Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, 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

Why were the pictures deleted?

I am helping the Wikipedia:Student assignment of Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013), which in 2012 was at User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro. Chemoreceptor trigger zone was an article from 2012 but I see the pictures have since been deleted. Why were they deleted? (FWIW, please reply here but I plan to copy and paste replies here to Education Program talk:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013) for future reference.) Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

difference between subpages and sandbox

I wrote an article in my sandbox. I read that the sandbox is only for practising how to write an article. I actually want to submit the article when i perfected it. I tried to move the article but when i click "move" it does not tell me where it will be moved. Can I submit an article straight from the sandbox? Or do I need to move the Article first? What is the difference between Subpages and the Sandbox? Thanks for your help! Nelelemke (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Nelelemke. No, it's fine to develop an article in your sandbox, as you have done. You may have many subpages, and when you use one of them to develop an article, or to try out somethig, we refer to it as a sandbox. Normally when you think a draft article is ready you would may move it to mainspace: in this case you would move it to Taekwondo. However, we already have an article on taekwondo (follow the link in the previous sentence), so I'm not sure why you are trying to write a separate article.

Your draft article has two big problems that would prevent its being accepted as an article in its current form: 1) it contains promotional language: "one of the most systematic and scientific" is promotional, even though it is not for a particular product. Wikipedia articles should not contain any evaluative language, unless that is directly from a referenced source. 2) Even more important, it contains no references whatever. An article which contains no references does not establish that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's special sense, and so is liable to be deleted.

I would suggest that instead of trying to write a new article on an existing subject, you work to improve the existing article Taekwondo; or choose a different subject and use the Articles for creation process. --ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, is it against the rules to keep this in an article?

Hello,

On the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page, I wrote a paragraph that began with this sentence:

In August 2013, the Kitt Twins received particularly significant worldwide media attention, with their work being featured on several television channels, including American local stations WGN-TV and WKRC-TV, located in Chicago, Illinois, and Cincinnati, Ohio, respectively, in addition to Spain's nationwide Antena 3, as well as Russia's country-wide stations Channel One and NTV.

However, another editor wiped out the TV channel references. Was that necessary? I provided solid sources, in my opinion (the websites of the TV channels, showing the TV features), and I believe this information is notable. Here are the two Russian features, to better illustrate the situation:

http://www.1tv.ru/news/other/239169

http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/641058

Both the visual and written features are brief, but must they be wiped out? Not every "non-famous" musician or band is broadcast in some way all across the Russian Federation, among other places.

Many thanks in advance for your help and for your time... Dontreader (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Closing" Talk page consensus discussions?

Is it appropriate to sometimes "close" a Talk page discussion (archive a section by putting a header box of some kind around it?)? I'm thinking that this can, in some cases, tie a ribbon around the discussion, and encourage conversation about article improvement beyond the narrow scope of a topic to go on in a new section on the Talk page.

The specific situation I'm thinking of where a proposal has occurred, and after some days of discussion, with weigh-in by several editors, no consensus has been reached. It seems I've seen this done before, but cannot find a guideline or essay on it, nor find the wikicode to do it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You might like to gain consensus first, and then where a decision has been reached, hat it to signify this. If you attempt to artificially gag discussion on a contentious issue, you will most likely meet resistance from other editors, notably those holding views contrary to your own. --Pete (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

To whomever in the Teahouse might help me with my query, let me offer a bit more info since the comment by Skyring/Pete may create some confusion.

1. My question above, was asked in good faith, and I would very much like an answer in good faith as well. I think I might have even done it once or twice, but that was thousands of edits ago, and I do not recall how to do it as of now, or what policy/guidelines exist for how/when it might be appropriate.
2. I am genuinely interested in the answer to that question as a general matter, for many occasions on which it might be useful in future discussions on many different Talk pages where consensus either is, or is not, reached after a reasonable period of time. But, yes, as Skyring/Pete implies, there is also a current situation that led me to ask the question today. More on that below.
3. The specific Talk page section where I think this may apply now, and may be appropriate now, is Talk:Lynx_(spacecraft)#BRD:_.22concept.22_or_.22spaceplane.22_in_the_lede_sentence. However, given that Skyring/Pete has taken the position he has (if you can call it that) in his comment above, I will specifically (now) not make any attempt to close off that particular discussion, even though I believe it to be incontrovertibly the end of a valid discussion, in which both Skyring/Pete and I were involved, and in which not a single editor of the several who joined the discussion supported the Skyring/Pete position.
4. Should another uninvolved editor choose to do whatever might be an appropriate closing process on that particular discussion, should you deem that the situation warrants closing, I would very much appreciate it. But if not, Wikipedia will be fine if that section continues on into other discussion topics, and remains either confusing or messy for weeks to come.
5. Full disclosure. To my knowledge, I've never run into Skyring/Pete before our current bout of drama on the Lynx (spacecraft) article Talk page over the past week or two. In the past week, however, editing has been rather seriously disrupted on that article by the actions of Skyring/Pete. He has gone WP:FORUMSHOPPING on two different noticeboards, and nominated the article for deletion. To date, I'm unaware of a single editor who has supported any of his substantive positions, and the AfD was a unanimous keep with some half dozen or so uninvolved editors weighing in. Take this background on the comment made by Skyring/Pete with whatever grain of salt you think appropriate, since I am an involved party. But I did feel that, now that Skying/Pete has come over here, I needed to disclose the messy background.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly appropriate in certain situations. Usually though, the person closing the discussion should be someone entirely uninvolved in it. See generally Wikipedia:Closing discussions. For mechanics of closure, see {{hidden archive top}}/{{hidden archive bottom}} (mostly people use their redirects at {{hat}} and {{hab}}); {{collapse top}}/{{collapse bottom}} ({{redirects {{cot}} and {{cob}}); {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}} (redirects {{atop}} and {{abot}}); {{discussion top}}/{{discussion bottom}} ({{dtop}} and {{dbot}}) and {{polltop}}/{{pollbottom}}. There are even more expressly directed at specific pages and processes, such as {{RM top}}/{{RM bottom}} just for closing requested moves discussions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the creation of articles

