Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tigraan, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

under review?

I just created my first Wikipedia page. I could not tell by the message at the top of the screen if I properly submitted the page for review.

The message at the top said, "Article not currently submitted for review." But the message at the bottom said, "Review waiting." Thank you for any insight!

The page is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marvin Megee

Stewarmd11 (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The message at the bottom of your draft is correct so your draft is awaiting review; it's a bug in the system that the message at the top remains after submission. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I appreciate your response a lot.Stewarmd11 (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I got a task to create a wiki page of my class

I got a tack to create a wiki page of my class, and I did adding the names of every pupil in the class and the head teacher but the article I wrote was too short and got taken down. what should I do and add to make it better and not get taken down again? thank you Patrikr1 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is absolutely not to be used to list all of the names of all of the pupils in your class or school. If your teacher gave you this task please ask your teacher to look at the potential enormous harm exposing these details on the internet could do to each of them. Your task breached their right to privacy. In addition it is not congruent with what Wikipedia is.

You article has not yet been deleted, but I have nominated it for deletion. It is a gross error by the person who gave you this task. You should show them this reply. Fiddle Faddle 19:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Trying to fulfill article reference issues

Hi - I'm now in my third month trying to the best of my ability to get my Article published and have again just added many more reference links to try to achieve this. As LukeSurl explained in my second rejection it can be difficult to get verification of broadcast material unless it has been digitised and put on the internet. I have successfully managed to track down some of my stories that the BBC has put on one of its websites and have added these to the references. I've also been in touch with BBC News archives in London and they tell me I can access all the stories that I have listed in the Article but since they date back to between 1975-1988 when I was a BBC TV News correspondent the record of these stories is not published on the internet but can be viewed at their headquarters in London either on the BBC computer system or on the original card index. Frustratingly, I have my own personal VHS/DVD video library of all the stories mentioned. I have read and re-read my Article for Creation and I can honestly say there is nothing that cannot be proved if challenged in the content. I'm just hoping after all the efforts I have made in submitting this Article that it can finally pass the Review test? I'd appreciate your help, comments and advice to achieve this,because with this long, drawn-out saga , and at my age of 75, I could run out of time!Sirromhc (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

changing an article subject/title

Hi All,

I'm part-way through creating my 1st article and I want to change the subject/title but, unlike with the article body, this does not seem possible.

Is there a way to do this?

Thank you,

Tamim. 195.157.55.212 (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A page title is changed by moving the page to a new title, thus preserving the edit history. Moves can only be performed by registered users who are autoconfirmed, meaning they have made at least ten edits under the account name and the account is more than four days old. Here, you asked this question editing by your IP address. I assume you have an account since you say you created the article, but in the event you do not, or your account is not yet autoconfirmed, you can request an uncontroversial move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

can't edit a post

I want to edit the piece names section of the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece. I want to insert a new language in the table. But the table is not showing up in the editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chess_piece&action=edit&section=8

SHUBHANKAN DAS (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The 'Chess names' table is contained in a template..... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Chess_names Please read about editing templates before attempting to edit this as changing the template will affect everywhere it is called in the encyclopedia. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Empty citation help

I just started trying to edit in wikipedia and got an empty citation message in the footnotes. I heard about a wikilink creator that helps you put a footnote in the right format. How do I find that and fix #28 and #29 in an article I am editing on Rafael Lopez artist and illustrator. Thanks. Alaniso (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Alansiso. I think what you are referring to is the citation tool in the default editing widgets. Go to edit the page in question. Position your cursor at the spot in the text where you want to place the citation. Look up at the top of your edit window. You should see graphics: a Big bold B, an Italic I, a Pencil, etc. at the far end of that line you should see "Cite". Click on that. You will see another line of widgets appear below. Click on "Templates" then select "Cite Web" or whatever the appropriate option is for the reference, I took a quick look at the article and I think you want "Cite Web". A window will appear with fields to fill in, the title of the page you are citing, date, author, etc. BTW, there are a lot of fields but most of them are optional, just fill in what you know. When you finish the tool will insert the appropriate Wiki code in the place where your cursor was in the text. RedDog (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I please have feedback on draft article in user space before submitting article?

Hello there! I have enjoyed making edits and corrections on Wikipedia since I started just a short while ago. I REALLY wish I had more time as I find it difficult NOT being able to do more!

I've got a draft of my first article ready to go and I have posted it in my user space: User:Leifeinarson/draft article on Sunnybrook School (Toronto). I have a recent photo and a couple historical photos dating back to 1960 to add to the article once it is submitted. Any feedback would be great!

I'm a bit confused how to create a talking space for the article while it is still in my user space...

Thanks!Leif 17:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Leif! It is the general consensus that schools below high school level do not get articles here unless there is something especially notable about them. John from Idegon (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Leifeinarson: Welcome to the Teahouse! While John from Idegon's comment generally applies, a quick look at the sources seems to indicate that there is fairly broad coverage of the school. This allows it to meet this site's general notability guideline, meaning that it may be approved. I'd recommend that you go ahead and submit it. Also, well done writing the article! You wouldn't believe how few people have perfect formatting the first time they write an article. Good luck, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks user:John from Idegon and user:King jakob c 2! I appreciate the feedback a lot. I still have some work to do revising the article so it is more appropriate for the encyclopedia. Then I'll try submitting it. I guess there is no way to submit it WITH two or three historical photos, since this is my first article?

Thanks again! Leif 03:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifeinarson (talk • contribs)

This sounds like an excellent school, but there is a pretty well established consensus that we don't keep articles about the vast majority of primary schools unless they are of indisputable historical or architectural significance. Although I respect the effort here, I don't see the notability here. This is just my opinion as an experienced deletion reviewer. Other opinions may vary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

How can I find someone to review my article edits to maintain neutral point of view

I work for Beacon College, which has a very short article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beacon_College Since it is incomplete and inaccurate, a few of us on campus worked on creating a new article, which is in my Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grmdre/sandbox We were careful to avoid bias and just present the facts, but I would like to have it reviewed before editing the already existing article. It has been rejected for submission since an article does already exist. How can I find someone to review the edits? And once it is reviewed, is it acceptable for me to edit myself, or should I have someone else decide on the final version and submission of it? Grmdre (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Grmdre and welcome to the Teahouse. In my opinion, your draft article is filled with promotional language more appropriate for a college brochure or its website than for a neutral encyclopedia. Another shortcoming is that your references are scrambled up. Please read Referencing for beginners and follow its advice.

The more fundamental problem is that you should not be drafting a new article when we already have an existing article on the college. Our general approach is to improve and expand existing articles, not to somehow delete them and replace them with all new material. Another problem is that you have an admitted conflict of interest as an employee of the college. Accordingly, I recommend that you refrain from editing the article directly. Instead, you should post a critique of the claimed inaccuracies on the article's talk page. Please furnish citations to reliable sources backing your claims of inaccuracy. Make suggestions for improvements, expansion or corrections there, and allow experienced, disinterested editors to make the actual changes to the article.

In addition, you state that several people are involved in editing this draft. Please be aware that Wikipedia accounts are for one person only, and we do not allow group accounts, or accounts representing an institution instead of an individual. Each person who wants to have input should contribute as a discrete individual. I hope this helps you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have placed the article on my watch list, and note that there is as yet no discussion of any shortcomings on its talk page. That is the primary place for a conversation about improving that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Advices for a Rookie about two articles

Hello,

After several months of editing, I've opened accounts both on the French and English Wikipedia and, after redacting three articles for the French Wikipedia, I've decided to create articles on the following subjects with the following problems:
-Murder of Agnès Marin: problems of neutrality.

-Billy Monk (criminal): problem of notability.

Please, give me some advice. --Jean Po (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jean Po.

The first article is written in really bad, mangled English. Although this can be corrected, it may well influence some reviewers against the article. Although this is a very tragic and horrific case, it seems pretty run-of-the-mill to me. A disturbed young man raped and killed a young girl. This is heartbreaking for the family and friends and all concerned. But I am unconvinced that this case is notable enough that we should have an encyclopedia article about it.

The claim of notability of the topic of the second article is that he was the last person executed in California for a crime that didn't result in the death of the victim. Certainly, this would not have been considered notable at the time, as people back then had no way of knowing he would be the last. So, in my opinion, it comes down to how reliable sources covered the case back then, and especially as the years have passed. Was the case covered as routine, or was significant attention devoted to the use of the death penalty in a case where the person convicted didn't kill anyone? That is the case you will have to make for this article. The single reference now in the article is brief run-of-the-mill coverage, which incorrectly calls him a "slayer". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the first draft is notable because of the political debate caused about crime, sex offenders ,recivism and juvenile delinquency; I will correct the article as for the language.

Billy Wesley Monk isn't only the last non-murderer executed in California, he is also the last person to die for non-lethal kidnapping in the U.S.

I've used a court ruling (People v. Monk) describing the crimes commited, the Espy files explaining his claim of being the last non-fatal kidnapper to die and a press article explaining the backgroung of the offender other than the one speaking about him being a "slayer".

--Jean Po (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Visual Artist: Mimi Smith (article for creation)

I would love some advice/help editing my article and submitting it for review. Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mimi_Smith_(artist) Archiveassistant (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've aken a look and it seems quite impressive. There are several areas that need improving but, looking at the list of authoritative sources about her, she easily meets Wikipedia's general notability criteria. It could do with some additional inline citations, particularly for personal information and any significant claims (for example several of the links to her work in public collections simply go to the museum homepage, rather than something that confirms the fact). There are some basic formatting issues to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. But if this article was submitted to Articles for Creation I would have no problem accepting it. Sionk (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! This is my first wikipedia article and I am a bit lost. I will work on the improvements you have suggested. Many thanks! Archiveassistant (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this ready to submit for review?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Craig.chamberlain11/sandbox

Is an artist biography, would like some support to see if it is ready to publish. Craig.chamberlain11 (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be notable can you find some reliable third party sources that mention him? Theroadislong (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There are several in the third party list. 4 magazine publications.

4 television programmes. an entry on BBC your artists with two paintings in public collection. A catalogued exhibition with artists also on Wikipedia. Craig.chamberlain11 (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with writing a page..

Can someone help me write my article on this fantastic hotel in france where all the racing drivers used to stay?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Hotel_de_France_%28Le_Mans_/_La_Chartre_Sur_la_Louire%29

Derek Fulk (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If there are any le Mans racing nuts out there that write stuff for Wikipedia they would love to get involved as its so well known...

Derek Fulk (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Query Regarding an article Iemlabs

Hello,

I had posted an article in Wikipedia regarding Iemlabs. It was just an Informational article. We are a Vancouver based company having branches in Kolkata and USA. All the information provided were correct. But we have tried to post it through various other ids. But whenever We tried to post, the article got rejected and the id got banned also. So please approve my article this time considering the information provided was correct and also there were no promotional statement.Ranjan ray11 (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ranjan. It appears, after looking, that Iemlabs has not been written about substantively in reliable sources that are entirely independent of Iemlabs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, only properly having articles on subject that the world has already taken note of by writing about them substantively (it should never be used to announce new things). In order to determine whether a tertiary source article can be sustained, we look to the concepts of notability and verifiability. Since it appears the sources we look for do not exist, it does not look like Iemlabs is notable as a topic, nor that an article could be written based on verifiable information. Note also that since you are the chairman/manager of the company, you have a conflict of interest in writing about the subject. There may be are other places where you could properly write about the business. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Are named mountains notable?

