren't adding to lists of brand names at all. They were adding to disambiguation pages that had nothing to do with tobacco, including Cougar, Redwood, and Cotton. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. DoorsAjar (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that every single one of those additions has been reverted by KylieTastic, who then reported the IP to WP:AIV. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I came across Southern Pride first and that looked 100% wrong/bot like as it amended the first line to "This article is about the Smiths Dock Company whaler. Southern Pride is also a brand of chewing tobacco." Also as all the change comments started with something like 'Adding important details' looked very very iffy. Even if someone was a keen taboccoo fan this looked designed to make people looking at individual edits think twice about reverting. Lastly if this behaviour was ok then surely all the disambiguation pages would be full of brands and I didn't think Wikipedia was a marketing platform for any industry. Saying that, it's late I've had a couple of drinks, in a bad mood and now totally second guessing if I made the correct call. I was unaware this section existed for such questions - opps. Sorry if I've acted out of line, I'll revert the reverts if that's the consensus. KylieTastic (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Kylie. I declined the block for a few reasons. Most importantly, there were no further edits after a first warning was given so no basis to block at all. Had they continued, and ignored warnings, only then. But the warning itself, a final warning for blatant vandalism, was in my view problematic because these were not obviously bad faith edits—this was not a user egregiously promoting one brand or spamming some commercial website but just adding links to various brand names—and, in fact some would argue the links added were actually fine and belong (see MOS:DABRL). I'm not sure I agree with the idea we should have unlinked or red-linked items on DAB pages at all, but in any event, I don't think these should all have stand-alone articles, so I would have reverted also (but without using rollback or the nuke option, which are only for patent vandalism) and left a tailored message. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded! Much appreciated. The MOS link was especially helpful; I looked at the main DAB page but didn't think to look in the MOS. DoorsAjar (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I encourage all interested editors to take a look at the IPs editing history. First of all, the edits are accurate. These are actual tobacco brand names, at least the five I checked on Google. Secondly, the IP editor has been adding the brand names to Chewing tobacco and Dipping tobacco, specifically to lists of brand names of these products that have been here for a very long time. In that sense, they are complying with working consensus that we ought to have lists of such tobacco brand names, and improving the encyclopedia in the process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I was a little too jumpy on the warning straight to lv4 (wish I had caught earlier and been more chilled) - I always used to leave tailored messages when I started this edit thang just a week ago - then started using Twinkle and started using the easy option to just rollback 'vandalism' rather than leave a message/reason. I let the amount of vandalism on here get too me and erode my judgement on 'good faith' - I'll be more careful in future, and remember this section exists. KylieTastic (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured list

Hi, when I am writing an article, hopefully to be a featured list (here if you're interested), then do I need referencing for ever single box in the table? For example, if I had that the previous currency was an Austrian schilling, do I need to source that? I ask mainly as I was following the policy of at least one source per box, yet when I looked at List of circulating currencies, a currency FL, it has only one source at most in a row.

Also, if there are any people out there who know what standard of prose is expected at FL, do I need all the things I have listed on the talk page of the draft? Thanks, Matty.007 19:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Matty. List of circulating currencies was promoted in 2006, when standards were much lower, and I would think would not come close to passing review today because of lack of sourcing. If you go to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates and use your computer's find function (usually ctrl+f or ⌘ Cmd+f on a mac), and search for unsourced you will see that numerous nominations are either being opposed or flagged for correction because a section of prose or some part of the list table is "unsourced". It looks to me like you've substantially provided sourcing for everything thus far, so I'd recommend continuing. The standard prose expected of a featured list is "professional standards of writing", quoting from Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. You will certainly need a compelling lead but the list looks well on its way. I think if you post at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates you might get a more nuanced take as to what needs to be sourced and what not though. I can't speak to the talk page ideas but the criteria do require comprehensiveness. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox queryCastabile (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

When my article is published, should I just delete it from my sandbox? Or leave it and create a new sandbox page (not sure how to do that last, if that's the case)?Castabile (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you decide at some stage to submit your sandbox draft for review (and I see that you haven't worked on it for more than 6 months), then it may well be moved to a page in the space used by the WP:AFC process, and then if approved it would be moved on again into mainspace. This would be done by moving, not copying, and all that would be left at your sandbox in that case would be a redirect; in that case you could delete the redirect from your sandbox, or turn it into a simple link rather than redirect. You could start a draft of another article in your old sandbox address, or you could create one or more new drafts as subpages in you user space, such as User:Castabile/Whatever your new article title would be. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Castabile. You can't delete articles yourself. What you can do is put {{db-g7}} there, and an administrator will take care of the deletion.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How do I get Wikipedia to write a page?

There is a brnewly established supporter owned soccer team based in Nashville, TN that should probably have a page on here but, I'm clueless how.Jonesy2182 (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, talk, and welcome to the Teahouse! Before starting to create an article, you should first find out if the soccer team has been written about in several independent sources such as news reports, sports magazine articles, etc. Every Wikipedia article has to have these. If the team is new, it may be that no one has written about it yet, in which case it's too soon for an article in the encyclopedia. However, if you do find some published sources about the team, then you can should read "Wikipedia:Your first article" to see how to create an article. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jonesy. You could ask for an article to be created here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any announcement at U.S. soccer or at U.S. Soccer clubs about a Nashville team and the latter list includes 2014 and 2015 expansion teams. Organizing the team could be still in the planning stages and it's important to remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, meaning, that WP doesn't publish articles about events before they happen (as documented in reliable sources). But it is an article you could start working on in your Sandbox! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How to request feedback for article created in User space?

I would like to move the article, but I would like to be sure if it's eligible for publication. Is there any way to request editors' feedback so I can correct the article and not end up with article nominated for speedy deletion. Thanks. Gadelichka (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a {{user draft}} tag to the top of your draft. If you are happy with the draft, click on the "Submit" link in the box at the top of the article, and it will then be reviewed through the WP:AFC process, & you will be given any necessary feedback. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you a lot.

Gadelichka (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent additions such as "The website boasts high functionality and features and is tailored to both members and publishers." will leave you open to suspicion that, like your previous attempt at StivaSoft, it is aimed at advertising and promotion. Wording like "They can choose to have their products reviewed by our GeekyCorner writers." will encourage that suspicion. If you are editing on behalf of an organisation with which you are connected, please read WP:COI very carefully. If the organisation or the product is really notable, then someone else will write about it; if not, it doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, you need to remove external links from the body of the article. A few relevant ones can be included in an "External links" section as described at WP:External links. You need to understand the dfference between external links & references. You were provided with a number of useful introductory links in the welcome message on your user talk page a couple of years ago; it is well worth reading those, and any follow-on links from there that you need if you are after further detail. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

adding mssing info

I would like to suggest that the Film "Let the Good Times Roll" from 1972 be added to little Richard's Filmography. I do not know how to edit HTML and wonder how I can propose this insertion?Videoheads (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to know how to edit HTML. There are two ways of editing Wikipedia articles. There is a beta version of a WYSIWYG editor called Visual Editor, which is available on some browsers with link [edit^beta]. There are, however, bugs in that, so most editors prefer the older editor, accessed via the [edit source] link. Try clicking on the "edit source" link alongside the relevant section heading in the Little Richard article. The article to which you want to link is Let the Good Times Roll (film) and the article says it is from 1973, not 1972. To provide a link which doesn't show the word "(film)", you can link it with the syntax [[Let the Good Times Roll (film)|]], (note the "pipe" character | at the end of the link) which will display as Let the Good Times Roll. If you don't feel confident in editing it yourself, you can always put your suggestion in a new section on the article's talk page, which you can get to with a click on the "Talk" tab at the top of the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

..., and another editor has provided you with a number of useful welcoming links on your user talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Videoheads, and welcome to Wikipedia. David gave a great answer there. I'd just like to add, as you get started with editing Wikipedia, please feel free to ask any question, big or small, here at the Teahouse. We're here to help! Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Which can be reliable sources for big retail company?