Sorry to bother you yet again, but I was wondering what the best way to go about creating an article is. I have already created a few articles, and in those cases I would work on them at my sandbox, then copy them over to the article space. For this one, however, I apparently created a page specifically for the article's development; after which I submitted it for review. I was then informed "This may take over 3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 1320 submissions waiting for review." which seemed a little long (maybe I'm just hasty) compared to the length of time it took me move the articles I previously created from my sandbox to the article space. Is it worth going through the reviewing process? I suppose it may further trouble reviewers if one bypasses the process, because all new articles need to be reviewed whether or not they are submitted, though bypassing it certainly seems easier. Does it matter how one does it? As the Crow Flies (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi As the Crow Flies. Awesome work 'chickening out', thank you for that. The short answer is to feel free to move the page just in to mainspace. The Articles for Creation process has a couple of aims. One is that it provides a slightly saver environment for new users to try and create an article, without it getting deleted too quickly for not following best practices, and get some feedback on what they are doing. The process is completely optional, and you don't have to follow the procedure. I quickly (very quickly) looked over your contributions, and they easily meet the criteria for articles for creation, so I don't think a review there would offer you much. I'd advice to either keep following the procedure you're following now, creating in userspace and moving when done, or create straight in to mainspace if you're comfortable with that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Guidence for submitting Wiki article

I have submitted, maybe a bit prematurely, an article for submission called barbecueology. The study of the different definitions of the word 'barbecue', there are currently about 16.

It was rejected due to neologoism (misspelled-sorry). So, is the next step to request it to be included into another article? Or do I develop it further?

I am convinced that the numerous of studies of a various bodies of knowledge and the detailed accounts of the different uses of the word 'barbecue' warrant a separate entry.Reillyranch (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Reillyranch. Every Wikipedia article must be based on material which has already been published in reliable sources (such as major newspapers, books from reputable publishers). While the word "barbecueology" gets some hits on Google, they all seem to be chatty websites, where people are using it as a joke or a nonce-word. Unless I am wrong and it has been written about there may not be a Wikipedia article on it. If there is indeed published material on studies of different kinds of barbecue, it would seem that information about them would belong in the article Barbecue, and you are welcome to add it, with citations of reliable sources. But take care that Wikipedia does not allow Original research; so while you can say that Dr. X observed that in Colombia a barbecue has this characteristic (with a reference to Dr. X's book) and that Dr. Y said it has this other characteristic, you may not put any argumentation or conclusion which is not in a published source.

I'm not sure whether I've managed to answer your question. Please ask again if not. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I just make sure I understand what Wikipedia articles are about. For example, if Dr. X did discover something new (a drug, a dinosaur, or whatever) they would not submit an article here until their findings were published somewhere else first. Then they could submit an article here, referencing their article published elsewhere, providing that the other publication was a creditable source. In other words, no new information is available on Wikipedia, all information can be sourced elsewhere.

That being said, if the word 'barbecueology' is referenced in a national magazine, major newspaper or best selling book then it could be reviewed again for submission. Any additional information would greatly appreciated, thank you.Reillyranch (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You got it exactly right. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, nearly right. First, Dr. X would be strongly discouraged from writing a Wikipedia article themselves, because they would have a conflict of interest which might make it difficult for them to write neutrally. Secondly, in both cases, a single mention in a reliable source is probably not enough to establish notability: we usually call for multiple references. And a passing reference is not enough: there would need to be at least one, and preferably at least two, articles that discussed barbecueology in some depth. --ColinFine (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How to rectify tags on articles

Hey all. Right, sorry if I've not got the terminology on this correct, I'm new, bare with me and all.