Hello! Recently, I've been going through the unknown-importance Korean articles and came across a lot of stub-class mountain articles with basic information. Examples include Akwibong, Amisan(Gangwon) and Amisan (South Chungcheong). Since I thought that the pages were not notable, I've nominated them for deletion but another editor advised me that named mountains are usually notable under WP:NGEO. Is there anything I can do for the articles? Thanks Kkj11210 (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kkj11210. Named mountains are not inherently notable, but there is a fairly strong presumption that they are notable. I recommend that you (and all editors) read the Five pillars of Wikipedia, which are the core principles of this encyclopedia. The first core principle is that Wikipedia incorporates features of a gazetteer, which is a directory including geographical features. Accordingly, Wikipedia should strive to have articles about every important geographical feature on Earth, including mountains. Clearly, though, every little bump on a mountainous ridge is not necessarily notable. But the official naming process is one way that nations decide whether or not a given peak is notable. In the United States, where I live, this is a rigorous process that can take many years, and input from geographers, preservationists, mountaineers and historians is considered. In the end, it is coverage in reliable sources that counts. But I would say, as a mountaineer and an experienced editor, that there is a strong presumption of notability of named mountains, and that an in-depth search for coverage will almost always be successful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I'll see if the articles can be improved Kkj11210 (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nativity Scene

Hi! as I got professionally interested in paper cut crèches from Czech lands (Czech Rep. + Bohemia + Czechoslovakia) I came to the WP article on Nativity Scenes and found it sorely incomplete, despite having 20K+ visits per month. I am trying to figure out what to do, because to make it any good it will need /lots/ of work. I guess some could be done in the background, maybe in a "parallel" article, but I seem to recall that is not encouraged in WP. So far I got hit with unhelpful revert as I was getting started, and feel a bit confused on how to go about things - I would want to open doors for others to collaborate on building an article together, rather than going somewhere, doing the work and coming back. Please advice.

Nativity scene

Talk:Nativity scene

I have started two threads in the talk page, and trying to add a bit to the article itself every day. The article needs heaps of citations, cleanup, etc. I do not want to deface it too much with "citation needed", but might. Opinions appreciates Thanks!

YamaPlos talk 20:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Yamaplos and welcome to The Teahouse. I've moved the question to the top of the page where it belongs. It looks to me as if you have done what needs to be done. Maybe others can advise you further.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Citing resources

When citing my resources throughout my article it places them in the notes. I have used the same source in different areas of the article. Is there anyway I could combine these so my Notes section doesn't have repetitions of the same resource over and over again. Thank you!ToothFairyJenny (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jenny. Yes, you can: you do it by giving a name to the reference the first time you use it, and thereafter just referencing it by name. See WP:NAMEDREFS for the details. --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability and military units

Hellllllooooo...

Is there a standardized unit size (Company, Battalion, Regiment) that meets the notability requirement for a unit history? I am researching the 460th PFAB (their article is a stub) and much of their history is covered under the 517th RCT, however they were also later attached to several other units and made a contribution to the war effort. After locating their war diaries and several other richly detailed histories, I'm wondering how much I should include in the article, or even if it should be expanded at all. Should the length of the article reflect the publicly perceived notability of the unit? Any guidance you can give would be welcome.

Thanks, Salad Spoon (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Salad Spoon, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a question which as arisen more than one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and in a nutshell there is no consensus on the minimum unit size as long as it meets the Wikipedia:General notability guidelines and there are reliable secondary sources that write about the unit. The unit's war diary and memories of former members are not secondary sources and shouldn't be relied on too much. It's for this reason that most articles are about larger units, unless they are very well documented, for example E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). If you would like other opinions, you might want to ask the question again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. NtheP (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, NtheP, The 'secondariness' of the sources is an important distinction that I had failed to consider. After taking a second look at what I have, and checking in at Wikipedia:General notability guidelines and WikiProject Military history, I think requesting a merge of the articles may be more appropriate. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salad Spoon (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this real or a scam - Donations to Wikipedia

Hi everyone :)

Firstly thank you for your work. I LOVE WIKIPEDIA! :) I've recently seen an advertisement to donate to Wikipedia and would like to verify this is real. I'd like to donate a small amount to help, but need to know money will go directly to Wikipedia.

Message reads "DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: We are the small non-profit that runs the #5 website in the world. We have only 175 staff but serve 500 million users, and have costs like any other top site: servers, power, programs, and staff. Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind, a place we can all go to think and learn. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We take no government funds. We survive on donations averaging about $15. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this gave $3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online and ad-free another year. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to Wikipedia. Thank you.

One-time Monthly* $3 $10 $15 $20 $30 $50 $100 $ Credit Card PayPal Amazon

Problems donating? | Other ways to give | Frequently asked questions | By donating, you are agreeing to our donor privacy policy. The Wikimedia Foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization. *Monthly payments will be debited by the Wikimedia Foundation until you notify us to stop. We'll send you an email receipt for each payment, which will include a link to easy cancellation instructions. "

Is this real - please advise.

All the best,

Kelly :) 2601:8:9C80:8B8:BD1D:6CA0:266A:5F31 (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, it's super cool that you want to help financially!

That sounds like the wording the Wikipedia donation drive uses. Of course, that would also be the wording a phising site would use as well!

I guess it depends where you saw that message. Anyhow, the legitimate pages are https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:FundraiserLandingPage and https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give/en .

Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe those messages are legitimate; I remember getting one last year, and I wondered exactly the same thing, whether it was real or a scam, but they turned out to be real. However, the easiest way to be sure of your donation is to go through the link on this website; there should be a link on the left that says "Donate to Wikipedia". That way you're sure. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much LukeSurl and Writ Keeper :) I'm going there now :)donation is small... will also post on my facebook page :) Have a WONDERFUL day! :) 2601:8:9C80:8B8:8C5:2242:36E7:4A1C (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

While I do not question the legitimacy of the note, I will only say that one should never send money to any entity you do not trust. Please see: [1]. Only send donations to the address indicated there.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi All

I just saw this too - went to correct a typo I adopted (on a page entitled 'Lalian' and the same message appeared. I didn't think WikiMedia allowed this so wondered if it was a bug or virus...? Thanks for the clarification! :)

Ngg3 (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I "fixed" an article from the Getting Started page but it is still listed as "broken"

I've made a few edits to Honda Sport 90 after coming across it through the Getting Started page. I removed some tags that were within the article that labeled it as needing citations, but it still has the gray bar across the top that says, "This article may be confusing or vague. Look for ways you can make it clearer." I've looked inside the article and cant find any tags that could be deleted. How does the gray bar get removed? It seems to be in some kind of category that has to be removed by an admin. Thanks RickyDix (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed this kind of tag from the article text:

Hello RickyDix. I have looked at the article twice today, and don't see any tags or "gray bars". Is it possible that you are looking at a cached version? Try another computer or mobile device to look at the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's very likely Cullen has targeted the issue. If you need information on how to clear your computer's cache memory, please see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Article says it needs references - but it seems to have them already

My interest of the week includes six sister lighthouses all built around 1874. As I started to dig in and research them, I realized that improving, linking and cross referencing information in the individual articles may be a good project to get my feet wet as an editor.

So far I realize how much there is to learn and in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Island_Light, I cannot understand why it still says there are no citations to reliable sources, despite my best efforts. Obviously editor error on my part, but I could use some assistance in figuring it out, and perhaps some opinions on how to go about cross linking information on these six sister lighthouses or ? Fun for me to perhaps fill in the blanks for myself and also leave that trail for others to follow when reading about these particular historic structures. Scottsadventure (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Scottsadventure, and welcome to the Teahouse. It was the refimprove template that was the very first line of the wikicode that placed the tag on the article. I removed that wikicode and the tag went away. Good work! By the way, I live about five miles from Mare Island, and drive across the Mare Island Bridge frequently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Merging

Hello Teahouse! I came across two articles, Tauchu and Tauco. Judging by the Chinese names, they are the same or at least, very similar. Should I attempt to merge the two? If so, how would I go about doing it? Many thanks, Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Good spot! To merge, take the version you think is the worst name (how is it usually referred to in English-language texts?) and make that page a redirect to the better one. Then edit the remaining article with any information that was only in the article that was made into a redirect.

A problem here is that neither page has any references, it would be great if you could find some! Also Tauchu says "the name comes from the pronunciation in the Min Nan dialect", and Tauco says "The name comes from the pronunciation in the Hokkien dialect". As neither fact is referenced I would suggest just not including either of these in the merged article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that you must provide copyright attribution when you perform a merge. So, as Luke says, edit one to include edits you think belong in the other, but when you do so, place in the edit summary a note saying what you are doing and linking to the article. For example: Merging content from [[Source Page]] to here. Moreover, when you redirect the article that is the source of the merged content, you should likewise state where you merged it to, providing a link, e.g., Content merged to [[Destination Page]]. See Wikipedia:Merging and Help:Merging for more information.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Posting date in references list

Hi, I used the cite web template to create the References list on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Klein_(writer). Originally, I believe I inserted both an access date and a publication date into the template, but on the page, I'm seeing only the access, or retrieved, date in the References list.

I want to figure out how to re-enter the publication date and make it appear in the References list (along with the retrieved date). But I'm not sure how to edit citations that have already been created and how to make this info appear.

I posted this same question a couple of weeks ago and got this response: For any references in which you used an access date, just insert "|date=Date of publication" before the listed access date, replacing "Date of publication" with the date you want.

When I do this, the date info appears, but it's in parentheses right after the author's name (before the period that separates the name from the next item). I want the published date to appear without parentheses and right before the access date. Any advice? Thanks in advance for your help! Lauren1970 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Lauren, the format of the {{cite web}} template dictates the layout with the date being parenthesised after the author's name and the retrival date at the end. The only way round this is to format the citation by hand in a layout you prefer. However the format for the citation templates has been developed over a long period by consensus and I suspect that if you hand format you will find that someone will come along and convert them to the citation template format. If you would like to join in the discussion about how the citation templates work the page to visit is Help talk:Citation Style 1. NtheP (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Good to know. I didn't realize that is the citation style -- I thought it was some kind of glitch! Thanks for the info. Lauren1970 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Allowed to post an article related to our historical house?

We recently moved to a small town and purchased a historical landmark. We are living in the house and we are learning more and more about it and it's original owners all the time. Previous owners are giving us old photos of the original house, remodeling, repairs, etc.

My question is: Am I allowed to create an article about the history of this house? Just historical data that we are collecting from previous owners, local museums, etc. I would love to showcase photos of the original structure, repairs, previous owners, etc.

Please let me know if this is allowed. I think preserving the history of the people who have come before us is so important.

Thank you, Anna Campbell Women Business Owner (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia restricts its content to that which has been published in reliable sources. It's one of our main principles. The benefits of this are twofold; firstly, it makes sure content is verifiable, and secondly it ensures that we keep our focus on things which are of encyclopaedic importance, rather than being an indiscriminate collection of information.

The golden rule is that, for an independent article to exist, there needs to have been published significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The question is, does this exist for your house?

If there is information that exists, but has not been published, I'm afraid this could not form the basis of a Wikipedia article, as it counts as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

From the sound of things, all the data you have would probably be considered original research if published through Wikipedia.

However, has the house been covered by newspapers or other publications? These could be useful reliable sources for an article draft. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Luke's correct of course. Though if your house is listed as a historic building, on an official State/national historic register etc. (or been studied in a book) there may be official reports you can base an article on. Otherwise there may be a local museum or historical society who might be interested in your documents? Sionk (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anna, welcome to the Teahouse! If I'm not mistaken, your house and its original owner seem to be both mentioned and pictured in Wikipedia's article Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina, including a citation to an apparently reliable source. If you have more information from published reliable sources, you could add it there. Photographs and other images compatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements (for example because they are out of copyright or because the person who took the photo wishes to freely license it) can be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons. If you end up collating, in the existing article Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina, citations to a significant amount of coverage of the house in multiple independent reliable sources, you could then perhaps think of starting a separate article about the house itself. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

What to do about edits that are of poor quality

I am having an issue while editing a certain article. Another wikipedia member has been editing the article. The edits are mostly relevant and are well-sourced. However, the other editor is often 1) lifting material straight from the source (which has terrible grammar and formatting) and pasting it directly into the article, and/or 2) Paraphrasing the text in terrible English/grammar.