Dear Editor,

Hope you are well ,

could you please help us with some issue. I'm brand manager of company Z&A Ltd in Armenia,which is in the sphere of fashion and representative of many brands in Armenia and its outside. We have sent request to wikipedia team to add our company and have received this kind of answer below.So as i understood we must have referances from the famous mdeia drives in Armenia,for example from independent magazines or sites,and we can't refer any information to wikipedia. For example i wrote that "Z&A Ltd is representative of Burberry in Armenia and put refer BURBERRY to wikipedia's Burberry"

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Z%26A_stores es sitey mti tes.95.140.195.155 (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your understanding is accurate, but your example does does not represent what is considered a reliable source. Burberry has a financial relationship with the company, and it cannot be considered reliable because a partnership, contract, or agreement between companies is not indicative of notability. Please try to find in-depth coverage of the company in reliable sources, such as magazines, news articles, books, or interviews. I would also advise removing the many external links to company pages on the article and removing the company's Facebook page per our guidelines on external links. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that JethroBT may have intended to say "... does not represent ..." - David Biddulph (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Colored text feature when editing in source mode.

Some time ago, I found a feature that changed the appearance of the text when editing in source mode. Different parts of the code had different background colors, according to their function.

Last day I was toying with my settings, and I messed it up. Could somebody tell me how can I have this feature back? Thanks!--Fauban 10:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fauban. Go to Special:Preferences, click on "Gadgets", and then turn on Dot's Syntax highlighter. Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the preferences page seems to have changed, no Gadgets tab (or any other tabs) any more, so it's under an "Editing" heading. Apparently that one doesn't work under Internet Explorer. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This is how I find the option in chrome. Is it different in other browsers? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Tabs have now reappeared; perhaps my browser was playing up? - David Biddulph (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!--Fauban 10:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I cite a Wiki Commons Photo?

I have a photo of the subject I am working on for my wiki page (the mobile trauma bay). The photo has associated text that I would like to bring into my article, but I am not sure this is possible.

The photo is LVSR with Mobile Trauma Bay2.jpg

The caption in Commons I would like to cite is: "From the time it was proposed to the time it was completed, 914 concept drawings in four months resulted in what was unveiled today." There is a link to the source but that does not work. It does give the author.

If anyone out there can help, I'd greatly appreciate it. GMarin 04:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but the original photo, including the caption (and the release to the public domain), may now be found at http://www.lejeune.marines.mil/Photos.aspx?igphoto=10568 .--Larry (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Larry! Insert the picture into the article as normal, write the caption and at the end of it add an inline citation to [2] to support the fact in the text. Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 06:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks this IS helpful. I will try it and see how i get to the stage in my article. Much appreciated. Lily

GMarin 04:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Way to solve issue related to speedy deletion and edit war

Hi, recently I created a new article, an English version of the article in Japanese. Then speed deletion was tagged by another user. I contested that deletion, but I got no reaction from that. So I created the article again. Next the article was edited to be redirected to another article. The redirected article is related to the original article, but just a part of it. So I edited again, then I got a message to warn that I am engaged in edit war. I put comments to validate the purpose of the article, but I have not received any response so far. I need advice how to exit from this circumstance where I am totally stuck. JUPITER8 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello,JUPITER8! I presume that you are talking about the article called Celsys. Asking at this forum is a good start. From what I understand, Celsys is a software company that has made a product called Mango Studio, which has an article. I read the article that you wrote about Celsys, but it didn't include any references to independent sources such as news reports, computer magazine articles, books, etc., to show that this is a notable company. If Mango Studio is its only well known product, then the redirect to the Mango Studio page is correct, and you can add material about Celsys there. If you do find a number of news articles (not press releases) or other published material about Celsys which has not been created by the company, then you can show them on the article's talk page, and see if the editors who previously thought that the article would not do will then change their minds. It's the presence of good, reliable, independent sources to verify your information that will make the difference. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello JUPITER8, and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, stop edit warring. You must stop, or you will be blocked. Stop, and discuss things.

You created an unreferenced article about a Japanese software company. Wikipedia articles should be referenced to reliable, independent sources. Experienced editors have redirected the article to an existing article about well-known software issued by the company. Drmies, a highly experienced editor and administrator, explained that to you back on September 6. Instead of adding references, you have edit warred to create the article all over again. Your comparison to Microsoft and Windows in previous discussions is invalid, as both of those topics have received significant coverage in thousands of reliable sources, and the topics are indisputably notable. Where are the reliable sources for your article?

So, the way to exit is to stop edit warring. If you have reliable sources that show the notability of the topic, bring them forth on the talk page for the redirect. Do not fight with highly experienced editors who know what they are doing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Cullen. I have little to add, just one thing. The article now has a reference supposedly verifying the METI award (supposedly, because my Japanese is very rusty). Note that I just created a redirect for that award. That in itself might be enough to hold off speedy deletion since it is some kind of claim of importance; if that had been added earlier, this back-and-forthing might not have happened. But I see that JUPITER has restored the redirect, which kind of puts a stop on this discussion. I don't know what the best solution is; if there's nothing else on the subject that's reliable and important, a section in the main article, Manga Studio, is probably the way to go. Thank you, and enjoy Hawai, Drmies (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these advices. I follow you and put several sources related the article in the talk page of Celsys. I will wait for the feedback to see how it will work. JUPITER8 (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Anne, Thank you for the kind advice at the talk page. I've found out several independent sources related to the company.

JUPITER8 (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How to avoid copyrighting problems

Hi i wanted to make sure i didnt plagiarize. What are the rules on using others' information on wikipedia. Can i paraphrase it as long as I cite the link? Can anyone get sued from paraphrasing with citation01:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishingforspecies (talk • contribs)

Hello Fishingforspecies, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can quote a sentence or two (or maybe three sentences) from a source, but you must put quotation marks around the quote, or set it off in another fashion that makes it clear that it is a quote, and reference the quote properly.

As for paraphrasing, we do not want a close paraphrase of a source. You can't take a source and replace words with synonyms, and maybe trim a few clauses and rearrange a sentence or two, and expect that to be acceptable. You should be condensing and summarizing the source in your own words. I read a source and think about it for a while. I read it again, and write a list of very brief key words as a memory device. Then, after another break, I write a summary in my own words. Of course, I reference the source. I hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How can I just add a new section here, without the form?

I want to ask a question here on the teahouse, but I want to be able to use the preview feature as I assemble my thoughts, but the form doesn't allow me to do that. I don't want to edit the whole darn page — there should be an "add section" option or something, but I can't see it. The form on this page seems to be broken too, as the left-hand edge goes over the navigation bar on the left of the screen, obscuring part of my text as I type it. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 00:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm....If it's a long complicated question, you could try working on it in your sandbox, with the preview, and then pasting it here when you are done. I don't seem to have the problem with the cut-off text in the form. Have you tried zooming out a little with your browser? The problem with the "add section" is that it adds the section at the bottom of the page instead of the top. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey AugurNZ. You could click "edit source" at the top and then manually create a new section (using doubled equal signs on either side of the header). If you click that edit source link you will see that there are instructions in edit mode for where a manually created new thread starts (near but not quite at the top of the page). You could also start you post just about anywhere else on Wikipedia, previewing, and once satisfied, transfer it to the form. But I agree, it's not ideal. Also, the ask a question button obscures part of a thread's header unless it's short, until the thread moves down the page. These are some of the tradeoffs of the arrangement here that is the opposite of the rest of Wikipedia, where new posts go at the bottom of the page, which is where the new section link automatically places a post. I personally am against it for a number of reasons, most importantly because in my opinion it teaches people in a way of doing something that is confounded everywhere else, so it can actively mis-instruct, but we've had the discussion on the talk page a few times and no consensus has been reached to change it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, both of you. I agree that putting the most recent post at the top is counter-intuitive and teaches new editors bad habits which, for a page designed to assist new editors, is probably not ideal. Going off to another page to create my question then pasting it here when complete is a solution, sure, but as you say, not a very good one either. As for editing the whole page just to get a new section, that is fraught with problems too, such as the higher risk of causing an {{edit conflict}}.