So, right, the big reason I wanted to get involved in wiki is because I stumbled across the page for one of my fave tabletop RPG games, Wraith: The Oblivion and found that the page was pretty much a mess, with two big exclamation mark notices on it signifying work that was needed.

I put a few days work into fixing the page up, removing the in-universe phrasing and giving it a more 'out-of-character' tone, and presenting it all in a more critical, analytical manner to cut down on the 'advertisment' feel to it. In general I'm real happy with the result, but it's not a high-traffic page so hasn't had many people help out in years.

For that reason, the two exclamation mark tags remain, as nobody has come along to re-examine the page. How would I go about arranging for this to happen? I'd really like the article to get a green light, because it's a damn good game and should have a good wiki article to support it. I don't want to just delete them, because that's hardly impartial at all. Any ideas?

Many thanks. Justin.Parallax (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Justin! The article already has "the green light", as you put it, and the exclamation points just mean that it would be better to change that, but it will not be deleted. If you feel like you fixed the problems, feel free to remove them yourself; it's what being bold is all about. Of course, someone else could be bold and re-add them, but that's what Wikipedia is really about. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Trusting Wikipedia

Heading inserted by ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC): I think this is a new question, separate from the one before

ok um guys im new hereso bare with me . i donnt no if i should ttrust wkapedia or not. if i can plz send proof bcz i USED to trust this site alot.

RoseAnn Blacksotne__________________________________________

173.15.239.225 (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello RoseAnn. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but I'll try to answer. Are you talking about trusting that the information in Wikipedia is correct, or about something else?

It is true that, because Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it may contain mistakes, and sometimes even deliberate errors or nonsense (we call these vandalism). So in one sense, you cannot trust the contents of Wikipedia; but people do, all the time. This is because there are so many people working to improve Wikipedia that most of it, most of the time, is correct. But you cannot be sure whether or not the bit you're currently looking at is right.

The approach that Wikipedia takes is to ask that all information in all articles (unless it's common knowledge, like "the sky is blue") is referenced to some reliable source. In practice, there are many articles which are not to this standard, which is a pity. But where an article is referenced, you should be able to follow the citations and find somewhere that the information came from - and it should be from a reliable source, such as a major newspaper, or a publisher with a reputation. It might or might not be on-line, but you should be able to get hold of it through a public or academic library.

I'm not sure what you mean by "please send proof" - what are you wanting proving? If the article you are doubtful about has references, you can follow these. If not, there's not a lot you can do except 1) search for information yourself, or 2) look at the article's history and find a Wikipedia user who has made a major contribution to the article, and ask that user on their talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a really great answer to a fairly vague question. Top stuff! Melbourne3163 (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

See also Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Proof of Autorisation

Hey there!

Now I have been working on this wiki for quite sometime now and I've contacted the developer of this game I'm making a wiki article on. And I asked him if I could use his logo of the game He said yes and would happy to help me Now, If I upload this on commons then it will get deleted right? what should I do how do other people get logos and what license do they use?

One more thing like I said the game what I working on is a really good game and there are many people playing the game, Now when I published it, It soon got a Speedy deletion warning! Please help me! The games really good and it is viral among some people and im really sure that people will search for a article on the game (I did) (and I will be citing it and working on it), Please comment on the speedy deletion or remove it if you'll can

Thank you in advance,

15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdcdigital (talk • contribs)

Hi Gdcdigital, thanks for looking to contribute an image! The first important thing to realise is that Wikipedia is a free project. That doesn't just mean for free to access, but also free to reuse, remix, sell for money, print in a book, just do whatever you want with it, as long as you say where it came from: that's what wikipedia is all about, and is explicitly allowed in our license. This also goes for our images. It is possible that the creator of the video game will allow this, and that would be really nice, but it's also quite possible they are not willing to release an image under that license. So let's start out with the happy case where everything is perfect: the creator of the video game is willing to release an image under that license. If that's the case, the can sent in this release form; there are instructions on that page on how to use it. If the creator is not willing to it, we do allow some images that don't comply with our license, but we have a set of quite strict rules that dictate when exceptions are allowed. In this case, it looks like they might be met. In that case, Commons will not accept it (they will only accept free images), but you can upload it though the upload form on Wikipedia itself. If you are going that route, you will have to choose that you are using the image under fair use, and follow the steps of the wizard closely. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

How to provide proof of Authorization to work on the Copyright Holder's behalf

Awdhesh15 (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Awdhesh, you can't really work on behalf of someone else, you are always editing as yourself. If someone wants to donate copyrighted materials, you can point them to this guide. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oldest pages needing copyediting