I have been reverting any of 1). When he does 2), I've been adjusting by simply cleaning up all his posts and posting on his talk page reminding while meeting the quality standards. However, he continues to post in broken English, leaving me or other future editors to clean his work up. I want to discourage him from doing that, but am not sure how as the things he posts, as long as they are not plagiarized, are usually relevant and sourced. Plus, even if I do simply undo his work, he just comes in and re-does it.Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse PinkFloyd11. (great band btw) Sorry you are having issues with another editor. To start with can you give more detail about which article you are referring to? Have you tried leaving comments on the Talk page of the article? Also, you can try contacting the editor directly on their User talk page. To provide more feedback though we really need to know which article you are referring to. RedDog (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is Karna. I haven't left a note on the talk page of the article well, because 1) it is not well-moderated, and 2) because I could not follow the talk page. The English on it is absolutely awful...I wasn't even sure where to begin. Frankly, from what I could gather from the talk page, the way the article has been moderated has not at all met the wikipedia standards. I have tried to contact the editor directly on his talk page. However, he merely says that "everything he has is sourced" and continues to post, often reverting my reverts and changing my sourced edits. He also hasn't really responded to my allegations that some of his material is not relevant to the article-in-question. The editor in question is Arjunkrishna90. I've also talked to him about the fact that the one source he uses is just that, one source, and definitely not a source of complete authority. He has not responded to this discussion yet. He hasn't really addressed the main issue of plagiarism and poor English. Even in his responses to me, his English is fractioned and broken.Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Talk page of Karna is a bit of a mess. For some reason a user named Yajna93 WITCH-KINGG keeps posting a long block of incoherent text. I deleted it once but since it's there several times I'm not sure if an admin should take more action to contact Yajna93 WITCH-KINGG so I left the other ones there for now. I don't have much experience or interest in politely telling people to stop adding junk to Wikipedia so I'm going to leave that for a more experienced editor. However, just because a Talk page has some crud doesn't mean we stop using it. The Talk page for that article seems fairly active to me (although I just took a quick look). Also, I noticed that Arjunkrishna90 has left a message to you PinkFloyd11 on your talk page which as far as I can tell you haven't responded to. I don't know anything about this subject so I can't judge at all on the content discussion but it looks like Arjunkrishna90 is following the proper procedure. I also noticed the two of you are reverting a lot of each other's changes. I suggest you try not to get into an wp:edit war RedDog (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have responded to Arjunkrishna90 on HIS talk page. You might have noticed that Arjunkrishna90 has been reprimanded in the past for vandalism and nonconstructive edits. I posted here specifically to avoid getting into an edit war.Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I missed that. I apologize if I seemed to imply you were in the wrong there. RedDog (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article

How many hours of work does it take to get an article from B status to a featured article? Eaamed (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Depends on the article. Something like Gagak Item goes a lot faster than something like Sea or Jesus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Eaamed. As Crisco said it's really not possible to give an answer to such a general question. It depends so much on the article. If it's a controversial article it will take a lot longer because people have to reach a consensus. Also, and each editor is different of course, but I think it's better not to focus too much on the status of the article. Those things are needed but they kind of take care of themselves IMO. I think the most productive approach is just to focus on making the articles better rather than worrying about the status grade. RedDog (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Hi, I've just moved Wetti, Monk of Reichenau (a newly-created article) to Wetti of Reichenau. There are two problems, though: 1) Unlike the old title, "Wetti of Reichenau" doesn't autocomplete when typing it out in the searchbox. 2) As we already have Wettinus Augiensis, I think a merger should be made, but don't know how to do it without losing the article history. Cheers,

PS, No need for a message on my talk, I'll be keeping an eye here. Coco Lacoste (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It can take a day or so for the search database to update, so hopefully by this time tomorrow the autocomplete should work. As far as Wettinus Augiensis is concerned, it is an unsourced stub, so it doesn't look as if there is any significant history to be merged. I would have thought that you could convert Wettinus Augiensis to a redirect to Wetti of Reichenau, though it may make sense to suggest that first at Talk:Wettinus Augiensis (in case anyone is still showing any interest there) to make sure that there is no disagreement on the appropriate name for the article. What little history there is of Wettinus Augiensis would of course still be preserved. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I'll redirect the page (per WP:COMMONNAME). Daft question, but just to make sure: the history will be preserved on the redirect page, right? --Coco Lacoste (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No daft questions here... and yes, the redirect page will preserve the full page history. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

starting a wiki page,

Hi, I need to make a wiki page for my project for class and I am confused on how you start one. How do I start a page without posting it? I just want to write it in wiki format but not post it. Please help if possible. Also, if there is a template or layout I can use instead, I will gladly use that. Kaylakxoxo (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kaylakxoxo, welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to use the article wizard to create a page, or you could create the page as a subpage of your user page, for example User:Kaylakxoxo/(your title here). Hope this helps! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Kaylakxoxo and welcome to the Teahouse. I noticed that your user page wasn't set up so I took the liberty of setting one up for you. Each Wikipedia user has their own page and also a special page known as the wp:sandbox. If I set things up correctly when you log in now you should see a link at the top of all your wikipedia pages that says "sandbox" in the upper right corner. Click on that and it takes you to your sandbox page. You can pretty much do whatever you want on that page. The next step is to get familiar with the wiki wp:markup language. If you are familiar with HTML wiki markup will be a breeze, it's a lot easier. If you are like me and you hate editing HTML code don't worry, the Wiki markup is much simpler, that is why wikipedia uses it's own markup language rather than HTML, it's far simpler for people like me to learn and use. Here are some more pages I would recommend you check out: wp:How_to_edit_a_page, wp:Five_pillars, wp:article_development Hope that helps get you started. RedDog (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

auto confirmed user

Is there any way around the auto-confirmed user block on certain pages? Can a first-time contributor not participate without the 10 previous posts? This post is part of a course assignment that students have been working on all term, and I am eager for them to share it! Natjolly (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)natjollyNatjolly (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's no way around it, no. The whole point of semi protection is to prevent newer users from editing the page, usually after the page had a streak of vandalism by new accounts. You can request that the protection on the article be lifted, however. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

A user can request confirmation at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed before being autoconfirmed, but a reason is required. In [2] you referred to a specific user but Special:Contributions/Smellendorf shows that user is autoconfirmed, i.e. has at least 10 edits and an account at least 4 days old. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Article meant for supplementation of existing article, not in correct form

I added text to my account home page on the subject of "Satellite DNA." Upon review, it was determined that it was not in encyclopedic format for Wikipedia. I can edit the article for the appropriate format, but I would like to add to the existing article on "Satellite DNA" rather than create a new subject page.

How do I add content to an existing article?

Thanks

Richard.F.Fowler

Richard.F.Fowler (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Richard, and welcome to The Teahouse. The best way is to be bold. You can edit the entire page by clicking on "Edit" at the top of the article, or edit a section by clicking on "Edit" in any section. If you have reliable sources and a neutral point of view you should be fine, but be aware you could be reverted and would need to discuss the change. Good luck.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Userbox requests

I was wondering if there was anyone who could make me a special Userbox. I know that you can request them through WikiProject Userboxes, but I was wondering if there was someone else who made them upon request. Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 22:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Here2HelpWiki. I once asked Technical 13 for help with a special userbox. Just ask politely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hello and welcome to Wikipedia Here2HelpWiki. What would you like your userbox to look like and say? Colors, text, images, links, etc... Feel free to browse the collection of boxes I have made so far and leave a message on my talk page with details and I'll see what I can make you. I'm also a member of WikiProject Userboxes and would've seen your request there as well. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove part of citation

I want to remove part of citation 7 on the LANDFIRE page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LANDFIRE

Citation is: Cushman, Samuel; Carol Miller, Donald Falk (2011). McKenzie, Miller, Falk (eds), ed. The Landscape Ecology of Fire. Springer Netherlands. pp. 223–245. ISBN 978-94-007-0301-8.

I want to remove the ISBN number (it goes nowhere). I already attempted to remove what followed the ISBN information, which may be what the message is referring to, and which could be why I get the message: "Unknown parameter |= ignored."

When I click on help, I read what the problem is, but there isn't a solution to just remove everything from the ISBN to the end. How can I do that? 173.160.41.145 (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Why do you say that the ISBN goes nowhere; the link goes to Special:BookSources/9789400703018, which gives links to let you find the book from a choice of sources. The error you are getting is from where you have said |=Modeling Landscape Fire and Wildlife Habitat; it isn't clear which parameter of the {{cite web}} template this was intended to be. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Going back several versions I see that the parameter name now missing was authorlink, so I've put that back in. It gives a redlink, so someone may wish to check further as to where it was trying to link to. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Those Things

What are the things people put on articles that need attention? Also, how do you make one?Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 20:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

They are Tags. You may put them in {{template brackets where they are needed, but I suggest reading the relevant policies such as WP:NPP first, where tags are often added. Thanks, Matty.007 20:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to create one?Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 20:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That would need discussion, probably at the Village Pump or someplace similar. Thanks, Matty.007 20:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for your help!Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Why Can I not create a certain link?

I was trying to create a link to another Wikipedia page, but once done, it does not show up.Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Which code did you try to use? If it works when you post it here then where did you try to use it when it didn't work? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Make sure that you have square brackets either side of the page you want to link to, and that you aren't trying to link in between a <!-- Thing that looks like this -->, and it's not in a <nowiki> tag. Thanks, Matty.007 20:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank You!Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 20:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This has happened to me before as well. The Wiki software can be picky on issues such as capitalization. One way to be certain is to use the Widget that looks like links in a chain. Instead of adding the brackets yourself select the text you think is a link, highlight it, then click the link icon. You will get a pop up window that says "link found" or "link not found" and also you will see a list of links that are close to the spelling of the word or phrase you highlighted and you can tweak either the actual name of the article or the words used to present it in the text using that window. RedDog (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Need to work with an editor to update corporate pages.

Hi there - I'm an employee of Sirius XM Canada and I'm hoping to work with an editor to update the information across some of the channel entries and the corporate entry. The editor that was most recently updating the SiriusXM Canada page doesn't have a talk page I can write on. If someone could give me so assistance/advice, that would be hugely appreciated. Andrewburnssxm (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew and welcome to The Teahouse. I looked to see who was editing the Sirius XM Canada page and most of them have talk pages. Even the ones that don't can be reached if you create the talk page; just click on the red "talk" link. The problem with IPs is that they may not always have the same IP every time they edit.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

articles labeled as has having grammar, spelling, or clarity issues

Once these articles have been improved, is there a way to remove them from the list of articles that need improvement? For example, I improved these articles:

Professional-managerial class

Poor Little Rich Girl: The Barbara Hutton Story

Honda Sport 90

But when I go to them, they are still listed as needing to be fixed. Is there somewhere within the articles that can be deleted to take it off this list?RickyDix (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the list of articles that need improvement"? Could you give us a link please? And I've changed the URLs in your question to wikilinks. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Tha landing for new users of Special:GettingStarted something or other. KonveyorBelt 18:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the "getting Started" thing, I assumed there was a list or something of articles that needed improvements. I just wondering what or who decided whether an article no longer needs improvements, and how to get rid of the gray bar above a page saying that it can use editing. 19:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Any editor (including you, RickyDix), can remove the tags showing problems with an article, assuming that you have verified that the problems that led to the tagging have been resolved. Simply edit the article and delete the wikicode that created the tag. Once the tag is gone, the article will no longer appear on lists of articles containing that particular tag. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused, Cullen. Which tags are you talking about? I can't see any sign of the usual sort of maintenance tag on the current version of any of those 3 articles, which is why I was asking what the OP meant by "the list of articles that need improvement". - David Biddulph (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Honda Sport 90 article, for example, was tagged as needing references by Dennis Bratland in late October, David Biddulph. It now has four references and the tag is gone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The tag was removed weeks before the question was asked, hence my confusion. I see that in reply to a later question on this page you have suggested that it may be a caching problem, so hopefully that will resolve it. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Complete color User pages

I see that many people have User pages that have a background color. Please tell me how to do this.Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 18:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I see you have already added <div style="background-color:skyblue;"> to your user page after posting here. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Sorry. After Posting I did some more search and found an example, which I copied and changed the color. Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Importing user created HTML documents

Hi,

I have created a web page that has a folder that includes images, js, etc. Is there a way to upload the web page with the folder of data from my HD to the Wiki page?