Now that this new section has been created, I might as well ask my question here too. I am in the process of creating my first new article on Wikipedia, using the WikiProject Disability Sandbox, as the article is going to be disability-related. My article has stalled at the very first citation, as the citation, verifiability and notability rules here are so complex. My first citation was to be from this page which cites the current NZ Minister of Disability Issues, Tariana Turia. The problem is I have no idea how to format the citation, being that I want to quote the Minister, "as cited in..." but the author's name is a company name (Core Communications Ltd), and it is all a bit confusing. I understand that this is a "press release" so it may not meet Wikipedia's stringent rules as a reliable source anyway, even though the press release has been picked up by CCS Disability Action (a frontline support and services organisation with 16 branches throughout New Zealand), Scoop (New Zealand's leading news resource for news-makers and the people that influence the news, as opposed to a news site for "news consumers"), and HealthPages (a leading online reference resource used by those within the wider health industry in NZ and the general public). To me, this all lends credence to the citation, but I have no experience with Wikipedia's policies on such things.

This is only the first citation that I plan to add to my new article. I understand that for notability I need to provide many more verifiable sources. Any help and advice would be appreciated. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 03:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding the press release to your article is okay, but if your topic is the festival it is promoting it doesn't help in establishing notability. The festival will have to have been written about by independent journalists and other authors, reporting and/or reviewing the event. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Anne. Can you explain why the press release is considered deficient? It is not a press release from the festival organizers themselves. The source cites a Minister of the Crown (Hon Tariana Turia), and a representative of the venue (Martin Sutcliffe), along with the festival organiser (Paula Crimmens). It seems to be balanced and neutral. What is so bad about this source that "it doesn't help in establishing notability" of itself? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 04:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

AugurNZ, no one said that the press release is "deficient". It is a well written professional press release. Instead, the problem is that it is not independent. The press release was issued by Core Communications Ltd., a public relations firm based in New Zealand. Even if the festival organizers did not issue it themselves, it was issued on their behalf by these capable PR professionals. According to our standards, it can't be used to establish notability, as we require coverage in fully independent sources. Here is a possible source, though I don't know if Voxy is a reliable NZ news source. Perhaps you do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen, but the link you provided is to another copy of the exact same press release, which was apparently picked up by Fuseworks, a news aggregator, and in turn by Voxy, a crowd-sourced news publisher. That is often how news is disseminated here in NZ. AugurNZ

✐⌕ 05:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights into contemporary online news distribution in New Zealand, AugurNZ. I will try to keep that in mind when examining New Zealand news sources in the future. My guess is that you are quite familiar with New Zealand's mainstream newspapers, magazines and broadcast journalism outlets. You know, the ones with professional editors and fact checkers? If none of them covered this festival, then it isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards. That's how we roll. That's how we maintain our standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just daft! If an article is widely publicised and picked up by a wide variety of reputable organizations, and re-published by them, then who cares that it wasn't originally published by the so-called mainstream media? To me, this smacks of blatant elitism. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 05:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

AugurNZ, we expect professional editorial control, fact checking and an established reputation for accuracy. Many "alternative" sources meet that standard. Calling our notability standards, established by consensus established by thousands of active editors over many years, "daft" is an interesting approach. You can study the matter, and understand and accept the clear rationale behind it; or, you can lobby to have the General notability guideline changed to your preference; or, you can give up encyclopedia editing; or, you can start a new encyclopedia of your own. Call it "Not-daft-cyclopedia,com" if you will, and assemble a team to write millions of articles better than Wikipedia's articles. I hope that you will choose the first of my options. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I must say, this will make an interesting case study for my paper for the upcoming Wikimedia Diversity Conference. So very often disability issues are ignored by the so-called mainstream media anyway. When we try to address this inequality on Wikipedia by providing articles about diversity issues, that same bias is cited and supported in Wikipedia's own policies. That said, perhaps your suggestion to "lobby to have the General notability guideline changed" could be a subject for discussion at the conference. Thanks for that. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 06:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

AugurNZ, my wife of 32 years is profoundly deaf, and one of my sons, now 23, was born with Sotos Syndrome, a disabling condition that requires constant attention and supervision from his parents. I first met my wife in the context of my role in expanding deaf services in an urban hospital setting as a telecommunications professional. I deal with disability issues every single day of my life and have for decades.Be sure to mention that in your diversity conference report. I am 100% committed to correcting Wikipedia's Systemic bias, but only in full compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am convinced that this is the path to excellent coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks for that clarification, and thanks a lot for linking me to the Systemic bias page, which nicely summarizes what I was trying to say above. I have added this as something I would like to hear more about at the upcoming Wikimedia Diversity Conference. Thanks also to all those who contributed to this discussion. I have been able to locate more reliable sources to support a claim of "notability" for this festival, and work is proceeding on the article in the WikiProject Disability Sandbox. Collaboration on the article is invited and encouraged. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How can I italicize a link

On the "Gulf Toadfish" page I would like to make the genus italicized but I can not get the links and the italics. Also random brackets appear and when I delete them the taxobox disappears. Fishingforspecies (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Put two apostrophes and then the link, and close it with two apostrophes. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 20:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Fishingforspecies, welcome to the Teahouse! As Konveyor Belt says, the double quotes go outside the link brackets. Also, the stray curly braces you were seeing were actually due to your removal of the orphan tag; there was another set of braces from that that were hanging around. I think I've fixed the prob;ems now, so let me know if you have any more issues. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Proper fiction tag?

What is the proper tag to use if an entry reads like fiction? I've seen it somewhere but forgot it. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 20:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you be looking for {{story}} by any chance? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 21:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What's in violation?

Hi, I recently got a message saying "Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and have to be changed." How do I see what specifically was in violation? Thanks, OrbitDive (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You could ask the editor who placed the notice; I agree that such a vague notice isn't very useful. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Matter is now addressed on the user's talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiTable

I gave another format to the Filmography WikiTable here, but I couldn't find a way to not repeat the word himself everytime it appears. Can anybody help me? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It's also spelt incorrectly ;) Theroadislong (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup I hadn't noticed that until Luke fixed it, it happens when you copy/paste things xP... sorry Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What I meant to say is this:

• Jane Doe made two films at the same year, so you have to add this |align="center" rowspan="2"|1999 to place both films into the same year, without repeating the number.

The question is, what should I do to do the same with the role played by Jane Doe? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's OK as it is. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It is ok to repeat himself so many times? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's descriptive and accurate. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks :D Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem with my article?

There are dozens of articles like this scattered throughout wikipedia worldwide! see: Theia (planet) # Theia Vulcan (hypothetical planet) http://wikipedia.qwika.com/it2en/X-Proserpina_ (astrology) it:X-Proserpina pt:Tyche (planet) de:Tyche (Planet) de::Transpluto

I can not go beyond what I wrote in the article. Put more information would make him a personal essay. And my interest is only presented facts. Quantity is not quality. There are small items that say it all and are perfect, and large items that are a drug. This article has reached its limit information. Furthermore they are all grounded. Are certain facts of astrology.

AdAstra2013 (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of your links above were broken, so I've tried to repair them & to replace external internet URLs by internal wikilinks (though one is still broken because I don't know where you're trying to go with it). - David Biddulph (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, AdAstra. I can tell that you are frustrated, The problem with the article, in my view, is that not one single piece of information in it is referenced; and without solid references, it is impossible to determine whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. You have a list of "references" at the end, but they are useless because they are not bibliographic (they do not help the reader find or evaluate the source) they do not give specific page or even chapter references, and they do not say what in the article they are supporting.

In order to save the article, you need to show that several reliable published sources have written in depth about the subject, by summarising what they have said, with references. In this case, because the subject is in a fringe field, references to a primary source - Morpurgo - would not be enough to establish notability: you would have to show that others have written about Morpurgo or about Aeolus.

Finally, there is unfortunately much in Wikipedia which does not meet the criteria of best practice; for this reason, arguments like "But xxx article is like this" are not regarded as useful. --ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Would like additional feedback/approval of new article...