Hello once again, I like to hang out here, [1] and do what I can, when I can to shorten the list. I know it is not usual to write on the talk page of a list page. However, I am wondering whether it would be ok and maybe useful if I could put a very brief note to myself and others who come along on the talk page to remind me if I looked at a page and thought it was impossible to copy edit or needs someone else to look and so on. and thanks once again, Myrtle the unsure. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Myrtle, and thanks for helping out with copyediting! I like to say nothing is impossible to copyedit, so leaving a note might not be very useful to others. If you want to keep a list for yourself, the best place is probably a page in your own userspace. You could for example use User:Myrtlegroggins/copyedit notes. If you click that and start editing it, it automatically creates the page. You can also get a lot of help at the WikiProject called the Guild of Copy Editors. They will gladly provide you with feedback and assistance. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Martijn. That is a great idea. I'll use it. Regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Does a Wikipedia rule say that this is biased editing, please?

Hello!

I sometimes contribute to an article that someone accused of looking like a press release, so yesterday I decided to make the following edit:

Huffington Post arts reporter Mallika Rao praised their Game of Thrones duet electric harp video, stating: “Yes, there have been other attempts to cover Ramin Djawadi's haunting tune before, but this one is now the only one.”

My controversial edit is specifically the word "praised", which was reverted because it was considered non-neutral (or biased). But honestly, isn't Mallika Rao praising the video? I think that's an objective way of putting it. What if she had said, "This is the best video I have ever beheld, and it brings immense joy to my heart." Would it still be wrong to write that she "praised" the video, even if it's obvious? Does a Wikipedia rule ban such words like "praised" for such situations, forcing the editor to use neutral words such as "wrote", "expressed", "said", etc.?

Many thanks in advance! Dontreader (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For more background info, the quote was cherry picked from here and used in Camille and Kennerly Kitt. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dontreader. The neutral wording is in general preferred, but there are times when a stronger word may be appropriate. I don't think this is one of them. Looking from a neutral point of view, it's important to read the whole source carefully and not take information out of context. For example, the same article calls the rendition "odd" and "sensual". My reading of the review is that the author thought that this was the most memorable rendition of the tune because it was an unusual treatment of the subject. When it's not clear, it's better to err on the side of caution. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Anne Delong, for your very clear explanation. I see why I made a mistake this time, but as you said, it's always better to err on the side of caution. I just regret that I'm being stalked by duffbeerforme even at the Teahouse, which is supposed to be a pleasant place. Please take note, Bgwhite and Lesser Cartographies (especially Lesser Cartographies, who recommended this place to me). Dontreader (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, aside from the word "cherrypicked", the rest of duffbeerforme's post was actually helpful because you forgot to identify the article that you were talking about, and he saved me from having to go looking for it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Anne Delong, thanks again for your kindness and for taking the time to examine both the Wikipedia article and the Huffington Post article, and for the very good explanation that has helped me understand this issue clearly; however, I did not include the Wikipedia article myself because it was a generic question. I simply wanted to know if "praised" and other non-neutral words were allowed or not while editing Wikipedia pages if the statement that is being quoted clearly justifies a non-neutral word outside of Wikipedia (assuming that the context is taken into account properly). When I visited a reliable sources board with a question because duffbeerforme had reverted one of my edits, he jumped in to answer my question, posing as an impartial editor, which caused Lesser Cartographies to scold him. I could say more, but I want to respect the friendly atmosphere of this place. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello @Dontreader:. I think the answer to your question about 'praised' is, like many questions about Wikipedia, "It depends". Certainly it could be editorialising, and perhaps usually would be; but there may be cases where the consensus would allow it. I think that is why people are reluctant to answer general questions, and usually prefer to discuss specifics. If you look through the archives of this page and the Help desk, I believe you'll find that where the questioner doesn't specify an article, they very often get asked for the specific article, as you were. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine. I see your point. I will certainly provide specific examples in the future. Thanks again for your reply. Dontreader (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed CP-6 Article has been Unjustly rejected?