Thanks, Brian Lisbri01 (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Brian. It sounds as if you want to take HTML and somehow integrate that with a Wikipedia article. No, that can't be done, sorry. Wikipedia uses it's own markup language which is described here: wp:markup. It is similar to HTML but not the same and you can't paste or otherwise include HTML content in a Wikipedia article. It's a requirement for any Wikipedia article that it be formatted using the wikipedia markup language not HTML. If you have a page that meets the standard for an wp:external link you can include HTML pages on other sites as external links in an article but any direct link within the article has to go to another Wikipedia article formatted using Wiki markup. RedDog (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

One more thing you might find useful, here is a discussion of how to use HTML tags within Wiki markup: Help:HTML_in_wikitext RedDog (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks RedDog. I didn't think it was possible, but it never hurts to ask. The worst they can do for asking is to laugh in your face. :-)

Brian Lisbri01 (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

creating an article page

i am having difficulty actually creating my desired page. how do you begin to build your page?Evanross95.er (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. A good starting point is WP:1st, but I've added a number of user useful links onto your user talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Where can i go to see all templates.

Where can i find templates such as a clock whether a user is online or not, ect.Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 15:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The not very accurate clock I use for my local time (shown below) is {{User:Tkgd2007/Userboxes/My time|GMT}} (replace GMT with your timezone). One's online status is not public, and I don't believe the website software actually records when you're online, only the instants when you commit an edit (Facebook and Google may track your every move, but Wikipedia is much more mindful of your privacy). For a gallery of Userboxes you can add to your Userpage, see Wikipedia:Userboxes#Gallery.

It is approximately where this user lives.

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I see many people that on their web page, have something that says something like this user is online, busy, offline, ect. How do they do this?Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A couple of answers from the past: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 April 28#Those status thingies and Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2006 November 27#Online/Offline. With a Wikipedia search you can find more. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank You! I appreciate your help! Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your heading mentioned "all templates". There are tens or hundreds of thousands of templates so a complete list is not practical but Special:AllPages/Template: is the closest we have. It's complicated by subtemplates and some pages used as templates being in userspace and not template space. You can click edit on a page to see how it did something. Special:Search has an "Advanced" link where you can choose to only search template and/or userspace. The subcategories of Category:Wikipedia templates has many but far from all templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

How to cite personal knowledge of fact?

I've got a problem - I've written a biography of my mother, Mabel R. Hokin, who was a biochemist who made some important discoveries. It just got promoted from AfC to the main encyclopedia (surprisingly, because it was reviewed critically for having too personal a style and not citing enough sources, legit complaints). The problem is that a bunch of things I write in the article are simply known as fact to me and my family and anyone that knew my mother, but they are not published. For example, the fact that she was blacklisted from entry into the US from 1951 to 1957 due to socialist activity as a student in the UK. That is, naturally, undocumented, but is a very interesting (and scientifically important) fact known to many people including all of her colleagues. In a journal article I can cite "Sam Hokin:personal communication" in instances where you get information directly from a colleague or expert. I gather that's not allowed in Wikipedia. Or is it? Is there a way I can replace [citation needed] with something that explains that it's a "known fact" to the author? Sammyjava (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Such practice is known as Original Research and is explicitly forbidden by the rules we have developed here. Please remove from the article all statements that cannot be supported by published sources. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sammyjava. I'm afraid that you're absolutely correct - personal communications aren't acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. The basic requirement here is that all of Wikipedia's content be verifiable, meaning that readers can (in theory at least) check the sources themselves. Obviously, a conversation that you've had is by its very nature unverifiable, unless it was recorded in some way - and even then, we would require that it had been reliably published as well. I'm sorry, but you cannot use personal recollection as a source here. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Understood. It's a pity, since the non-verifiable (but true) stuff is of more general interest. That's the stuff a lot of people would be interested in (e.g. McCarthy Era blacklisting) rather than the specific biochemistry discoveries. But I'll remove the non-verifiable statements.

Sammyjava (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are underestimating what may be available. Your references do not have to be available online. There are numerous books available on the McCarthy era. There are also primary sources available (Congressional Record), which while not the best sources, are sources. Also, you could attempt to get a newspaper to interview you and do an article on what you know. That would then be a verifiable secondary source. I don't know what size community you live in, but many newspapers are hungry for feature type sources. John from Idegon (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to Tidy up my Talk Page

What can i delete on my talk page that I wont get in trouble with wikipedia for. Or is there another way?Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 14:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You can delete anything you like (things are stored in the history anyway), however the approach of archiving that I see you've done is usually preferable. You can have multiple archives for different date ranges for extra tidiness, you can see how I've divided mine up at User_talk:LukeSurl. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As a guideline, try not to archive/delete any discussions that are currently ongoing with another editor. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Submission declined, don't see why.

Hi, my submission about British choreographer Douglas Lee has been declined due to lack of evidence of notability. I added various citations by independent sources and there already is a German Wikipedia page about him. Thanks for your help! Benni Berlin (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Benni. Did you have a look at the notability guidelines for people that was linked at the top of your submission? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have read the guidelines and find the basic and many of the additional criteria fulfilled. Douglas Lee's work has been contracted by the most important ballet theatres in the world, he has been critiqued in international press, he has been awarded by elite ballet organizations and his work is in the permanent repertoire of various ballet companies. I don't know what else to add.

Benni Berlin (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your best bet at the moment then is to leave a message with the editor who reviewed it and find out why they declined your submission. You can then work with them to sort the issue or issues out. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The submission Douglas Lee (choreographer) has been accepted and moved to the mainspace of the encyclopedia. --15:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot!

Benni Berlin (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Why My Page titled " Shahid Jamil Ahmad Writer & Poet from Punjab, Pakistan" not being considered for wikipedia.

I have created my page titled " Shahid Jamil Ahmad Writer & Poet from Punjab, Pakistan. He has written/published 8-literary books including 4 of Urdu short stories and his Urdu short stories are continuously being published in leading Urdu magazines, then why his profile not being added in Wikipedia?Muhammad Shaban 08:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Shaban shahid (talk • contribs)

Hello Muhammad, welcome to the Teahouse! Your article submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shahid Jamil Ahmad,Writer&Poet from Punjab,Pakistan. is waiting to be reviewed. There are over two thousand other article submissions also waiting to be reviewed, so it could take several weeks for a reviewer to get to it.

You should have a look at existing Wikipedia Good Articles about writers at Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature#Writers, publishers and critics to get an idea of what sort of references your submission will need to be accepted, and how to format your submission. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

should the plot summary in this article be changed?

article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Little_Rich_Girl:_The_Barbara_Hutton_Story

I did some edits to this page, and it seems like the plot summary is only for part 1 of the movie/miniseries. Should the current plot summary just be replaced? It is the most detailed summary I could find, but it appears to be written by someone just recalling what they saw, and probably is not a full summary of the entire film.RickyDix (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RickyDix. Please read How to write a plot summary, and feel free to improve the article accordingly. People do write plot summaries based on viewing or reading the work in question, although reading reviews and material describing the work can also be helpful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to make a new synopsis that gives a full summary of the film and keeps the detail of the old summaryRickyDix (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Straightening up a Column

I have begun a tedious task but think it will be helpful to researchers, and I want to do a good job on this subject, The Harvard Monthly. I've begun adding the indexes to this journal and am not quite halfway through the first volume of the first year... there are about thirty years to go. The indexes are valuable in research because the reprints available for sale (this is something out of copyright) don't have indexes, and anyone wishing to locate the college work of, say, ee cummings, could look at this Wikipedia entry and discover where it might be found. Plus, it might knock someone's socks off to see who wrote for this journal, once everyone is listed.

So, here is my question: Take a peek at the entry for The Harvard Monthly, way down at the bottom where I have begun this task, and tell me how I might make that right-hand column prettier. I'm cleverly using the "poetry" device, but there may be something that straightens-up that raggedy right-side.

Thanks for all your help. Kathrynklos (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kathrynklos. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Adding 32 years of index information to the article would make it extremely long and unwieldy. I suggest that you limit yourself to mentioning works by notable people such as e.e. cummings, not every article the magazine ever published. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Whist I do agree with Cullen's comment - listing journal indexes really isn't something that falls within Wikipedia's remit - if you choose to mention notable articles/authors in a list like this then I would suggest either a basic bulleted list or a simple table, either of which would be in keeping with Wikipedia's usual formatting. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess my main question is "how do I make this better than it is?" I already mentioned the famous folks who contributed to this journal. I spent 10 hours a day for a couple weeks working on this article, pulling together everything I could possibly find without actually traveling to Harvard and getting into the libraries there. And the article was assigned the B-level, indicating there was more work to be done. So I thought, "do they want the entire contents of each issue?" Didn't think so. But I know from the work I've done on other projects, hunting-down the poetry of certain people in these old journals, that unless you have the index, you can be SOL-- or in need of a ticket to Boston and a library card at Harvard. So I thought perhaps an index was what was needed. I don't want to presume who someone else might consider significant, and I listed as many names of people who are already in the Wikipedia as I could discover without a trip to Harvard (the only place that has all the issues of every year, I am thinking. They are all scanned and for sale on Amazon, but without indexes.)

My other thought would be to list the editors for each year... at least, that would pare-down the total volume of the article... and save me a boatload of time.

How else could this article be made "better"?

Sorry if I am a pest. Kathrynklos (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please check out what I've changed on The Harvard Monthly. I do like it much better, simply listing the staffs for each year. Will take me a while to dig up the other years because I only have vol. I-II in my possession. I will link names to Wikipedia biographies where possible.

Other than continuing with this, what else might I do (I also like putting images in empty areas and will continue doing that).Kathrynklos (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Need Help - Few Anti-Social Elements Keep Modifying A Page & Add Irrelevant Material

Hello,

I'd like to know how to protect the contents of the page which is keep modified by anti-social elements, it's clearly noticeable that all the edits which they make, appear to constitute vandalism to a reputed person of our society.

Let me tell you in brief, I've been contributing and writing a matter for a page and for some reasons I couldn't spare time to contribute in last few months and few anti-social activists, spammers etc... whose purpose is just to write irrelevants matters, they deleted all the matter which I wrote and started writing issues which has no concern with that person, is it acceptable?

Yesterday, I spent couple of hours to read the whole matter which was written by them and went through all the references which were posted on that page and found all of them were irrelevant and straight forwardly shows someone wants to defame the person who belongs to that page. I found all the edits were unconstructive to Wikipedia, I reverted them to original page content and today again I found someone changed the whole page matter.

Now in this scenario what should I do, does that mean if I contribute my time, energy, efforts in good way and add value to Wikipedia and then someone or few spammers or people who are against of that person would create few accounts on wikipedia and delete all the matter of a page and write whatever they want to write. Let me also tell you as far as references are concerned someone can write a fake blog post and link to it as a reference to defame a famous person, in this case what's the solution?