Would like additional feedback/approval of new article...here's my link to it in the sandbox (have addressed the feedback issues received so far). Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deirdremcglynn/sandbox&oldid=573646269

Deirdremcglynn 14:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deirdremcglynn (talk • contribs)

Firstly as you work for the company involved you should read this Wikipedia's Plain and simple conflict of interest guide secondly you have used many in-line external links which are not required and need to be converted to references. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

... and there are some useful links in the feedback you have twice received on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Center for Deployment Psychology, which you seem to have been working on in parallel with the sandbox version. You have twice resubmitted that without addressing the original problem. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Change Username

Hi everyone, I just wanted to know what's the process to change my username and if my contributions will be still under my new username or under the former? Thanks... Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Miss Bono! To change your username, it depends on if the name is already taken or if it isn't. If it isn't, you can go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and fill out the form. If you're taking the name of an old editor, you can go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. As long as the new name isn't appropriate, you should be allowed to change it, and all your contributions from your old account name will stay. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miss Bono, can I add that WP:RENAME might be of some use, though I hope you decide to keep your username :) Flat Out let's discuss it 13:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• "As long as the new name isn't appropriate", öBrambleberry, I think you meant "inappropriate". By the way, Miss Bono, the advice above is right. I changed my name last month and it took about a week. My username had been "taken" but never used (zero edits) so a notice was put on the User Page, no one contested the name change and my account was switched over. Of course, it's much simpler if you are choosing a username which is freely available. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sort of dumb question about name display/project participation

Hello, everyone. I recently joined the percussion project under the music portal, and I added my name to the list of editors. However, my name was listed in red, and actually everywhere I see it, it is red. How do i change this? And when I join a project do I only work on pieces where editors are needed? Thank you very much. Qzply Qzply (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason that your name shows in red is that you haven't yet created a user page at User:Qzply. You can do so now, see the user page link. Regardless of membership of any projects, you are allowed to edit any page (except those few that have been fully protected for particular reasons). Hopefully you've read some of the links on your user talk page, to give you some of the basics. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Not only are you allowed to edit any page, you are positively encouraged to do so! :) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

How to spot a troll

Recently due to my lack of ability of identifying trolls I got into trouble, therefore to avoid such troubles I want deeper knowledge about trolls. How can I identify them and consequently don't feed them? What's the difference between trolling and vandalism? Sohambanerjee1998 08:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sohambanerjee1998, see meta:What is a troll? and Wikipedia:Vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, thanks I am a CVUA student therefore already read Wikipedia:Vandalism, meta:What is a troll and have a fair idea of what a troll is but how to identify one is the main query of mine. Thanks for the reply though. Sohambanerjee1998 12:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If someone looks like a troll, behaves like a troll, and tastes like a troll, he or she is most likely a troll. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Does this thing of the It's a duck apply here? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I usually try to tell the difference by seeing what the person's goal was. If they were trying to make people mad, or if they seem to think that they're clever, they're a troll. At least, that's my view of it. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Now I am in a pretty sticky situation. I can't describe the scenario I was in (which was darn confusing) because of some restrictions. I cannot reveal anymore than this as it might lead to block. Thanks anyway guys. Looks like the best thing to do when your confused about a troll, leave him alone or ignore him. Best, Sohambanerjee1998 17:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The best advice is, whether someone is a) a troll whose sole purpose is to mess with you and ruin your day or b) a person who isn't trolling, but though well intentioned, is just impossible to work with because of some personality issue; it doesn't really matter. It's best to just disengage and move on to something else. --Jayron32 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes goddamn that troll ruined my day in the worst possible manner. Plus I am just cramping under the load of both Wiki-work (1 DYK, 2 Articles and one article in the sandbox, CVUA) and Real life. So I have lot of matters to concentrate on instead of that @#$&^!. Sohambanerjee1998 17:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sohambanerjee1998, focus on the content and not in attempting to identify a label. A troll is someone who's sole purpose is disruption for no other purpose than creating havoc. While the use of the term may seem appropriate, it could also be seen as name calling. Best not to use terms such as that unless you feel you have enough evidence for an AN/I complaint seeking intervention. For that, you need not have specific reason to assume their reason for being here as long as you can demonstrate they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest seeking further advice from a administrator.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I agree with you fully but the thing I went through left a deep scar that would heal with time and therefore I have appointed time as my physician and have moved on. The trouble in which I got involved in included another user who does not want to talk about it and my discussion of the incident might offend the user. Thanks Sohambanerjee1998 16:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I want the title of this article to be changed

Sexual violence in South Africa, i want it to be changed into "Rape in South Africa", as now we are having many article with the same subject, such as "Rape in Egypt", "Rape in Saudi Arabia", "Rape in India" and others.

But how i can get it changed? OccultZone (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

On the tabs at the top, click the arrow, then select move. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 07:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Done! Thanks a lot. OccultZone (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My declined page

My wiki-page/article (a bio straight from website[w/permission])was declined. The reason given was "non-notable musical performer or work." Disregarding any heavy debate on elitism or what should be considered notable, what can I do about this? It would be nice to have the info on Wikipedia. Pyrodefect (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC) pyrodefect Pyrodefect (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have marked it for speedy deletion as it is a copyright violation, copied and pasted from here http://www.illrecur.com/bio.html Theroadislong (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Pyrodefect and welcome to the Teahouse. If text of an article replicates another webpage, this is considered a copyright infringement.

• We can rarely be sure that someone truly has permission of an organization/individual to release their text under our very permissive copyright license. By necessity, Wikipedia is very cautious when it comes to legal & copyright issues.
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Even if Wikipedia could legally publish it, text originally written for an individual's website is written for a different (promotional) purpose, and would rarely be appropriate in tone and style for an encyclopedia.

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fact is, the text submitted does belong to me. I am the person who wrote it. It was written for myself, my website (illrecur.com), friends, fans, and my music project. I'd say that qualifies for permission. As such, I believe that with me(the author) having submitted the information allots permission to use/display said information. All material I've written in my bio should pretty much be appropriate(ie tone, style) and relevant to any persons searching the web or Wikipedia to learn/gather information concerning myself and/or my projects. So, what do I do?

Pyrodefect (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)pyrodefectPyrodefect (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The page is question is a promo ad that is a bio and sells merchandise, pretty much, self promotion and honestly, after 25+ years in WV and near Morgantown, I have no idea who the hell you are musically. To the best of my knowledge, you cant have a wiki article promoting yourself and selling merchandise unless you can tell ANYONE why you are notable in the musical community, per wiki standards of being notable, its really a non issue, honestCoal town guy (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Pyrodefect. I edit conflicted with the user above and would just note that I think that post is quite inappropriate and hostile and hope you will ignore it. Anyway, what follows is what I wrote before that edit conflict.

There's a misunderstanding here but it's easily made because it's not intuitive. You certainly have the right, as a copyright owner, to provide permission for others to use your copyrighted material, but this does not mean the material's retention of copyright is compatible with the place you wish to give permission for its use. Material at Wikipedia must bear a free copyright license that allows our end users to reuse it (even for commercial purposes). This means that what we need is not permission for our use, but release of the copyright under our licenses (or ones more permissive). The content you posted remains fully-copyrighted, with your copyright notice displayed at the bottom of the page (though without any notice we assume content is fully-copyright unless proven otherwise). The only way we could use the content here is if you release it, and that release is done in a manner that provides good evidence of your actual ownership (while I do believe you, we can't just take anyone's anonymous word for it). For that reason, we would require, for example, that you post on the external website a notice releasing the content (you would replace "© 2013 illrecur, [name redacted]", with a "copyleft" notice, such as:

The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

Another way to release the copyright is to send an email from an address associated with the domain name of the website, following the form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Both of these methods provide evidence that you actually have permission for the release we need. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information.

Doing this, though, would only take care of the copyright issue. The other issue is notability, as you referred to in your post. Please understand that notability, as we use that word here, is not the dictionary definition, and it's not about elitism either, but about keeping this an encyclopedia and not some other type of thing. Encyclopedia articles are by definition tertiary sources, reporting knowledge about subjects that the world has already taken note of by publishing substantive material about the topic in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, e.g., newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, etc. (not press releases, Facebook, a person's website, blogs and so on). Wikipedia never announces new things, not already reported by the world. Thus, in order to show notability, you must cite to those reliable sources discussing you in detail to show both that the topic is worthy of inclusion and that the sources exist to verify the information in the article. The simple fact is that most people on the Earth are worthy and unique but not the proper subject of an encyclopedia article; you may be but would need to meet our requirements to show that. Finally, please see Wikipedia:Autobiography, relevant here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks you were the most helpful. I appreciate you taking time to give a good answer. I have a much better understanding of why the article was rejected now.