I have submitted a new page describing the CP-6 computer operating system from the 1070s to the 2000s. This proposed page is 11,511 bytes long. Ritchie333 has rejected the page saying that it is covered under the UTS page, which is 2408 bytes in total. The CP-6 paragraph is only 707 bytes. Ritchie333 suggests that my submittal be included under UTS, and then, if it is substantial, it might bee spun off on its own. I think that my submittal is already suitable as an independent page. Is there some way that this can be done more directly than that suggested? 98.149.171.72 (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, 98.149.171.72, welcome to the Tea House. I'm a fairly new editor so this is just one person's opinion but I think 98.149.171.72 kind of has a point. Here is the article for submission on CP-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/CP-6 and here is the existing article on the Operating System Universal_Time-Sharing_System My original advice to 98.149.171.72 was going to be to fold the information in the CP-6 article into the existing article on UTSS. But as I look at the UTSS article it seems to me it will look weird to have all that info on CP-6 compared to the fairly sparce article on the bigger topic of UTSS. Also, based on my very quick look at the CP-6 article it looked quite good. I know nothing about early operating systems, these were before even my time, but I consider myself an expert on computer science both via work and education. Having said all that though I acknowledge this is from just a very quick look at the two articles so I quite possibly could be missing something that the original editor saw. RedDog (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, 98. Let me add to the above, with a cavet. I am nothing even faintly resembling an expert in computing. That being said, the article you submitted could be improved in a few ways. Firstly, instead of a general reference section, use inline citations, properly formatted. Reference each major fact to the specific source. I will leave instructions on how to do that on User talk:98.149.171.72. Secondly, all your sources share an author. It would help if you had some other authorities to reference. Third, your first two references appear to be papers presented at a couple of different conferences. These would be primary sources and are allowed only to reference indisputable facts (again, this is why inline citations would help.) The last reference seems to come from a journal, but not being very well versed in computers, I cannot say whether it is a journal we would consider a reliable source. It is a secondary source, which is what your sourcing needs to be. You see, articles do not get published in Wikipedia unless there is sufficient reliably sourced, independent, secondary references to show that the subject is notable. Notability is the criterion for inclusion here, and that simply means that reliable secondary sources are talking about the subject in detail. Lastly, please do not take things personally (I say this because "unjustly" is an emotionally charged word that implies you have been treated unfairly, which you haven't.) I personally disagree with the reviewers reason for declining the article, but as a reviewer i would have declined it too. It is on its way to showing the needed notability, but it isn't there yet. I hope this helps, and hang in there. With a little work, it should be just fine. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That is excellent advise. To the OP if you need some help with that let me know. I know nothing about this OS but I find the topic interesting and may have some time to help with format stuff such as proper citations if needed. RedDog (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Gtwfan52 has given a good assessment of the situation. The reason I suggested improving the UTSS article is that rather than attempt a large article in one go, it might be easier to improve an existing article in small increments, tackling say a paragraph at a time. This allows more immediate feedback and possibly an easier introduction into the editing environment. If and when the balance of CP-6 versus other UTSS systems gets too lop-sided, the standalone article could be created at that point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

All the other points about needing better references, etc. about the article itself, those make sense to me. But the idea of incorporating the CP-6 article into the UTSS article absolutely does not make sense to me. Just look at the two articles the CP-6 article is far more detailed. Where as the UTSS article isn't that much more than a placeholder for a bunch of sections about the other OS's that it spawned. The TOC for the UTSS article has the following structure 1)CP-V, 2) CP-R 3) CP-6 4 Software 5) Refs 6) Ext Links. The proposed CP-6 article would replace section 3 but it would look very dispraportionate. That one section would be over half the whole article. Also, the CP-6 article has a lot of structure that would get embedded all into subsections, again it would look dispraportionate, all this substructure and detail on one OS that came later, with little info about the other OSs or the actual OS that is the topic of the UTSS article. Also, and here I don't know enough about these ancient operating systems to say for sure, but the idea that a successor operating system even has to be included as a sub-page of the OS that came before it makes no sense to me. At least not as a general rule. If we followed that the Windows OS would be a sub-page under DOS and Linux would be a sub-page under Unix, clearly that makes no sense. RedDog (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding. I meant take a small part of the CP-6 submission (with a source in hand), such as a paragraph containing the most pertinent points, and add it to UTSS. I don't mean take all of CP-6 and put it in UTSS en-masse, particularly when it has no inline cites. That would almost guarantee a "rv, unsourced OR" from another editor if you did. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. RedDog (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, again, 98.149.171.72. I think what I am seeing here is that due to your inexperience, Ritchie333 is urging you to take a safe approach and just improve the article already in the encyclopedia. And that is certainly fine advice; however, if you feel you are up to finding improved referencing, you are certainly welcomed and encouraged to be bold and go for the article. Or maybe an even better idea would be to go ahead and improve the existing article a bit now while continuing to work on the freestanding article. That's the great thing about Wikipedia--there is no editor-in-chief to answer to. So if you can, go ahead and add to the existing article while working on your inline citations and additional sources. Glad you are here, 98! You seem like the kind of editor we need more of. Have you ever considered joining a Wikiproject? Follow the link and perhaps you will find more things that interest you enough to edit them! Perhaps too, you might wish to register. It allows you to do some more things than an IP editor and is actually much more anonymous. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

For Actor Role lists

Is there any kind of preferred way of listing an actor's roles? Are lists or tables better in these situations? KatCheez 14:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• In most cases I think a table would be preferable. For an example, see Neil_Patrick_Harris#Filmography --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

How to indicate that a bio is poorly referenced self-promotion

Where can I find some sort of template for 'Concerned About the Whole Article' on grounds of poorly refed to non-existent / irrelevant / self-promotional links?