Regards Devoutly (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Devoutly. You need to go to the article's talk page and calmly discuss the edits you think should appear in the article; why the edits you removed do not belong; why the sources you wish to use are reliable; why the sources others have placed are not or are undue weight or are improperly point of view and so on. You need to stop calling people who disagree with you anti-social spammers, and comment on the content rather than the people. Note that if the people appeared to be actual spammers, vandals, etc. or clearly so I would be telling you this. Simply put, they do not, and you are involved in a content dispute. Whether you are right, whether you are wrong, whether there is no right and wrong and a compromise consensus can and should be reached, you are very likely to fail to get what you seek if you start the discussion with name calling rather than calm, respectful discussion of content; it poisons the well and makes people not bother to listen to what you have to say. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Devoutly. The article in question is about Asaram Bapu, a controversial Hindu preacher in India. Please do not call people with different opinions than yours "anti-social elements" as this could well be considered a personal attack. One of our core principles on Wikipedia is to assume good faith of other editors, unless you have proof that they are not here to build the encyclopedia. Vandalism has a very specific meaning here, and these edits don't qualify. The article must accurately summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about this person, and you must be prepared to accept that if you plan to keep contributing to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answering Let's discuss it let me tell you, neither I'm in the favor of Asaram Bapu nor against of but I do say or write based on true facts so please stop calling him a controversial Hindu preacher in India unless you know anything about him, if you understand Hindi language then I invite and welcome you to show couple of facts which clearly shows he is an innocent person and devoted his life for the well-being of poor people. I always support the truth, if anyone is trouble and he or she is honest & innocent then I'm there to help them. I really surprise people who are from India they know all the facts but even then if someone says him controversial person then either the person is involved in controversy which is running by paid media in India to defame him because he so popular among common people because of his good work or the other reason is, the person knows nothing about Asaram Bapu. I still do respect everybody's opinion but they must understand they have no rights to abuse or allege anybody. The law is meant to allege if someone has done anything wrong so till the time nothing is proved, no one has any rights to spoil someone's reputation by allege him/her with fake accuses. If someones abuse us or alleges us with fake allegations then we do understand what vandalism but not when it is done to others, I understand. It happens actually in all countries, the people who do good work is often has to bare criticism and bottom line is truth always wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devoutly (talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say about a topic, in the belief that doing so will result in an article that best approximates the "truth" about a topic, Devoutly. There is consensus here that many of the major English language newspapers of India are reliable sources for current events in India. I do not speak Hindi but I do speak English and my reading of English language newspapers in India make it crystal clear to me that the use of the word "controversial" with regards to this person is proper and correct. Only the courts can decide who is innocent or guilty, but we can report that a person has been legally accused, if and only if that is widely and extensively reported in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, or to campaign for justice, as you see it. If the subject of the article is exonerated, then that will be added to the biography promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WYSIWYG math

Is there are program/method where I can incorporate math equations with a WYSIWYG interface? Hshekhani (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably not I'm afraid. LaTeX is quite a complicated beast and it is not designed to work in a WYSIWYG way. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no WYSIWG equation editor for Wikipedia articles, but LaTeX is quite easy to learn. Most of what you need to do can be accomplished with "^" (superscript), "_" (subscript), "{...}" (apply preceeding format to everything inside brackets) and a small number of commands such as "\frac", "\sqrt", "\sum" and "\int". Anything more complicated can be looked up at Help:Displaying a formula. That Help page also has plenty of examples, or you can just go into edit mode on any Wikipedia page to see how its equations are written in LaTex. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Actually you can use LYX and then copy paste your equations into wikipedia. I was just looking for a more integrated solution. Cool

Hshekhani (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

does this article no longer need "issue warnings"?

I recently edited this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional-managerial_class

I'm wondering if it still needs the "warning" signs saying that it is vague, needs references, etc?

Edit: I may revise it more, but I'm still wondering what process has to happen to decide whether a page that previously had "warning signs" can be decided to no longer have the "warning signs".

RickyDix (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. When you feel you have addressed the issues noted by a maintenance tag (the banners across the top of the page that you were referencing), you are welcome to remove it, as you did. If another editor disagrees and still feels a need for them to be there, that is when you can engage in a discussion of their concerns. Thank you for bringing this up, and happy editing! Go Phightins! 03:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

ThanksRickyDix (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

RickyDix, the first reference in the article, which is the most important, is badly scrambled. It would be great if you could fix it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that outRickyDix (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

references

I can't seem to get a reference to link up,can you help, I have had great help already and I thank you Is my article ready to go yet? Enuejel (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. What is the webpage/book/etc. that you are trying to use and which facts in the article does it support? If you tell us this we can help you with the coding.

Ideally we would want an inline reference at the end of each paragraph to show where this information has come from. For example, how do you know the facts that you have written in the Early Life section? Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor

What program do you use to edit wikipedia articles easily? For example LYX can be used to easily make LATEX documents.

Is there a program with a simple interface that I can use to copy paste a wiki article?

Thanks Hshekhani (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Hshekhani, welcome. Wikipedia has a WYSIWYG editor called VisualEditor that you can use to edit. To activate it click the "Preferences" link at the top right of your page, and then go to the "Editing" tab at the top. Scroll to the bottom and you will see a checkbox to enable VisualEditor. Hope this helps! I am confused by your last question, "Is there a program with a simple interface that I can use to copy paste a wiki article?". Can you rephrase that for me? Thanks, Ross Hill (talk) 22:01, 17 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for you answer. You understood my question correctly.

Hshekhani (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure of proceedure for joining Wiki Projects

I have a new article Frank Richardson(policeman). I have received a Wikipedia note that it is suitable for 1. WikiProject Biography and 2. Law Enforcement Project. Both require me to join, which seems a good idea to me, but I am confused by all the text involved in the two pages of project details. (ie how to join) I must be having a bad day. Can you help me join the two projects in the simplest way possible? Is it done by adding the four tildes to the members list? TimothyWF (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TimothyWF. The article has been listed under those two Wikiprojects, and a third as well. You are not required to join, but rather you and any other interested editor are invited to join. It is optional. The Wikiproject listings on the talk page of the article you wrote, have blue links for joining. Usually, this involves adding your name to the end of the appropriate member list, normally by adding # plus four tildes. You can also add a note about your interests. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Blue Link

I have edited a Bio and have listed a graphic novel title. How do I make it a "blue link"?Roc N Rose (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Roc N Rose and welcome to the Teahouse. I am assuming that Wikipedia has an article about the graphic novel. If so, you add double square brackets before and after the title, like this:

[[Graphic novel title]]

Put the exact Wikipedia article title inside the double square brackets. That's all it takes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Blue links indicate that the page being linked to exists, so if you are seeing a red link that means either the page doesn't exist or you haven't linked to it quite properly. Having checked your edit, it seems that you didn't wikilink to the article; to wikilink add double square brackets around the word like so: [[Michael Easton]]. The page for Credence doesn't appear to exist, however, so it's best not to wikilink for now. Hope this helps! Samwalton9 (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi Roc N Rose. wikilinks are created by putting [[double square brackets]] around a word. For example [[cheese]] produces a link to the cheese article.

You can also create a link that says one thing, but links to another. We call this a piped link. To do this, open your square brackets, write the name of the target article, write a "pipe" character "|" (I get this by pressing shift and the "\" key, but your keyboard may be different), then the words you want to appear. For example [[cheese|gone-off milk]] produces gone-off milk.

You can do both of these things easily with the menubar when you edit. If you highlight the word you want to make into a link, then click the "link" button (it looks like a chain), you get a nice pop-up window to help you.

Now, in the case of Michael Easton, we do not currently have an article for his 2031 novel Credence. That's normal, as most individual books aren't the subject of specific articles. So in this case I would advise you not to create a link. (n.b. If you create a link to an article that does not currently exist, it will be a red link.)

Hope that helps! --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox query

I had an article in a subpage which was put up within hours yesterday. As I wanted to work on the next one in quiet I did so in the sandbox only to be told that it might take weeks or even months to be reviewed when submitted. Is the message here: Don't use your sandbox for new articles?Julius Eugen (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Julius. You can easily create an additional sandbox at User:Julius Eugen/sandbox2. You can also create a new draft in the Articles for Creation zone, for example at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The_name_of_your_new_draft_article. I agree that it's messy. Luckily, wheels are turning to create a new Draft zone for article submission.

It's great that you're keen to create new articles, but its only one of the many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. There are over 4 million articles that currently exist, and you can edit and improve any one of them.

Hope that helps! --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The sandbox item I submitted is a translation of a German article, so it should not present serious reviewing problems, but never mind. In the German Wikipedia when you work on an article you just paste in a code that says "Building site" and delete it once you have finished. Not a bad idea. I have my eyes on a few stubs as regards editing. Cheers.Julius Eugen (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The English wikipedia has similar templates, including the New Page template, which is only meant to be used for a freshly created article that you plan on editing in a "single" session (as in, without logging off and continuing hours or days later); the In creation template, for prematurely created articles (such as creating an article with all of one sentence, no refs, no infobox, etc.) that are planned to be brought up to scratch through multiple succesive edits within the next minutes to hours; the In use template for current, actively happening major editing (as in, edit is being worked on right now) to an already existing article, and the Under construction template, for massive restructuring or expanding which might take place over a few hours. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

What to do when there's an article on a topic already, but only in another language.

Hi, I've only ever done some minor editing. I was about to take a stab at my first article, when I discovered that the historical figure already has an article posted. However, the article is in German and is on the de.wikipedia.org page; there is no article in English. I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to write a second article, just in another language, and if I do so, whether the two pages should be somehow linked to each other. If writing an English article isn't appropriate, I'm not sure what should be done. Any help or advice would be appreciated! CvilleDan (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi CvilleDan. Absolutely! Please do write an article on this individual here on the English Wikipedia. Make sure to cite all the sources that the German page cites, and if you can track down and cite any extra ones in English that would be a bonus. The information at Wikipedia:Your first article may be useful to you. As for linking the two articles, we do this through wikidata, you can find information on this at WP:Interwiki links. There's also some more information that might be helpful at Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate. Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

How do I change the subject/title title of a draft-stage article?

How do I change the subject/title title of a draft-stage article?Grid1312 (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

We call the process of re-naming here "moving". Drafts can be moved just like any other page. See Wikipedia:MOVE#How_to_move_a_page. Make sure to keep Articles for creation/ at the front of the new title to make sure it stays as a draft. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

New article in line for editor review, but may not need it?

Hello Teahouse! What a great place. Thanks for your help.

I created an article this evening regarding a notable Canadian jockey. I created the article in Wikipedia's Article Wizard, and was taken to the draft submission page. After writing the article, I submitted for editor review, but received notice that the system is severely backlogged. My article is nothing of significant importance unless a person is interested in the particular topic, so I wondered if the editing process is necessary. Maybe I am taking up space for more important articles? I have additional information to add in the coming days, including a fantastic 100 year old image, but otherwise the article is short and complete. My formatting is probably weak because I'm a newbie, but it doesn't require complex formatting. Thanks in advance! InfoKlepto (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey InfoKlepto. The article is a great start. Thanks for contributing. I have reformatted the existing references you provided for better attribution, but the article is missing any inline citations. For a simple guide to place them, see Help:Referencing for beginners#Manual referencing. This missing element – inline citations – is the main issue anyone reviewing the article will likely note. What you would do is place each existing citation inside of <ref>...</ref> tags, then move them into the body of the article next to the text it verifies, and then place in the references section the template {{reflist}}, which will tell the software to display the references there. In the text, each place you pasted a citation inside of the ref tags, would show as a footnote (e.g.^[1][2]). To the extent you might consider that "complex formatting", it is nevertheless necessary for a verifiable article. You are not taking up space for "more important articles" and some dishearteningly high percentage of the other articles in the backlog will be properly rejected, unlike yours, as promotional write ups about business or products without any reliable sources cited or as on non-notable topics. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

References

I wrote an article and it was declined with the following explanation: Please combine inline and end references. Please read WP:CITEFOOT] and correct prior to re-submission. I think I have corrected it properly. Would someone please look at it to tell me if I have done this the accepted way? Thank you.Camimack (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks good to me, Camimack. I suggest that you wikilink to relevant articles, like Andy Warhol for example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much.68.193.208.226 (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

National Flags

How can i place the small flags next to eg. An athlete's, politician's or celebrity's name or birthplace?