Pyrodefect (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)pyrodefectPyrodefect (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How to add one category as a subcategory of another?

Hi there Teahousers. How do I make one category a subcategory of another one? I can't seem to find any good how-to docs for this. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan! You just paste a parent category into the new red category. I did this recently there. Best! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I found the detail at Wikipedia:Category#Creating_category_pages. Best! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, of course. You categorize the category page itself. Makes perfect sense. Thanks, Biosthmors! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

External Links question

I find the WP:EL policy a bit unclear and really really long. Are links such as this acceptable or should those be removed? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir. I reverted the links because external links are not allowed to be embedded in the text. If they were formatted as references the case would be less clear but I would look on them as linkspam. Independent sources are much to be preferred.--Charles (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wanted a second opinion. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

External links should be in their own section at the very end of the article. Links to commercial websites should be limited to articles about that notable commercial entity. For example, we don't add an external link to a Ford website to the Automobile article, but that is perfectly appropriate for the Ford Motor Company article. External links in more general articles should be limited to those "that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary query

Hello, Is it possible to edit an edit summary once it has been published, i.e. without having to revert the whole edit? Any help appreciated. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Maybe you can click the edit link and post an edit summary :) Hope this helps. Happy editing! Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't, but you can make a WP:Dummy edit, see that page for details.--ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of a dummy edit in this context is to correct, explain or elaborate on an earlier edit summary, or the lack thereof. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Getting assistance from Wikipedia editors to update an article

Hi there, I have recently joined Wikipedia in my capacity as an employee of my organisation. I have read the guidelines around conflict of interest closely and have declared my aim on my User page to work with the Wikipedia community by suggesting changes on the Talk pages of articles about my organisation.

I have recently proposed an update to an article about my organisation on that article's Talk page: see 'Alpha logo updated as of September 2013' on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_course. An editor did initially engage with me about my suggested change but he or she has since gone silent. In an effort to find editors willing to assist me I posted about my suggested change on the Noticeboard of a WikiProject the article is apparently part of: see 'Requesting editor assistance on the Alpha course article' on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard. Unfortunately no one has responded to me there. Finally I tried asking for assistance on the Wikipedia IRC channel where I was told I was doing the right things and I just needed to be patient.

I would appreciate some advice on how to get editors to review my suggested changes and, hopefully, update the article. I believe my suggested change improves the quality of the article and I have linked to sources that I think verify my claim. Thanks. DaveAtAlpha (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dave for your polite request. I have responded at Talk:Alpha_course#Alpha_logo_updated_as_of_September_2013. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks for your help on this LukeSurl DaveAtAlpha (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia:Lua instead of Javascript?

Hi, as part of my poking around, I came across a WP project that allows embedded code in WikiMedia pages (see Wikipedia:Lua and Lua (programming language)). I'm wondering what the purpose of the language is, and why Javascript wasn't used, instead, especially since Javascript is far more established and rich in the web world? I'm also interesting in learning more, if anyone can point me to more details. Thanks --FGuerino (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, that's an interesting question, and there are some technically minded people who patrol this page who might be able to answer it, but you might receive an answer faster by asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Ryan Vesey 13:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello FGuerino and welcome back to the teahouse! The main difference is that JavaScript is considered a security risk and Lua is not. Lua can be run from any page and is limited in scope to allow it to manipulate the page, but not manipulate the host in any way. JavaScript on the other hand has the potential to be used maliciously to gather information about the host and host's machine that can be sent anywhere. I hope this helps answer your question, although it is not as thorough as I would like it to be, I have to run off to class. Please, feel free to ask for clarification if there is something specific I can help with. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 10:05 am, Today (UTC−4)

FGuearino, I can give you a run-down on why Lua was chosen instead of Javascript. The development team was looking for a way to add more flexibility to the template system in a way that ordinary editors could contribute to. In particular, the citation template was very complicated and was being run multiple times every time a WP article was downloaded, which adds up to an awful lot. Because the template syntax is limited, editors were having to jump through a lot of hoops to add complex features. That rapidly increases the complexity of the code. The important thing to keep in mind here is that the template code runs on the server, not in the web browser. Javascript is king in web development because it is standardized and included on nearly all web browsers. JS can also be used for server-side development, but in this case there were some specific requirements that made it unsuitable. Most importantly, the developers wanted to allow ordinary users to make changes to the server-side code so they could make better templates. Without setting restrictions on CPU time and memory usage, a user could write a malicious script that would reduce the performance of the Wikimedia servers or crash them completely. That would be very bad. Lua included the capability to set those restrictions out of the box. Restrictions could have been added to Javascript, but it was a much more complex project to add them to the interpreter and doing so would have eliminated many of the performance benefits. The developers were also impressed by some of the Lua integrations they saw, particularly World of Warcraft and Celestia. If you'd like to try it out, start with the tutorial. There is also a Lua project page with more documentation including a reference manual. DPRoberts534 (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ryan and DPRoberts534, thanks for your responses. This is exactly what I was trying to understand and I appreciate your taking the time to detail it. I'll definitely spend time reading up on Lua and its use with WP. It will be interesting to see how it evolves. Thx. --FGuerino (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding a picture

If I want to upload any picture at all to Wikipedia, do I have to upload it first? If so, how do I upload one? Tambelon (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you would need to upload it, having satisfied yourself about its copyright status. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial and Wikipedia:Uploading images. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you for your help. Tambelon (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Posting an article

Hi - How do I link and post a profile created a short while ago? How does this become active? I have created a well linked profile at - User:David O Miller thanks, david dm (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User:David O Miller should be your user page, with information about yourself. It looks as if it is trying to be an article about someone else, so I would suggest that you move it to a user subpage at (for example) User:David O Miller/Jeffrey Owen Miller. You need to read WP:Your first article, and also need to understand that we don't use in-line WP:external links in the article text. What you need instead are references, so try reading WP:Referencing for beginners. I've given you a few other useful links on your user talk page. May also be worth reading Wikipedia:Biography. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi David- thank you for your time, advice and suggestions here...will follow this and refine article, sub page reallocation, look at links etc cheers,david101.162.133.165 (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why admins keep missing the source ?

Hello, I recently created an article for creation and submitted for review, there is a complete media/newspaper article set for authentication on each word written. and the same is mentioned in references. the Media set is uploaded on a website and link is given but the Admin missed that part and asked that there's no media/newspaper article to support the same and declined the article. and asked to add more info. But the info required is already there which he missed to see and now the status says "on wikibreak till 1st Oct"

So, now i added the newspaper articles on my article itself but they're not even 20% of total thats present on mentioned link.

So how to make the admin have a look at the sources ?? All info on the article is supported by evidence from newspaper articles. Link to article :

Coolvipcandy (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Other users will doubtless reply in due course, but I am worried that you seem to have uploaded copies of newspaper articles to Wikipedia. This looks at first glance to be a blatant copyright violation, and if so you must remove those files immediately. If you wish to use newspaper articles as references, you can cite them giving the relevant details in the cite news template, but you must not copy them to Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I have marked the files for deletion in seven days unless evidence of permission from the actual copyright holders is received. I find it pushing credibility that the press articles and screenshots of news items have actually been released into the public domain by the various news agencies and newspapers involved. There are also a couple of photographs where the uploader - who is also almost certainly the subject of the images - claims to be the author of the images, which seems highly dubious. BlackberrySorbet 08:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You should also take some time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines about autobiographies (We have biographies here, not autobiographies. Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact) and Wikipedia's Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. BlackberrySorbet 08:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@David Biddulph : Thank you for info. Images from newspaper articles removed and instead citation added. Coolvipcandy (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletionism?