Details: Some IP has PRODed Van Badham on grounds of notability. I don't think the PROD is fair, despite that the article is very poorly refed, mainly by press interviews with the subject and dead links, and the whole article seems to be mainly self-promotion (and my POV is that VB is of little merit). What I want to do as soon as I delete the PROD is stick up a 'Concerned About the Whole Article' template.

BenevolentUncle (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. The tags you're looking for are probably something along the lines of {{BLP sources}} and {{POV}}, which will add notifications of needing more sources for a Biography of a Living Person, and that the article may not be written neutrally. You may also want to post on the talk page of the article and user who PRODed the page explaining that the article can be improved. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse BenevolentUncle! If the article has been PRODed, and you don't think that is reasonable as there is some non-promotional reasonable material there, you may wish to take down the PROD and send the article to AfD (Articles for Discussion) and let it be discussed as to whether or not it is appropriate content for an encyclopedia article. Most often though, if it is just promotional advertisement, it really is best to just tag it as {{Db-g12}} and let it be deleted. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Featured Images

Hello again, I recently visited the Australasian Grebe article, as today's featured image is from there. Needless to say I was surprised to find that the image was not there, in fact it had been absent for about twenty hours due to a surge of vandalism. Shouldn't featured images receive protection to prevent something like this? As the Crow Flies (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello As the Crow Flies. Welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism is something many articles suffer and we do attempt to keep up with it and have many editors dedicated to fighting it. But to protect the image would mean locking the article for the image alone and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, an encyclopedia anyone can edit.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting info due to vested interest. How to prevent it?

Someone keeps deleting info on UIDAI article due to vested interest. How to prevent it? I have provided multiple Citations to the updated paragraphs. It looks like politically motivated. Please help. Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. Take a few moments to read an essay here called WP:BOOMERANG. If you are involved in a dispute, try to discuss matters with the other person via their talk page. If they won't cooperate, seek dispute resolution. Finally, consider whether your own actions in the matter have been entirely blameless. BlackberrySorbet 13:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ravishyam, welcome to the teahouse. I looked at the article and the editor who reverted your recent changes requested that you go to the talk page of the article to work out any issues. (see his comment in the history) Each article has a talk page where editors can discuss issues, disagreements, etc. and hopefully work things out. The talk page for the article in question is here: Talk:Unique Identification Authority of India. FYI, wp:COI is a serious issue and if you have a vested interest in the article subject it is usually best to find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. RedDog (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

IPA for English

I am looking for someone or a place who/which could help me translate english to International Phonetic Alphabets. So where can I? Sohambanerjee1998 07:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I am working on the article Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara!, the first five words translate into /ˈwʌns/ /əˈpɑːn/ /ˈaɪ/ /ˈtaɪm/ /ˈɪn/. Among the last two words, Mumbai is the name of a city and I have done it like this - /mʊmˈbaɪ/ and the other is a hindi one meaning again in english. I cannot do the last word {{IPA-hns|d̪|o|:|b|a|:|r|a|:|hi}}. Can someone help me here? Sohambanerjee1998 08:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

/ˈwʌns/ /əˈpɑːn/ /ˈaɪ/ /ˈtaɪm/ /ˈɪn/ /mʊmˈbaɪ/ Hindustani pronunciation: [d̪o:ba:ra:] - I have translated the entire bunch but how to add it to the article? Sohambanerjee1998 08:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually the first 6 words of the name - Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai are in english and in IPA - /ˈwʌns/ /əˈpɑːn/ /ˈaɪ/ /ˈtaɪm/ /ˈɪn/ /mʊmˈbaɪ/. The last one Dobaara! is a Hindi word and in IPA - Hindustani pronunciation: [d̪o:ba:ra:] and means again in english IPA - /əˈɡɛn/. I am confused as to how to add it? Sohambanerjee1998 08:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I added it to the article somehow but still I don't understand the concept. Help urgently requested and needed. Sohambanerjee1998 07:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sohambanerjee1998, and welcome to The Teahouse. Try the language reference desk.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, I thought I was already a part of Teahouse but guess I was wrong, anyway it feels nice tobe welcomed again! Now to my question, thanks for I will try it. But I think I managed to solve it. Sohambanerjee1998 05:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Link rot (Foreign relations of Denmark)

Hi there, in this article (Foreign relations of Denmark) there are at least 16 links that no longer work (e.g. http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/6/36/00011767.pdf). I cannot find the correct links. Should I leave it as is or remove the links? Thank you!Munchkin2013 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Munchkin and welcome to The Teahouse. The short answer is that we do keep links that have expired because they were supposedly valid at one time. Sometimes we can find the same content using another link involving the same web site. Sometimes we can find the links on web archives, so keeping the links gives us a guide to finding them in that way. See WP:LINKROT for more.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Resubmitted saved article, but find no indication it's been saved or is in review...