VAJJDS (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome VAJJDS. I have had a look at several athletes/politicians/celeb pages and I couldn't find these mini flags you speak of. Could you find me a page with one on so I can help you out? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

@VAJJDS: Hey VAJJDS. Flags like this are usually used in infoboxes and similar templates and not generally in the body of an article. There are different ways to place them but fairly commonly it is done through the {{flagicon}} template. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template for lots more information.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

But they should not normally be used in infoboxes as MOS:ICON#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes states "flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field" - Arjayay (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Article title change

How do I change the name of an article (not that significant of a change), and make sure visitors to Wikipedia can still find the article through a redirect of its old name? Transphasic (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This page will show you how to move a page to a page with a different name. Once the page has been moved, the old page will automatically be set to redirect to the new page. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

How to discuss a proposed new artice

I want to write a fresh article on TRIREMES. I have already made a few edits to the existing article,and they have survived so far, but now I want to propose something more radical. How can I get in touch with the author and/or editor of the existing Trireme article? Alec Tilley (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean trireme, the ship? Please discuss it in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history discussion page. There are many naval history specialists there. The Yeti 15:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Alec. While The Yeti's advice is good in this case, the general answer is that that is what the article's talk page Talk:trireme is for. Note that "the author and/or editor" is not usually meaningful: hundreds of people may have worked on an article, and nobody is its "owner" or "moderator". If you pick the "history" tab, you can see who has edited it and when. --ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I went through trireme and it seems to be a good article with proper references and citations of sources. If you want to write something really radical about an ancient ship, it may fall under original research. The Yeti 12:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

page deleted

Reason: (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event)) my question is how to add explanation of significance? Golden-glitter (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Golden-glitter. "Significance" is used as another word for "notability", which in Wikipedia speak means that the subject has been written about by people unrelated to the subject in reliable published places (it is not the same as "famous" or "important"). Please see Wikipedia:notability for more explanation. --ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

how to delete video content that does not meet copyright?

how to delete video content that does not meet copyright?

Freeryde007 (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Freeryde007. Please read our Policy on copyright violations, which includes specific instructions on how to tag and report suspected violations. This is a very important matter with significant legal implications, so thank you for dealing with it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

@Freeryde007: (e/c) Hey Freeryde007. I could likely give more tailored advice if you specified what file this is about but, if the file is local (i.e., not hosted at the Wikimedia Commons), there are essentially three overarching things you can do to seek deletion. First, there is speedy deletion. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Files. Note that each criterion has listed below it the template(s) one uses to nominate a page for speedy deletion under that criterion. If the file is a blatant copyright violation, you can go directly to CSD F9, do not pass go. Second, for when you think the file might or not be okay and want help in ascertaining the file's source and/or copyright status, you can list the article at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files (but you might also ask about it first at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions). Third, and I'm only listing for completeness because it's not geared toward copyright issues, though they do arise there, is Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Cullen328 and Fuhghettaboutit, many thanks! Our video vendor who converted video from mp4 to ogv for future upload forgot to take the 'test' file down. So, when we uploaded same name, his file appeared as same or 'another file.' So, this version is not authorized and needs to be deleted. I sent him an email, and 'talk' message, but no response yet. So, I just want to tag it for deletion.

Thanks again Freeryde007 (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

@Freeryde007: Hey again. I have turned the file posted above into a link since, especially with a claimed copyright issue, the file should not be displayed. So, it is a Commons file. As I indicated above that is entirely different than if it was a local file. I see you have figured out how to nominate it at Commons:Deletion requests, though that was not necessary. Since you are the uploader, you could have asked for speedy deletion under section G7 of the Commons speedy deletion criterion (among others). You still can actually. You would edit the file page and add at the top {{Speedydelete|Reason}}, maybe using something like:

{{Speedydelete|Requesting speedy deletion under G7 as uploader and under F1 as an (unintentional) copyvio; file was mistakenly uploaded because it had the same name as another file on the computer being used and is not a free image; I also made a Commons:Deletion request as seen below - don't forget to close that}}

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that speedy deletion upon request of the author is only possible within 7 days of uploading. Afterwards a regular DR is required. The Yeti 14:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the info. But it meets F1, which has no such time component, yes?.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not an obvious copyvio, it is quite possible that the uploader owns the copyright. So it is up to the admins on Commons to decide. The Yeti 14:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with years of deletion here, I can tell you that you rarely get more certitude than when the creator of content themselves admits text they added is a copyvio. That may not be quite as apt for files but I am betting many admins at Commons would not hesitate to delete a file under F1 when the uploader themselves asserts it's a copyvio, as is the case here. Anyway, the deletion request remains in the file if speedy is not an option. It's just that with copyvios we try to remove them of them as fast as possible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Uploader is 'my guy' for video. Solid guy - just forgot to take it down after converting files to ogv and 'testing' w/ this upload. He emailed me and he is also making efforts to get it down. Appreciate the clarity w/ the wikipedia process. Rgds Freeryde007 (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeking Reviewers

Hello. I've just written my first Wikipedia article, which is on my User pages, and I'd appreciate some feedback.

More than that, if the article meets with approval, I'd appreciate it if another editor would post it on the Encyclopedia, because it's about a friend of mine, so I have a conflict of interests. I believe it's entirely impartial, but I want to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I'll be happy to address any doubts, criticism, etc. Jim Crutchfield, a/k/a Jdcrutch (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on your first article Jim. If you follow the instructions at the peer review page, that should ensure you can get it reviewed (I would also explain about your conflict of interest as well). If you need any further assistance, my talk page is always open :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do that. Jdcrutch (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, and good luck with your review :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages on articles - should discussions be removed once a decision is made?

Recently had a discussion on the "Mats Lidstrom" WIKI page. On the Talk page for that entry some comments and discussion took place b about new content I had added.

Now that a decision has been made to keep that page should those comments be kept or would it be more approriate to remove them since they no longer seem relevant? JCarolHaynes (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be kept. That way, if a similar situation occurs in the future, the old discussion can be referred to when coming to a decision. -Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - appreciated. There was a related 'should we delete this' page and discussion which included all the same stuff - should it be kept in both places or would it be better to clear the article talk page? JCarolHaynes (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, keep it. I don't believe it's breaking any guidelines by being there as well. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

OK will do JCarolHaynes (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If a talk page grows long and unwieldy, JCarolHaynes, it can be archived. This keeps current discussions readily visible, and preserves older discussions for historical reference. Please see WP:ARCHIVE for information and instructions. Removing talk page discussions without good reason, such as copyright violations or personal attacks, is discouraged. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I will leave it alone. JCarolHaynes (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Red Links

If I was to create an article that was an answer to red link, would it make all red links with that name show up as blue…? Just wondering.Today's Xtra (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

But it can take a long time before the color automatically changes. A purge of a page would change the color on that page immediately. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Article review

I'm having trouble with the Talk dealy, and I really prefer not to fight with it for another seven days. Winter is coming. Can someone please review this article and provide me with their thoughts? It's my first one, so I want to make sure that it is well-thought out and executed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt19811981/Progressive_Automations

Regards.

Matt19811981 (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Matt. I haven't done a detailed review, but the immediate, crucial, issue is that the article hasn't a single reference. All the information in an article should be referenced to reliable sources (which should mostly be independent of the subject), but more specifically unless an article has the minimum number of references that establish that the subject is "notable" (in Wikipedia's special sense) it is likely to get deleted very quickly. Please see notability for corporations and Referencing for beginners. Once the article is referenced, I think it's not too bad, though sometimes the style is not really appropriate for an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone here even willing to acknowledge that I asked a question at all?

I asked a question [3] here well over 24 hours ago. I'd appreciate some sort of response. Namnagar (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I posted an answer. Sorry for the delay, but we are all volunteers here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for being grumpy. Thanks, Cullen. Namnagar (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

How do you delete an account?

I would like to make another one, but I know that Wikipedia does not want people to have more than one account.Lloyd Burgundy (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Lloyd Burgundy: Welcome back to the Teahouse. Accounts can't be deleted for legal reasons, but there are a few other options that you might be interested in. You could request renaming of your current account here. However, since you only have a few edits I think your best option would be to simply abandon your current account (and never use it again; using two accounts at the same time usually is forbidden) and create a new one. This has the added benefit of distancing yourself from any personal information you've revealed. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 16:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Jakob^{(scream about the things I've broken)}! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloyd Burgundy (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 November 2013‎ (UTC)

User:Lloyd Burgundy is a sockpuppet of User:Here2HelpWiki Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If we have a sockpuppet, why have both accounts not been blocked? - Arjayay (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Multiple accounts are only blocked if they are used abusively or in violation of policy. (I haven't looked into the accusation made here; if there's no assertion of misuse of the accounts it doesn't matter, and in any event this isn't the right forum for it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

How do we decide what to include for the ideology of a political party?

Hi! I've searched but can't find an answer. In the Ideology section of the Infobox for a political party, should we put all aspects of ideology we can reasonably prove to match that party? or should we only include ideologies which the party itself claims? To me, it seems clear that the former makes for a better article but I've had some disagreements with other editors and would like to be sure.

Thanks! Tomclarke (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom. That's a great question. What we wish to do is reflect what is said about the party in reliable sources, which in this case would primarily be news media and political commentators, with priority given to those that are neutral in their perspective. When political parties discuss their ideology, they may not be great reliable sources, as they're trying to maximise their appeal. For example, a party may describe itself as "centre-right", but all foreign media describe it as "far-right"; in that case we would go with the more reliable source.

It may be prudent to use fairly broad categories in the infobox, and then have more detailed discussions within the text.

Hope that is useful. If you can point us to a specific article we can give our 2 cents on the issue. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The article in question is Union, Progress and Democracy. In short, this is a party which describes itself as 'anti-nationalist' because it opposes nationalist movements in the Basque Country and Catalonia. In newspaper articles, Rosa Diez, party leader, has described her party as defending the unity of the Spanish nation, and called it 'unequivocally national'. The party calls for the removal of powers from Spain's autonomous regions, again in order to 'protect the nation'. In other words, the party self defines as 'anti-nationalist' but is in reality 'anti-regionalist' or more precisely, 'anti-Catalan nationalist' and 'anti-Basque nationalist', while also being 'Spanish nationalist'.

I know this is all a bit of a headache: it's an argument that has been rumbling along for about 4 years. I have tried to convince my fellow editors that if they tried to view Nationalism as a neutral term rather than intrinsically negative, they would be able to judge this more fairly. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be interested in discussing this. I tried to ask for resolution of the dispute but was advised to ask here instead. Thanks a lot for your answer: I believe it could help. Tomclarke (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think "anti-separatist" might be a useful term. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding timed text to an audio file

How do I add a timed text to the audio clip File:I Have A Dream sample.ogg? The timed text on TimedText:I Have A Dream sample.ogg.en.srt is

1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:02,000
I have a dream 

2
00:00:04,000 --> 00:00:07,000
that my four little children

3
00:00:08,000 --> 00:00:15,500
will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

4
00:00:15,501 --> 00:00:17,500
I have a dream today.