I would like to understand more about what I can only assume is the deletionist philosophy which I have encountered in my short time on Wikipedia thus far. I first encountered this through an aberrant bot edit that was made on my own talk page, which I challenged and thereby learned about the culture surrounding hard redirects. Fair enough. However, I then followed the bot operator's talk page and came across this issue and the whole AfD process.

I'm curious about why there is such a push to delete content from Wikipedia? Is it getting too full? Is server space limited? Could someone explain the example I gave, in an effort to help me understand it all a bit better? It seems to me that, as a result of this particular AfD, there is now an unlinked entry on this page for "Onverse", the only unlinked entry I can see. Also, this bullet list now contains an unlinked entry. Why was all this necessary? This deletionist philosophy seems to me like a backward step for the encyclopedia as a whole. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 01:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, AugurNZ, welcome to Wikipedia! A lot of people have that reaction to what they term deletionism. But then, so-called deletionists would have a similar reaction to the opposite view; they would opine that having a bunch of barely-sourced articles on subjects nobody has ever heard of and about which nobody will ever care cheapens the encyclopedia by distracting from its true purpose as a reference work for "important" subjects. They say that having tiny, unwatched articles just provides more targets for people to sneak in vandalism, libel, pure spam, and the like, and creates an even greater burden on the volunteers, who must patrol that many more articles. They would prefer that the encyclopedia focus on what could be called quality over quantity.

Both sides have valid points, and neither side is entirely right or wrong. For that matter, no one person has to belong to only one camp, and nobody has to follow one side to its logical extreme. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response, Writ Keeper, and thanks for the welcome. In the table I linked to above, there are many examples showing redlinks to pages about, what could arguably be called peers or competitors of this "Onverse" game. Would it not have been appropriate to at least have left the link to the deleted Onverse page, giving the game equal standing with others in the list? Please understand, I have nothing at all to do with this game, I've never played it before, and only heard about it because I was following Salvidrim's talk page. The history of the page in question shows that Czar removed the link, citing the AfD in the edit summary. Why was that necessary? Now one of the entries listed in the table on that page seems, somehow, less than the others because it doesn't have a link, not even a redlink. How is that fair and neutral? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 02:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello AugurNZ and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with pretty much all of what Writ Keeper said, and would like to offer some additional thoughts based on my own participation in 1645 Articles for Deletion debates in the last four years. I recommend that you (and any other new editor) read the Five Pillars, which describes the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia content ought to be verifiable, and should consist of summaries of what the range of reliable sources say about a topic. You could spend hours reading all the links on that page, and it would be time well spent for any serious, long-term editor.

In order to best meet the goals described in the Five Pillars, we need deletion procedures, to get rid of inappropriate content in a consistent and fair way, while keeping and improving appropriate content. We remove copyright violations immediately when they are discovered, and this is non-negotiable. Our notability guidelines, including the General notability guideline and a wide range of subject specific guidelines, are essential tools for evaluating articles. Those of us who participate in deletion debates regularly should have good internet research skills, including the ability to sift the wheat from the chaff, and rapidly find solid sources (if available) among all the crap online.

I am not a "deletionist" and philosophically welcome new content to the encyclopedia, even on what many might consider obscure topics. What is obscure to many readers may be educational, informative and interesting to some readers. If the topic is notable and the information in the article is verifiable, I will recommend keeping the article. Over four years, I have recommended keeping 45.4% of the articles I've evaluated, and deleting 47.6%. The others were mostly recommendations to redirect. So, I tend to be right in the middle.

In my experience, editors with reputations as either strong deletionists or strong inclusionists often find that more mainstream editors give little respect to their predictable opinions. I respect editors who take a nuanced view, and explain their recommendations carefully, with consideration for other opinions, and a willingness to change their minds when new facts come to light. That's how I try to conduct myself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As for the specific matter, the deletion debate was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onverse. Consensus was that this game is not notable by Wikipedia standards. The function of a Red link is to designate what an editor reasonably believes to be a notable and verifiable topic, as a signal that an article should be written on that topic. Since we have already agreed that this topic is not notable for a freestanding article based on currently available information, we shouldn't red link that topic. If someone uncovers significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources, then a new, acceptable version of the article could be written. And if properly written and referenced, it would almost certainly survive attempts to delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Cullen, I appreciate the information. As I said in my introduction on the Teahouse, I have plenty of technical experience with wiki's, but I'm a n00b when it comes to the culture and community here on Wikipedia, so I am seeking insights like yours above to help me understand more of what it means to be a "Wikipedian". I guess the concern I had with what I saw in the "Onverse" issue was that it seemed to single out a particular game from the list and place a value on its worth as an article on Wikipedia, which seemed kind of subjective to me. Especially considering the number of similar games in the list which might also fail the test of "notability", yet which still remain, un-altered, un-deleted. Shouldn't such AfD procedures take into consideration the pages that link from / to such an article that is intended for deletion? Had the people reviewing the "Onverse" AfD looked at that list, or similar pages, it would surely have been clear that the "Onverse" page is no more or less deserving of deletion than any of its competitors, would it not? I'm not pushing for a review of this decision or anything, I'm just trying to understand it, as a way of understanding Wikipedia culture. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 03:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Arguing that "other, similar articles have sources, therefore it's likely that sources exist for Onverse; we just haven't found them yet" is indeed a decent argument to keep the article. But it is impossible to write a proper encyclopedia article without the reliable third-party sources that have not yet been found for Onverse. We could leave the article as a stub, but without any guarantee that sources will be found in the future, it's usually considered better to delete rather than risk a perpetual stub. Powers ^T 14:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have attempted to give factual, founded, lawful and non opionated donations. What a big waste of time and a mistake. There are some pretty nasty individuals on Wiki that have nothing more pleasurable in their lives other than undoing someone’s work.

I am sure when the likes of Jimmy Wales sprang upon Wiki it was to be helpful and friendly site that nurtures education and learning for all.

Sadly individual agendas are rearing there ugly heads, why don't all Wiki users help each other instead of deleting with glee?

No more from me. Safetyprofessional (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Powers. However, I don't believe that I was Arguing that "other, similar articles have sources, therefore it's likely that sources exist for Onverse; we just haven't found them yet". In fact, I'm pretty sure that I was arguing that there are many similar articles that also DON'T have references but aren't being challenged. Take, for instance, New Centurions which is also on the same list of Machintosh games as "Onverse" was linked from, but it hasn't been edited since 2010, and has no references at all. I'm sure if I went through that list thoroughly I'd find plenty more examples. It leaves me wondering what agenda was behind the deletion of "Onverse" ? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 20:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

While its true that some Wikipedians to have agendas, what happens more often is that an article is made without sources and nobody notices (there are four million on them) and then one day somebody stumbles across it and says "Hey, no references". Then if the editor looks around and doesn't find any, the article will be nominated for deletion. Others will try to find references, and if they fail too, the article will be deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for joining this discussion, Anne Delong. A quick Google search for "Onverse" currently reveals about 817,000 results. I'm sure that not all of them are about the game this article was about, and many less would be reliable sources, but surely it wouldn't be that hard to find sources to have brought this article up to the required standards, would it? Also, could someone explain what is meant by — 5. Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia — in the AfD guidelines? Had that check been done for this AfD proposal, the list of Machintosh games would have surfaced. From there it should have been fairly clear, as I mentioned above, that the "Onverse" page is no more or less deserving of deletion than any of its competitors on that list. Without that check having been done, apparently, the entry for "Onverse" now stands out as being less definitive, or less worthy, on that list than its competitors, and to me that seems unfair. Please understand, I don't play "Onverse", and I don't even own a Machintosh. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 21:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

On encountering this "deletionist" philossophy: Always assume good faith. Don't automatically think someone is against you or an artile if they delete a few things. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 22:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that insight, Konveyor Belt. What happens when AGF seems to conflict with NPOV? As in this case, singling out a particular game for deletion from a list doesn't seem to be very neutral. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm, it does look a little odd. But theoretically the solution is for an editor o trawl though all those redlinks on List of Macintosh games and de-link a whole bunch of them that are not sufficiently notable for articles of their own. It'd be a tough slog however... --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding one of your earlier points AugurNZ, New Centurions does seem to be a comparable case to Onverse. As it does not show any evidence that the game is notable by Wikipedia's standards, I have "PROD"'d it. The article New Centurions should either be improved (showing that the subject is notable) or deleted. Thank you for pointing this out. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