Also, in "Review," only first ~100+ words or so of the complete coded text appears.FromTighCalan (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are talking about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Appthority? There are a number of problems. The reason that you are not seeing the latter part of the draft is that you opened a number of <ref> tags, but didn't close them with </ref>. Remember that <ref/> is not the same. I see also that you have included in a number of cases the internet URL for Wikipedia articles. Please read how to use wikilinks. Other problems will doubtless be fed back to you if you submit the draft for review, but please read the various links which I have included in the welcome message on your user talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Photo layout

On the entry for "List of College of William & Mary alumni" there is a row of three portraits of the College's presidential alumni. They used to all appear in the same row, but now one of them is bumped to a second row. I can't figure out what edit caused that change, and I can't see how to fix it. Can anyone offer a totally jargon-free explanation of what is causing that and how to get them all back in one row?ProfReader (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

They appear alongside each other for me? Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The portraits are in a row for me too, which suggests that it's probably some setting on your computer or web browser that's causing the issue. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Old odd article needs direction (Agha Waqar's water filled car)

Hello! I have been working on some of the oldest articles needing copyediting. This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agha_Waqar%27s_water-fuelled_car needs a lot of help. The topic is adequately covered by this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car Should 'Agha Waqar's water filled car' be deleted? Should it be renamed to 'Agha Waqar' because he is a, let me say, um, 'interesting' character in Pakistan? Any guidance on what should be done and how to get it done would be most appreciated. (Or should the article just stay in the 'too hard' basket?) Thanks and kind regards to all, Myrtle :-) Myrtlegroggins (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Myrtle here again. Between then and now, I re-wrote the article and tidied the references. The article still, I think, needs some thought. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Myrtlegroggins and welcome to the Teahouse. Given the amount of coverage in the Pakistani press, a separate article may be justified. As this is a fringe science topic, it is very important that it reflect what mainstream science says about this notion, and not be edited by advocates to state or imply that the claims are true, based on fringe or popular press sources. This is a tough job, but if you are willing to do the work and watch the article diligently, I commend you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen. I'll battle on with it. :-) Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I just checked and the article has been reverted without any consideration for the work I did. I give up. I guess my work is there if anyone else wants to give it a go. I have the energy to copyedit but not to argue over such a stupid page (IMHO) - and yes I did take the copyedit seriously. Hmph. I need some tea. And a chocolate biscuit.

Disappointed, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You have discovered an unnamed law of human behavior! "The more unbelievable an idea is, the stronger the belief of the people who believe it". You will see a lot of it when working around articles on radical and fringe ideas. You should see what fun the 9/11 conspiracy articles, or the Kennedies' assassinations articles are. :) Be of good spirit, Myrtle, and enjoy your tea and biscuit. Thank you for what you can do, and of course no blame for what you can't. If only all Wikipedians were as cheerful as you! Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2013

(UTC)

Myrtlegroggins, please stay the course. Your recent changes were reverted by an experienced editor who may have been working too quickly. I have contacted that editor and asked them to take a closer look. Please be prepared to discuss your changes on the article's talk page, and please continue your efforts to improve this wonderful free encyclopedia. We need editors like you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much Cullen. I am going to work on not being frustrated easily. My tendency is to think I must have done something terribly wrong. Perhaps other editors have the same problem. Although I do think it must be worse to be an author of a page and have someone come along and edit all your hard work.

regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

How much citation and reference is enough?

Hello, I've made a few updates to citations and references on a BLP page trying to get rid of the warning box at the top. Is it a matter of deleting the {{Multiple issues|} lines? I don't want to do this and fall foul of rules. Thank you. LarryT42 (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Larry! Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for stopping in at the Teahouse! Those boxes at the top of the page, which you have correctly identified as being made by the templates you mentioned, were manually added by some editor at some point identifying a problem with the page. They are generally referred to as "Maintenance templates" and just as they are manually added, they need to be manually removed when the situation is addressed. You could do that yourself, however, in this particular instance you shouldn't. The article (Andrew Oswald, for anyone interested) was tagged for additional citations and you added additional citations. However, all the citations you added were to works by the subject of the article. That really does not improve the referencing of the article at all. What is needed is references to independent sources, talking about the subject of the article and his work. The information you added is valuable and useful, but it does not improve the referencing of the article as a whole. So, good edits, but not what was needed to improve the referencing. Thanks for joining the corps of Wikipedia editors and if we can be of any help with anything in the future, don't hesitate to ask! Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Larry. Don't worry about that: anybody may remove a maintenance tag if they genuinely think the issue has been addressed. As long as it's clear your edit is in good faith (which you can make likely by using an edit summary) the worst that can happen is that another editor disagrees and puts the tag back again.