5
00:00:26,000 --> 00:00:30,000
I have a dream that one day

Olliechick (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This issue has been solved and the poster tried to remove the question but was reverted (I disagree with the revert). PrimeHunter (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a space at the start of each line, remove that and it works. Olliechick (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

who had started speaking and interaction ?

i want to know how we are able to speak so many things today.....for what did we speak ? how did we speak ?101.63.127.50 (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is not really the right place for this kind of question, as this page is for questions about how to edit Wikipedia. But if I understand correctly what you are asking, you may find useful information in the article Origin of language. If that does not answer your questions, you might be able to get some help at the language section of our Reference Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to press the 'Edit' button & pressed Save. New user.

Thank you for the scratchpad earlier. I came up here a while ago and went into Editorial without any hope of an idea of what to write. I'm not a writer. I try to write and when you see the mess I've done on one of your pages you wouldn't think I try to well. Can you take it out. It's rushed and I was in the wrong attention span. I can do better. Not trying to save credibility I don't have but if anyone reads it, well, if you can.

One more thing please. Writing on Wikipedia has simply got to be as true as it can be so What if its published and someone comes along and edits it? But that is what up here is about. Thanks. My grammar is not so good but we'll see. Thanks for your time.81.159.106.238 (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry! There's very little harm done. Someone will probably come along and undo your edit shortly. To undo it yourself, just go back to the page you edited, click the history tab, find your edit, and then click undo. It'll be listed as an option to the right of your IP address, in the edit history.

Also, please don't start your paragraphs with spaces. In Wikisyntax a space at the beginning of a line is a special formatting code, so the first line will end up looking

like this.

I couldn't find your edit under your IP address. Could you tell us where it was? Namnagar (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(Redacted)

(Redacted) Lloyd Burgundy (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are free to edit articles. As Wikipedia is able to be edited anyone. Clarkcj12 (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You are free to edit, and the way you have asked your question and expressed yourself so far leads me to believe you will do a good job. You might want to take a look at the page Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors before you begin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Lots of kids edit Wikipedia, including kids much younger than you are. (Some people think they shouldn't. Some people think kids shouldn't watch TV or drive cars or own guns. Some or all of these people may be right. Some younger kids get blocked from editing Wikipedia. Some ten-year-old editors go on to produce huge amounts of high quality content on Wikipedia by the time they are thirteen or fourteen. Some don't.)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, then if you would enjoy editing Wikipedia, you may wish to consider completely abandoning your existing account (never use it again), and create a new account where slightly less information will be found about you. For example, being on the slightly paranoid side, mentioning the U.S. county where you are based, is best avoided.

Also, don't start lines with spaces to format them... it makes a mess.

Have fun! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that it's better not to mention your place of residence, I think abandoning your account altogether is a bit much. Demiurge, the bit about owning guns strikes me as pretty irrelevant and not useful here. Lloyd Burgundy, happy editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brad, and welcome to the Teahouse! The part about TV, guns, and cars is between parentheses for a reason. I live in the UK, where gun ownership is a non-issue, and the age at which kids can drive cars (17 for now? or is it 18 already?) rather more of an issue. The point of the comparison is that lots of people have lots of different opinions about different things. And thus, if the original poster should happen to run into someone who firmly believes kids should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia, the original poster would not need to be overly dismayed, just regard it as an opinion like those about cars and TVs and guns.

Everyone is welcome to take their own approach to their own privacy, and I know you disclose your own identity publicly, but younger people should understand the risks in doing so. Or even in giving out information about themselves. I've had to discuss a particularly unpleasant case related to this recently with Jimbo, and the more I learn about it, the more it seems it's a serious issue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed part of my comment that now isn't really necessary. Go right ahead... except you might still wish to create a completely new and unlinked account if your last name is mentioned in your username. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this response, it was very helpful. I am currently 13, and though I think of myself as intelligent and well spoken, I was wondering what the age bias would be like.

Also: everyone here is overreacting to the the drinking, driving, and gun restriction comment. It's a relevant analogy, especially to the current American politics. Children, especially teens, are often given terrible reputations for the things their immature peers are doing, not specifically them. this bias is something i fight every day, and I'm glad wikipedia has a limited level of such discrimination. I would expect nothing less from a website of such popularity and dignity. Lena O'Brien (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The last two comments had somehow got repeated. I have removed the duplicate copies. ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats odd, there is a comment that looks like it should be from me, but I didn't write it. I remember to always sign my messages. ????Lloyd Burgundy (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd, it wasn't you so you didn't forget. NtheP (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for helping with this. Hope I haven't made things more difficult. Kathrynklos (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Lloyd Burgundy is a sockpuppet of User:Here2HelpWiki Theroadislong (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Wondering If This Fellow Now Seems Notable Enough

I honestly do "get it" when it comes to "notability" and my first version of this fellow's biography contained mostly references to his own writings. I'm wondering if I now have sufficient diverse secondary sources. I am not related to this guy, but am fascinated by the family from which he comes so am now perhaps addled in the head. I do believe him notable-- his writings are 100 years old and more, and still stand as the best sources of the subject matter. I believe his life to be of greater note than, say, some bimbo from a wealthy family who behaves in an obnoxious-enough manner to get her picture in People Magazine. I hope to stumble-upon a better photo of this man in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Victor_Channing_Sanborn#Professional_Life

Thanks much! Kathrynklos (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I can answer your question; but if it was me I would add him. I have created five "redlinks"; VCB is being used as a reliable source; and I personally like to know who these authors are. I suggest you should add him asap, otherwise my edits might get reversed. I'm happy to vote Keep at any AFD. Tommy Pinball (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability means "having been noticed", and that means at the national level or by the field in which a person is involved. It has nothing to do with how good a person he was or how good his work was. He has written good books on genealogy, but how widely are they used? Has he or his work been written about in the genealogic field? It is may not seem fair, but people who are written about in the national newspapers for any reason have been "noticed". See Wikipedia:Notability (people). StarryGrandma (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I found a nice review of his book in The Nation in 1899 that should take care of the notability problem. I put the reference in a comment on the page. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and encouragement. I don't know how to put an article on line (or whatever it's called) myself, as the other one I did sat for a while in line with hundreds of others and then was accepted. I don't know how to do that myself. Kathrynklos (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Again I can only tell you what I would do: Cut Out This and paste it here Here. You may need also to delete some of the stuff {{in squiggles}} which is no longer relevant. (Hopefully) the collaborative element of Wikipedia will kick in and start sorting out any glitches. Tommy Pinball (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

PS use "Show Preview" before you Save to see what it will look like. Tommy Pinball (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Kathrynklos. I am sorry to say you have been given some improper advice by Tommy Pinball. Under no circumstances should you ever do a cut and paste to move an article. If you are an autoconfirmed user (which I am sure you are--it only takes 4 days and 10 edits), you can move it yourself using the page move button. It is in the same place you access the article's history. I will have to hunt up an administrator to delete the copy you posted to mainspace (thank you for not cutting it!) and I will move it for you. John from Idegon (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the cut-and-paste move, but although I've merged the history of the two pages, the current version of the article is now the same as the one left at AFC - so some of the subsequent edits have been undone; you might want to take a look at it again. Tommy, if that's what you would do, then please don't - cut-and-paste moves cause all sorts of issues with attribution, and are only appropriate in very specific circumstances. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Changing display on lists

Is there a way to change the displayed names on a listing page? For example, if you check out the page for "Churches in Charleston, South Carolina" you will see that there are about 20 subpages listed. So far, so good. The thing I was hoping to fix on that the inconsistent formatting of the individual entries. A few of the churches have common names, and a different church by the same name had already been created. As a result, a few of the entries follow the format of something like this: St. John's Presbyterian (Charleston, South Carolina). Some of the entries where there have been no other entries on Wikipedia for like-named churches are just the name itself: Second Presbyterian. It is not a big deal, but just for nice formatting purposes, I'd like to have the displays of the names be consistent (without the (Charleston, South Carolina) tag). I know that there is a reason for that tag being part of the official name of the page, but once you are looking at a page about "Churches in Charleston, South Carolina" it hardly seems necessary and just results in a cluttered look. The problem is that the entire list is generated automatically based on the inclusion of a "category" tag on the individual entries. The resulting aggregation page does nothing but automatically collecting the official names. Is there a way to override what gets shown? Sort of like the same way that, within the text of an article, a person can insert something like "Second Presbyterian" to force a different display. Anything like that?ProfReader (talk)

ProfReader, we're talking about Category:Churches in Charleston, South Carolina? As it says at Wikipedia:Categorization#Overview "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." Ease of use takes priority over appearance, hence the page names being shown without any option to amend the display. If you wanted to create a list article List of churches in Charleston, South Carolina then you can pipe the links to show them how you want them to show. NtheP (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

How do you Change an articles name?

I recently was doing some editing for An article that needs citations for a certain store. I found an article on the store, but one of the letters needs to be capitalized. How do I do so? Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 18:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey again, Here2HelpWiki. If you're doing a fairly noncontroversial move, you can move the article to a new title. If you think folks might object to a move for some reason, it can be helpful to start a discussion on the talk page, but this one seems pretty noncontroversial. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Before making such a change to an article title, make sure that you have read Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format. Just like The New York Times, Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, I will read the MoS right now. Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 19:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can change ... (There actually are some reliable sources that the sky is blue.)

I was involved a discussion of a merger proposal here. I disagree with the consensus reached, and I'd like to propose changing it. However, I want to do this in the least disruptive way possible.

I can see two things I did wrong in the original discussion: 1) since the editor proposing the merger was unwilling to contact people who previously worked on the article, I should have contacted them 2) I should have formally registered my position in the discussion as "oppose" rather than just "comment".

As far as I can tell, the best way to do this is to start a new discussion on the talk page, and post a notice on the relevant project's notice board, which should have happened last time. I'm an inexperienced editor, and I'd like some feedback on how to best go about this.

(Note: I have no personal involvement with this topic, and I'm not mad at anybody.)

Thanks, Namnagar (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction: The person who proposed the merger did request clarification about the issue on project's talk page, and received no response. If the project is inactive and there is no one knowledgeable about the topic to discuss this with, there may be nothing to do about this. Namnagar (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I left a comment protesting the decision on the article's talk page, and another at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I'll leave it at that, unless there seems to be a way I can contribute constructively to the discussion.

I'd still appreciate any advice, guidance or feedback you could give me, if anyone's willing to do that. Namnagar (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend accepting the consensus for the time being. You may want to try to find additional reliable sources that back your opinion, and use those to win people over. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

When ignorance and bigotry rule, I don't think 60 rather than 6 citations will ever counteract that. I'll just get sanctioned if I continue arguing that (East-European) Roma people actually exist. But thank you, Cullen, for acknowledging my question and responding to it. Namnagar (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone's article contains scientific misstatements with unsupportive references. Can I just substitute correct statements or am I required first to refute his erroneous statements?

Two interrelated articles make statements about a nutrient which are scientifically and medical correct. Can I just erase his errors and substitute well-referenced correct statements, or must I first refute his statements?Dickwurtman (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dickwurtman! I am presuming that you meant "incorrect". Before making changes to the article, you should be sure that you have a reliable published source to back up each change that you want to make. Then make the change and cite the source right next to it. Now, if someone objects and changes it back, then you must start discussing on the talk page, because just changing back and forth is pointless. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Dickwurtman! Everything Anne said is correct, but I will add something that comes up occasionally. Sometimes, there will be information included that had a source, and someone might find contradictory information, also with a source. In those rare cases, we generally present both views. This mean, you should check to see if the material you believe to be incorrect has a reliable source. If not, go ahead and replace, adding the reliable source. If the existing information does have a source, I urge you to report it here, and we can help you with next steps.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing Editing Request Feedback

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jo_Bole

I'd like to request that the editing feedback posted at the top of my accepted article be removed. I have shortened the article, and put in sub-headlines so the article is easier to navigate, as well as creating a link so the article is no longer an orphan.