He wasn't asking for you to delete both, he was asking to improve both. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 23:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletionism? (Edit Break 1)

(edit conflict) Thanks LukeSurl. As an Aspie, I tend to have a heightened sense of right and wrong, and of fairness, so I was interested to see how this would play out in such an example as the "Onverse" issue. Your suggestion that someone should "trawl though all those redlinks on List of Macintosh games and de-link a whole bunch of them" seems like a lot of work, as you implied above. Should this not have been done as part of, or concurrently with, the original AfD request, rather than just singling out one non-complying page? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 23:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily, no. It would have been nice for the nominator to do so, but it's not required of them. After all, this is a volunteer project; the more restrictions and burdens we place on editors, the less stuff gets actually done. The general tenor of this (e.g. "why is this article being deleted and not that one") comes up regularly on Wikipedia, especially in the context of AfDs; it is reasonably address by the oft-used shortcut WP:OTHERSTUFF. To summarize: other stuff that breaks Wikipedia's rules may happen (usually as a result of limited volunteer resources), but that is not a reason or free pass for this stuff to break the rules. To summarize the summary: two wrongs don't make a right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for bringing that to my attention, Writ Keeper. It would seem then that the OTHERSTUFF policy itself becomes a "free pass", to use your terminology, for biased and non-neutral deletions which Konveyor Belt covered above with the AGF policy. So using the example of "Onverse" again, if the editor requesting the deletion had had a grudge against Onverse ^{(hypothetical scenario)} then the fact that the deletion would have breached NPOV could have been covered by AGF because of OTHERSTUFF, and the bad faith ^{(hypothetical scenario)} deletion would never have been addressed. Is this right? Is that how Wikipedia works? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 00:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If an article is bad enough that an AfD succeeds, then it doesn't matter what the nominator's intentions were: the article should have been, and was, deleted. If the other articles are bad, then they'll eventually get hauled to AfD and deleted too. The nomination may have been biased and non-neutral, but the actual decision to delete almost certainly won't be; if there actually is enough reason for an article to be deleted to persuade an AfD, then it hardly matters what the motivations of the nominator were. That's precisely how Wikipedia works: things generally get done in time. (As an aside, I know that you said you have no stake in it, but you might want to drop the Onverse example and find/make up a new one; statements of disinterest tend to lose their credibility if they get repeated too often.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, Writ Keeper, thanks for explaining how consensus works here. As to your aside, I think that's getting a little petty. I outlined at the start of this discussion how I came across the "Onverse" issue in the first place. I was drawn to Salvidrim's talk page because of an erroneous deletion of my own talk page by his bot, which I challenged. After that I added Salvidrim's talk page to my watch list, and thereby came across this subsequent discussion about Onverse. If you can't follow that logic, then please feel free to try to prove any connection between me and Onverse. I know for a fact you won't find anything, because there is nothing to be found. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 01:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I just want to note that I am aware of being mentionned; the initial reason AugurNZ came to my talk page because of the mistaken deletion of a page in AuguNZ's userspace (which I fixed, as mentionned before). The issue with the deletion of the Onverse article is another matter entirely, and while it is correct that I am the one that deleted the article, I was merely the technical tool that enacted the community's consensus in the AfD discussion; I personally hold no specific opinion for or against an article about Onverse nor do I specifically have an inclination as a deletionist or an inclusionist. I close AfD discussions and implement the community's consensus because I have that technical ability, simply. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that clarification, Salvidrim, and thanks also to everyone who contributed to this discussion. It has been very informative, and I have learned a lot about what it means to be a Wikipedian, during the course of this discourse. I have been reading the relevant policies that people have been linking me to. There is a lot of information here for me to digest. I want to go on and become a valuable editor here, I just need to get a handle on how things are done here. Most of my previous experience with wiki editing has been at the Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages (UESP) where I began learning about wiki markup. The community norms there are very different to Wikipedia though. Again, thanks everyone who participated in this discussion. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 18:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

How do I delete a page in my sand box that has been submitted for publishing?

I no longer wish to publish on this topic. Chinton521 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Chinton521, and welcome to the teahouse. To get your draft deleted from your sandbox simply replace the page with {{Db-u1}} to have an administrator delete it under CSD:U1 (user requests user page deleted). Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

An article I created is flagged as an orphan, when I don't think it is

Hello! Thank you for inviting me into the Teahouse.

My question is that an article I created about "Hedgehog Street" has been flagged as an orphan, but I know there are links I made to it from the "People's Trust for Endangered Species" page and someone else recently linked to it from the "European hedgehog" page. Is there something wrong with it?

Thanks a trillion! Professor Hog (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

--    L o g  X   16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, although another editor fixed it already, anyone can remove a maintenance template (which is what the "orphan" tag is) by simply editing it off the page, as long as the problem has been solved. To check to see if an article is an orphan, just use the link on the left hand side of the page, "What links here". As long as there are two or more articles (not talk pages or project pages) linked to an article, it is not an orphan. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actor or actress?

Hi, Is there a policy on the naming of females who act? Are they called actors, or actresses, or is it optional? Cheers Melbourne3163 (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to vary. For example Judi Dench is described as an actor, whilst Emma Thompson is described as an actress. I would consider whether the woman has been noted to express any preference as to her job description. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You can read an essay expounding on this topic at Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. In short, gender-specific nouns are acceptable as long as they're in common use (words that have fallen into disus, like Negress or aviatrix, are best avoided, except in direct quotations). Powers ^T 18:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, LukeSurl and Powers ^T, your replies are very helpful. Cheers Melbourne3163 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Per our policy WP:ENGVAR, it *may* also matter what nationality the act(o)r(ess) is. Using "actor" for women seems to be more common in the US, although I don't think it is impossible in the UK. Formerip (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Review

I stumbled upon articles that have serious issues that I don't know whether to add cleanup tags or nominate for deletion. Can someone take a look and decide? Pooja Vaidyanath and D. Imman -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Pooja Vaidyanath has no sources for any fact in the article, and it's a biography of a living person. This is a problem. I've "PROD'd" it, which means it will be erased 10 days from now if nothing is done about this. Thank you for noticing this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

D. Imman on the other hand looks like a better article, though still not good. I would suggest fixing what you can, and then adding cleanup tags. When adding tags, please consider describing in detail the problems in the article's talk page so that other editors can be better informed to help fix the issues. Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that experienced. So can I request you to do the needful? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In D. Imman, except for the filmography part, there are no references. Also there are too many images. Even those images seems to be taken from the subject's official website. But they have been uploaded to commons. I think it could be copyvio. If so, please tag the images accordingly. Thanks -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there actually a necessity for these many images? Assuming I'm a notable person willing to share my photos, does wikipedia accept me filling my article page with umpteen images just because they are free? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is an older version of the article that contains more citations. Unclear if the sources are reliable or if the information is correct. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A few of them are dead links. And other few are those that are in filmography now. They too have used multiple times. The subject is definitely notable and reliable independent sources can be found. But the section "musical credibility" is more like a resume. There are too many images without any significance -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to LogX. Its been cleaned up now. I just think a tag could be added for more citations. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

help with vandalism

Please look at the article on Margaret Thatcher. There is some vandalism going on, which I have tried to revert once, but when look at the history it's been made to look as if I'm doing the vandalistic edits. I don't know how to handle this. Gravuritas (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Can you give us a diff for where you think the vandalism is, & where you think the history is making it look as if you are responsible? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

[[3]]- hope I've formatted that correctly- is the vandalism diff in question. Apologies because I said the Thatcher page and I should have said the Thatcher talk page.

This diff [[4]] then makes it look as if I've done the vandalism, but I think I've now worked out that the problem stems from my making an edit after the vandalism, but without noticing that the page had been vandalized. I think that's OK, isn't it?