But if you are talking about Andrew Oswald, don't go removing the tag yet. There are not nearly enough inline citations: there are whole paragraphs which have no references.

In fact, I don't think you have understood the purpose of references in Wikipedia. (Most of the references you have put in belong in a bibliography, not a reference section.) Since Wikipedia may be edited by anybody (including vandals, but also people who are well-intentioned but mistaken), there is always a possibility that information in its articles is wrong; so we require that when information is inserted it is verifiable: it must cite reliable sources which the reader can go to if they want to check the data in the article. There are twelve separate claims about Oswald in the lede (first paragraph) as it currently stands. Ideally, every single one of those claims needs to be supported by a citation. There don't necessarily have to be twelve separate footnotes: it may be that several of them can be supported by a single source. For uncontroversial factual information like this, non-independent sources such as the websites of the various institutes would be acceptable, but in general sources independent of the subject are greatly preferred. And so on through the article.

Because of the lack of real references, the article does not at present establish that Oswald is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense - that he has been written about, in some depth, in multiple reliable sources independent of him), and is therefore liable to be deleted. You need to find books or articles in major newspapers or journals (or websites with a comparable editorial policy to major newspapers and journals) which are about him or his work, and cite them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Much to think about here. Many thanks. LarryT42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have updated an article that was deleted. How to transfer name?

I have recently updated an article and send it for review as the original name was not allowed given that this article was deleted a few years ago -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Lilov

Is it possible for someone to review it and transfer the name "Valeri Lilov" as a head title?

Thank you, Will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesszorro (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Will and welcome to The Teahouse. We don't need to change the article name, since we use the commonly used name of the article subject. That appears to be what was done in this case.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to make a redirection of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_Lilov to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Lilov in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesszorro (talk • contribs) 08:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Valeri Lilov was deleted and the article was protected from re-creation. Chesszorro is attempting to circumvent this. --SubSeven (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Not confirmed

My account is not confirmed yet. I am not able to upload pics. Its been 4 days since i created the account and i have also done 10 edits. plz help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rameshnta909 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 18 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You haven't counted correctly. It won't be 4 days until later today. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Function of table format for List of short stories by Alice Munro?

Hi, I'm seeking opinions on a List of short stories by Alice Munro in table format. What, in your opinion, would be the function of a sortable table of literary works, in this case of short stories that are usually published in magazines first? Hence: What kinds of questions should readers be able to answer with such a (sortable) table that a simple alphabetical list can not answer for? I have made a couple of entries which serve as an example of information that could be included for works of a living author like Alice Munro. Other example lists on works of short story writers include P. G. Wodehouse (simple list), Anton Chekhov, J. M. G. Le Clezio, Isaac Asimov, Harry Harrison, Robert Sheckley (simple list), Agatha Christie, and David R. Bunch. Thank you for any comments. --Jackentasche (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jackentasche, thanks for your interesting question. I think a sortable table for a list of this size can answer many questions. One basic one might be over the order in which she published her novels, which would provide answers to more complex questions about how the nature of her writing changed or how earlier works influenced later works of hers. Being able to sort by title would make an individual work easier to find, and being able to show what publications often featured Munro's work. So by all means, I think a table format is very useful in this case. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, can you (or anyone else, for that matter) advise me on the best format, given the example tables for works by other short story authors on enWP (see links above)? Two examples from deWP that have kindly been pointed out to me might also be of interest: de:Jacques Brel/Diskografie and de:Liste der Werke von Georges Simenon. Thanks. Jackentasche (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a single "best format" for a broad class of articles like these ones. I would just go with whatever you think would be useful to readers and, if other editors have an interest, go with whatever consensus agrees upon. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi I JethroBT, I like your last suggestion best yet no other editor has shown any interest so far which is why I came here in the first place, btw, cheers to the Teahose! New question: Where would you go to raise this topic, also with the aim to find collaborators for this task which would be huge and hence had better be shared not least with view to quality I guess. Thanks again, Jackentasche (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How create an intersecting set of two categories?

Hi, how can I find out which articles exist about 19thC authors of novels in Spanish? Is there any tool that creates an intersecting set of articles between the two categories 19th-century novelists and Spanish novelists? Thanks, Jackentasche (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How to add Reflist for a separate talk page section?

Talk:Growth of religion here, at the last section, trying to add reflist, but it includes just every other reference. How it can be done, that only those refs can appear, those i added in the section. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You probably want Template:Reflist-talk. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

David Biddulph, already tried it, didn't worked, you can edit that section for me? So i can know better, and next time i will remember too. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Needed to include it in pevious section too. The documentation of the template wasn't crystal-clear, was it? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes i saw, Thanks! Appreciated :-) Bladesmulti (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)