Can I remove these notes myself or request that someone here remove them? Marilyn Nix (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Marilyn Nix! If you are sure that you have addressed the issues, you can remove the tag. If you aren't sure, you can look at the page history and see which editor placed the tag, and see if that person agrees that the tag can go. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Anne; I always appreciate the TeaHouse! Best Marilyn Nix (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Marilyn Nix. The current version of the article has many external links in the body of the article. That is inappropriate. These should either be removed or converted into footnoted references if these links are to reliable sources. External links should be limited to a small number of those of the highest quality, and should be in a separate section at the very end of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

How to change/modify an article's title?

I want to italicize Explorer 1, Taroko Express, and Puyuma Express's titles because as the names of a space probe and two express train services, they should be italicized. How do I do so? Transphasic (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Transphasic! Add the code {{italictitle}} at the top of the page. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

LukeSurl Thank you! Transphasic (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

in the edit section after log in, in coding template there at the top article title will be there. may it will be useful.Ayushyogi (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion-Reason : Advertisement

I recently made an article about Warrior (an oil). It was selected for speedy deletion. I contested deletion by saying this. I also changed my article in multiple ways, making it seem much less like an advertisement. What else can I do? For further talk after answer press three. Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 16:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You have not shown that the topic of the article is notable in any way. The only references are to the company website. In its current state, the article is highly likely to be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Article in Sandbox

I submitted an article I made and would like to start on another, but I submitted it while it was in my sandbox. How do I create another article in my sandbox, without deleting my previous one? Thanks-Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 14:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You can start a new sandbox by clicking a redlink at User:Here2HelpWiki/sandbox02 or User:Here2HelpWiki/whatever you want your new title to be or anything equivalent that you can type into the search box, but there are more flexible approaches described in a previous answer. At the moment you can't move your existing sandbox to a new title as you are not yet autoconfirmed, but someone else could do it for you. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! For further confrontation, press three. Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 16:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

I know wikipedia text is available under Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply but recently text that I wrote was copied in numerous sites including few reliable sources but I was nowhere credited. What should I do now?   Sohambanerjee1998   11:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sohambanerjee1988. You'll need to complain directly to the sites hosting the copied text - there are a number of standard letters you can use for this purpose. If they refuse to comply, you have the option of filing a DMCA takedown notice, but that's probably only worthwhile if you have a significant investment in maintaining the copyright yourself. The standard letter is probably your best first step. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui I don't think I can pursue the case, plus those two sites are reliable sources and used in Indian articles a lot. One is 175 year old newspaper daily!   Sohambanerjee1998   11:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the site but I cannot find the email address to which I can send the email.   Sohambanerjee1998   11:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Best starting place is probably one of the first four on this list. You could also send a paper letter to their Corporate Office at Times House, 7 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 103. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.   Sohambanerjee1998   13:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This happened to me once as well. (Sorry this is just a comment no helpful info) It's a weird feeling. I was looking for more info on a not very well known blues guitarist so I could expand the Wikipedia article about him and I thought I found a site with some good info. As I was reading I was thinking "wow, I really like the way this guy writes, we think a lot... hey WTF!" I was reading words I had typed about a month ago into a Wikipedia article about the guitarist, now showing up (with no attribution) on some other music web site. I didn't know there was anything one could do about it although in this case the site was so minor it isn't worth the effort. Besides, ego wise it kind of feels good :) RedDog (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it do feels good. Plus there is this film article Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara! whose plot section I wrote and then I saw it in almost every site!   Sohambanerjee1998   16:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Uploading images

(moving this up to the top as its being ignored down the bottom)

Hello.

Can someone please explain the quickest and most painless way to get legitimate images uploaded into an article? I've seen perfectly good images being removed because they infringed some policy or other. What are the shortest steps involved in legitimizing and uploading images? Thanks.

This is my first time here, I'd also like to say that I wish I'd known about this place when I first joined Wikipedia. It probably would have saved me a lot of stress in dealing with abusive editors who were too impatient to explain things to a "junior" editor. I'm still of the opinion that some kind of mentoring process should exist by default, not by choice, when a new user joins, because a lack of familiarity with policy will inevitably create conflicts that waste needless time and energy and would otherwise not exist had there been a proper training period of adjustment to both anticipate and avoid such conflicts.

Regards,

Jodon | Talk 17:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Jodon, the easiest way is to make sure the image is either in the public domain or that it is expressly released by the copyright holder. What makes it more complicated is that images need to be in the public domain in the US regardless of the country of origin, and copyright laws are myriad and confusing. Examples are that in the UK Canada copyright lasts for 50 years after the authors death whereas it's 70 years in the US, so an image can be in the public domain (PD) in the UK Canada 20 years before it becomes PD in the US. Another is Freedom of panorama where in the UK, images of 3D works like statues in public places are PD but the same is not true in the US. the there is the question of first publication, as a lot of the US copyright laws depend on when the image was published, not when it was created.

If you have an image you want to upload and are unsure of what it's status is the best place to ask is at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and give as much detail as you have - the author (if known), where you found the image, when was it published (if ever), when was it created etc. Editors who watch that page will help you out in establishing if it's a photo that can be used. NtheP (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction of detail: it's 70 years after the author's death in the UK as well. List of countries' copyright length. --ColinFine (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Colin, thanks - I spent a lot of time yesterday dealing with a Canadian copyright and didn't switch back to UK thinking properly. NtheP (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Adoption…

Do you think it is a good idea for me to have someone adopt me? Also if so, are there any hosts nice enough to adopt me? I HAVE PUT MYSELF UP FOR ADOPTION Today's Xtra (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I am still under adoption by my wonderful mentor Cullen328, but I know a few things, I might help you from time to time though. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 21:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You'll maximise your chances of finding a good mentor if you go to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user and post there. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks, Miss Bono. I am always willing and happy to give you my advice, for what it's worth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Special:GettingStarted produces "502 Bad Gateway"

Clicking any of the 3 options in Special:GettingStarted currently produces "502 Bad Gateway". It worked a couple of days ago. I've tried flushing the cache, with no result. I'm using Firefox. Is there a problem with the Wikipedia server, or is this a problem at my end?

Thanks, PerlMonk Athanasius (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm running Firefox on a fairly old iMac desktop running OS 10.6.8 and all three of those options worked for me. It was a bit slow, I noticed Wikipedia seemed a bit slow last night as well but it definitely worked. RedDog (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of others with the same problem: I managed to fix it by deleting all the cookies in my browser. PerlMonk Athanasius (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

can i open a article about a 200 years temple

a temple in rural in about 200 years,very sacred in that parKalicharanshukla Kalicharanshukla 15:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The answer is yes. Wikipedia supports articles of all kind as long as it helps to further the knowledge of other people. Before attempting to create the article however, please check to make sure it does not already exist. Today's Xtra (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Just tagging onto Kalicharanshukla's question: Then why are so many removed. It seems as though some editors have such an extreme bias against someone or somethng that they work hard to remove information so systematically that the person or place is deemed no longer notable. Then we have pages obviously written as publicity for some people (and sans any citation) and they stay up for years. Why is some knowledge considered further-able and other knowledge is not? ThanksTaram (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Taram, Wikipedia has articles about notable topics, namely those that have significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources. Articles about topics that don't meet that standard ought to be deleted, and many are. With over 4.3 million articles, though, it is certain that we currently have many articles that should be deleted. And we lack many articles we ought to have. This encyclopedia is a work in progress, and we are constantly working to improve it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Taram, without specifics we cannot investigate any cases. But notability never depends on whether or not there is information about a subject in Wikipedia: by definition, it depends on whether there is material published in reliable sources (which Wikipedia is not) about the subject. If you find articles which are unreferenced or promotional, you are welcome to tag them, improve them, or (if you believe they cannot be made acceptable) nominate them for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine. What I cannot figure out is, if citations from well respected sources have such as the Wall Street Journal have been placed in an article and another editor comes along and removes the citation. why can the article then be cited as not notable because there are no references to support it. I know Qworty did that alot and now another editor is doing that. I understand that nothing can probably be done about this person except sad edit wars, but it seems to me that flies in the face of "help(ing) to further the knowledge of other people." Thank you! Taram (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Taram, I agree that removing references is unconstructive, assuming that the links are valid, are to reliable sources, and are to sources that support the material in the article. If, as you say, an editor is doing that, this may well be WP:disruptive editing and that article may give you ideas of how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

ColinFine, Thank you againo, so much, for your help! I will look at the article which you suggested, WP:disruptive editing. I do appreciate your help! Taram (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

about the "reverting" rule and reaching consensus to edit an article

Hello. I am a beginner in editing Wikipedia and I am quite confused about editing the articles. During my first three days in Wikipedia, I have tried to read the editing rules and policies. However I still cannot understand the rules about creating a consensus and reverting rule. For instance, I would like to make some changes on a specific article. I have already left my messages on the talk page (as it is recommended, to reach a consensus). However; how long should I wait someone to take action on my message. If nobody responds and I make the changes that I would like to do, what would happen? Moreover, does changing the position of an image in an article count on the WP:3RR?--Sari9th (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is relevant here. Basically, just do it. If your edit gets reverted, start talking. If you start reverting reversions on any edit (apart from obvious vandalism), that's when the WP:3RR counter starts ticking. However, no-one seems to be reverting any of your edits to Gdańsk University of Technology, so you're probably doing a great job. Keep at it! :) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" should lead to discussion after the first revert, not, as happens far too often, after a second "BOLD" - Arjayay (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't edit the header of an entry

There is an entry for Georgetown Visitation Convent. That is actually a historically incorrect name. Since its founding in the eighteenth century it has been Georgetown Visitation Monastery: http://gvmonastery.org/

The entry seems to be locked so that I can edit the text, but not the header of the entry itself. I put this on the talk page for the entry a while back, but heard nothing about it. Any thoughts about what I could/should do next? I am friends with the sisters at the monastery, and I attend mass there. I also volunteer in the archives. Someone may be calling it a convent because nuns are there, but it has been a monastery since 1799. It is frustrating to see it mis-named on Wikipedia without being able to edit. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortunaa (talk • contribs) 02:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you're referring to Visitation Convent, Georgetown, this article is not subject to any form of page protection, so anyone, including you, can edit it. If you want to change the page's title, click the arrow to the right of the star in the upper right hand corner and then click the word "Move". Then you can type in "Georgetown Visitation Monastery". Jinkinson talk to me 03:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Before making the change, please consider that the title, even if historically incorrect, might be right for Wikipedia anyway. Titles on WP should reflect what the subject generally is called in reliable sources, see WP:COMMONNAME. If you judge Georgetown Visitation Monastery to be proper title, go ahead. If someone disagrees, they might change it again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both so much. What wonderful and intellectually generous answers. I made the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortunaa (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

New page, could you help me, please

Hi all, could you help me with this page? i try to improve it but it seems very hard for me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Palazzo_Margherita_(Bernalda) Thanks Dishv80 (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The article has some reliable sources, but is still on the short side. As Freebirdthemonk pointed out, a few more references should get this accepted via AFC. Might I suggest adding this one? [4] Jinkinson talk to me 03:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed and accepted, the article is now at Palazzo Margherita (Bernalda). Please feel free to expand and improve the article further. There is another Palazzo Margherita in Rome, so perhaps hatnotes are required? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle twinkle

Hey guys,

I don't know what was wrong with my TWINKLE, but its not working properly for me for the past hour. Is anybody having the same issue or its working properly? --    L o g  X   18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)