Gravuritas (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You have realised that though your name appears on the left hand side of this diff, it doesn't mean that you were responsible for what is there, merely (as you said) that you were the last person to edit before that diff. As you realised, you need to go further back to see who actually wrote the offending material. Nothing for you to worry about, and you now know a bit more about reading diffs. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, and sorry for any bother. Gravuritas (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No bother at all. That's what the Teahouse is here for. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how to separate mass from magnetic current

ok although I have issued several pages of what some might call theories, maybe?as an avid scientist with my discoverys ,I am finding it nessesary that the pages given should be kept complete and in order preferably. as the field of science that I tred in has a lot of words terms and phrases that simply aren't made up yet. as in the terminology of this said subject heading. if you as a scientist would like to learn how the ancients lifted huge blocks, cut stone with persision, and levitated crafts,then I simply find it nessesary to follow in order the pages previously sent, otherwise to follow along or to share becomes quite pointless. im hoping you will consider this request ,and put it all together and in order, everthing leading up to these final pages, this technology is the most advanced knowledge that mankind will know,it was here and used 20 000 years ago by the ancient civilizations. you can believe what you want but this is realRonald sykes (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This question was moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ronald sykes, welcome to the Tea House. It is Wikipedia's policy that articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. You should instead submit your research and findings to a suitable peer-reviewed scientific journal - which Wikipedia is not. BlackberrySorbet 08:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how to upload artist page

Hi!

I want to add an artist (musician, composer, singer) page to Wikipedia. It is formatted on my sandbox (without picture since I do not know how to add the right hand square with picture) on page. What do I do to get the info on my sandbox on a wikipedia artist page? The singer/composer's name is Marisela Verena. Please help me! thanks! Georgina FernandezGeorgina Fernandez (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Georgina, thanks for your question. When the article in your sandbox is ready, it can be moved to the article space using the move instructions here. However, I notice that your article is in Spanish, and contains many inappropriate external links. I would suggest submitting your article to Articles for Creation so that an experienced editor can review your article. But before doing so, please write the article in English because otherwise, it will be difficult for many editors to review it properly. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can find the Spanish Wikipedia at es:, so (after checking on their policies on things like external links and references) you may wish to submit your draft for review there. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Making sure my article passes review...

Hi Teahouse! I don't know if this is something that Wiki editing veterans do, but I have written my first Wiki article and I wanted to make sure it passed the review process. Can anyone read and give me suggestions or critique it. I am most concerned about my neutrality. I became familiar with this company and was interested in them. I went to find more info and realized they had no wiki page so I wrote a small page...stub?? When I step back from the article I feel like it's neutral because it's truthful facts, and I have references to support the article. I have read the tips on neutrality....but I've also read wiki editing tips that encourage writers to stand up for their subject. I need an objective eye. I'm hoping to make edits now so it will be in great shape when it finally comes up in the queue. Wiki Page is called "Haute Face" Thank you,Cmhauteps11 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cmhauteps11, welcome back! I read through your article, and unfortunately I see one problem that will prevent the article from being accepted, and another that may mean Wikipedia cannot have an article about the company. First, reviewers are expected to determine if the article content is promotional, and in general they have read a lot of articles and can tell if one stands out as overly promotional. Your article is an excellent advertisement for your company, but it is not encyclopedic in tone. The language used must objectively describe the company, products, and people as documented by independent reliable sources. Second, Wikipedia has guidelines that determine whether the subject warrants an article. In general, the article must reference at least one, but preferably multiple sources that are independent, reliable (not blogs), and provide in-depth coverage of the subject. The requirements for articles about companies are a bit more strict, specifying that product announcements and articles about business deals are not counted. It is not clear to me if the sources you referenced will meet that guideline. If coverage of the company does not meet the guideline, then the article will not be accepted no matter how much work you or I put into it. And that would be unfortunate, because I think that Wikipedia would benefit from having more articles about topics like yours. For detailed information about notability, see the policy page WP:CORP. From the backlog, it looks like you have about two days before your article is reviewed. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much DPRoberts534! I understand. Thank you for the link. I'm going to read the information, edit the text, and look for more external sources...and pray. :) Cmhauteps11 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi DPRoberts534. First -I saw your edits. I SO much appreciate the time and energy you have given to helping me. Thank you!!! One of the reasons I wanted to do this article on this company is because they absolutely fill a long standing need in the cosmetic world. As a woman of color and a consumer, I have found that Haute Face offers products that actually work instead of making promises that are never kept. This is gold to me, and I think it’s worth talking about. The little companies need to be written about while they are on their way to becoming the next Chanels and Revlons of the industry. I want Haute Face to stay around and thrive because, as a women of color who buys and wears makeup, I need Haute Face in the market place to answer a need that has never before been answered correctly for me. Currently, it’s as if my complexion doesn’t even exist, and that’s not fair to me and women all over the world who struggle with this, daily, just like me. So...they deserve a page. I guess truth and passion about a subject may sound...promotional. I get that, but it’s still the truth. In keeping with Wiki’s editing tip to stand up for my subject - I just want to write about the truth. You clearly have so much expertise and experience at this. Can you tell me how I can get this done with the same protections and image protections (because the next thing I want to submit are photos) that Chanel and Revlon have for their company? I read Wiki policies on free use and limitations and such of images and logos, but I see other companies on Wiki that have their protections in place. How can I do that for this company as well? What can I do to make sure this article passes review with all of its protections in place?Cmhauteps11 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What are some ways that I can contribute and integrate myself into Wikipedia culture and etiquette?

Hello,

I've been a long time passionate user, and I recently decided to create an account. I want to find what I can do as a new editor to help the community achieve its goals, as well as to become familiarized with the nature of such goals. It's a vague objective, but WIkipedia is a very large project and I need somewhere to start. Thanks!--Qzply 16:27, 16 September 2013Qzply (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Qzply, welcome to the Teahouse! There are a lot of things you can do to get started. The Community portal has some good places to start (check out the "Help Out" section farther down the page). One thing that you might want to look in to is joining a Wikiproject, a group of editors working on a specific topic. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking that at the Teahouse Qzply! If you want to create or shape content, I suggest picking something you're interested in or something you're determined to help educate the world about. Recently I created a very very beginning draft at User:Biosthmors/Money and politics in the United States because I think it's an important topic. I want to learn more. And I want to teach the world about it. About 900 articles get created a day. And we have over 4.3 million so far. It is a gigantic project! Thanks for asking. =) Jackson Peebles was running a new page patrol school if I remember correctly. And he's listed at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. You could find someone to mentor you there! Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) when u sign ur reply, thx 15:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Qzply! There are plenty of articles out there that need more citations to reliable sources. If you have access to a source that others may not have, such as a book that's not on line, or a newspaper with a paywall, consider finding articles that are mentioned in it and adding references to the source, or improving the article with information from the source. Good luck! It's great to see new people becoming involved. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out with adoption! If you're interested, just shoot me a message on my talk page. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi all,

I'm also a new user, where do you find groupings of article that you can work on?

Money and politics isn't my cup of tea (jokes on jokes), but I'd like to find categories that do interest me.

Thanks!

HuronHal85 (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

References citing the whole book vs. using the sfn template

When I only need to cite 1-2 pages from a book, I use the full cite book template, specifying the pages. However, in some cases, I may use several pages from the same source, in which case I use the sfn or Harvcoltxt templates, and I put the full book citation after the reference list. Is that Ok? or should I use sfn in every citation (even if only used once) and put all the books in a list? Example: is this OK? Thanks!--Fauban 13:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Fauban, welcome to the Teahouse. Consistency is probably the best thing to achieve, personally I use sfn widely and use it for all books even if I only refer to a particular text only once, example North Staffordshire Regiment. There are times when it doesn't work as other templates are better, as an example quoting the London Gazette, where the template {{London Gazette}} is better than cite web or cite news. I aim to stick to one style as much as possible, not only for the benefit of readers but also for other editors as a mish-mash of styles gets very confusing for all. NtheP (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That was very useful. thanks!!--Fauban 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Same?

Are editing rules on Wikia the same as on wikipedia? Pass a Method talk 03:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a "wikia". Our guidelines and policies are set by the editing community.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Can Wikia be used as a source?

Norawashere (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeing how wikia is a wiki like Wikipedia, I would say no. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 07:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)