Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cassiopeia, a Teahouse host

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227

having an article about a book accepted on Wikipedia

Hi, I went to the "requested articles" page on Wiki and found a book that seemed easy to write an article about. I wrote the article, put it up, but it got an "immediate deletion" tag instead. I really do not have a clue what I did wrong. I looked at other wiki pages about books, and I tried to make mine look like those, but I guess there was something I was missing. Can you help me figure it out so the next time I write a new article it sticks and does not get deleted? Here is the book I was trying to write about "The Dark Side of Nowhere."Editingright (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Requested on Article

Hi Everyone - I wanted to get additional feedback on my article before submitting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnKnox77/sandbox I am looking forward to hearing everyones thoughts. It is greatly appreciated. FINGERS CROSSED!

JohnKnox77 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Reference Editing

Please can any help me remove all the unnecessary referencing that you that was raised in the rejection of my article. And, can only one referencing 'Poker Knave' which seems to be a secondary source be accepted as a single referencing? The link to Newpaper publication 'The Sun Newspaper UK' is a secondary source, but only allows those with paid subscription to have full detailed access to it's publications. Your further verification is needed on this.If you need a screenshoots of the publications, I can make them available to anyone on request. Microbilo (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

link to other language wiki page

I'd like to link to a Spanish-language wikipedia page, do I need to link with the full url?Alammana (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alammana: Hi Alammana. to link to another language Wikipedia's article just type inside of doubled brackets a colon, followed by a language code (in this case "es" for Spanish) and another colon followed by the name of the article at that Wikipedia. So for example, if you wanted to link to the Spanish Wikipedia article on the slow loris, you'd type [[:es:Nycticebus]], which would format as es:Nycticebus. If you wanted to link there but have it display without the langugae code, you'd use a pipe between the link name and the display name: [[:es:Nycticebus|Nycticebus]], which would display as Nycticebus. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks so much, Fuhghettaboutit! That's exactly what I needed. Alammana (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alammana and welcome to the Teahouse! It's always nice to see questions about improving inter-wiki language linking. My only question is whether the articles you intend to link to on Spanish Wikipedia already have an article in English. If they don't, please consider using the template {{ill}} (you can get more info by clicking on that link). This will still provide a link to the Spanish article but will indicate that there is no corresponding English article. Otherwise, without clicking on the link, other editors have no way of telling that an English article needs to be created. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Philg88, that's really helpful. A lot of the topics I'm likely to write on have extensive articles in Spanish, but none in English. I appreciate the feedback! Alammana (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Buena suerte mi amigo Philg88 ^♦talk 05:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I "publish" my draft page?

Hi all, I have finished my draft page for Historic Wintersburg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Historic_Wintersburg_in_Huntington_Beach,_California, but cannot figure out how to take it from draft to "live" or published. This is the first page I have created, so I'm just unfamiliar with some of how this works. All information is vetted. I appreciate help with this so it can be viewed! Mary Urashima (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mary, welcome to the teahouse. You can submit it for review by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. You may wish to have a look at WP:CHEATSHEET for information on how to format Wikipedia pages; in particular the spaces at the start of paragraphs cause a messy display. Check out WP:REFB for how to add inline citations.

You should also read WP:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia wouldn't normally mention your blogspot page, and especially not in the body of an article, unless it is widely cited as an authority on the subject area by published reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mary Urashima: There are two ways you can get it live: you can try the articles for creation process, or you can directly move it to the mainspace. The articles for creation process submits your draft for review by an experienced editor, who will either accept your article and publish it or decline your article and give you advice on how you could improve it. As Demiruge1000 mentioned, to follow this process simply place the following text at the top of your draft: {{subst:submit}}. This will place your draft in a queue where it will eventually be reviewed. Keep in mind, however, that this process tends to take a lot of time due to a heavy backlog (it may take up to several weeks for a reviewer to read your submission).

If you do not wish to follow the articles for creation review process you can move the draft to the mainspace yourself—this action publishes the article without having another editor review it. If you follow this path, your article may be deleted, instead of just declined, if it contains any major problems (but this isn't usually done if it can be shown the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia). To do this, your account must be autoconfirmed—meaning it has to be at least 4 days old and it has to have made at least 10 edits. Once you are auto confirmed, go to Special:MovePage/Draft:Historic Wintersburg in Huntington Beach, California and you'll notice a dropdown menu with the "Draft" option selected. Change the "Draft" option to "(Article)", then click "Move page". Alternatively, you can request that someone do this for you here. Best of luck! Mz7 (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can i revise a description to add a Court Decision and Order?

i am not a neutral party. i won a Court case against Tan D. Nguyen for fraud and tried to revise his bio to include it citing the case number and naming the Judge It was immediately removed by another user (possibly a friend or relative of Tan D. Nguyen.

i know of no other source which has publicized the Court Judgments. How can the Judgment of fraud be added to the bio?

Thank you, Notafraidtotell 107.141.210.61 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, person with an IP of 107.141.210.61 and welcome to The Teahouse. Were you signed in under another name? Or do you get your Internet service from a provider which changes your IP? Or did you edit from a different computer? Because this is your only contribution to English Wikipedia. If you could name the article that would help.

By the way, I fixed the formatting of one of your paragraphs so it would display better.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you signed as User:Notafraidtotell. The article is Tan D. Nguyen. If you are personally involved in the case, it would be best to discuss the situation on Talk:Tan D. Nguyen, and make sure to use independent reliable sources, although you suggest there aren't any, and that would be a problem. Other, uninterested parties can add the information you want in the article and make sure it has a neutral point of view which would be difficult for an involved person to do.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be to discuss on User Talk:Materialscientist. The case numbers are there so there could be proper documentation but this might be a case of undue weight. One possible objection is that this takes up too high a percentage of the article in relation to its importance.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see User:Materialscientist left you a polite message on your talk page. That message pointed out that you added unreferenced material to a biography of a living person, which is not allowed. Also, your heading was in all capitals. Instead, it should have been ==Fraud==. But you have to fix the other problems before any information is added to the article, and you probably shouldn't be the one to do it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notafraidtotell, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not the place to document your legal feud. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines and our sourcing guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 4:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)

How to cite fonds

Hi I am just getting started as a volunteer for our local archives. I have been asked to investigate and advise on how to include relevant references to wikipedia articles. We have a lot of information to share about our area in our fonds collection, and would like to especially add pictures in articles. I am wondering if it is copacetic to cite back to the fond collection (we have a finding aid button on the website) or is there a better way to do this. Thanks in advance.PeaceofHistory (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PeaceofHistory. In all honesty, the meaning of "fond" I am familiar with is the caramelized bits of food sticking to the bottom of a frying pan. So, it would be helpful to know more about what you mean. If your archive owns copyright to some images and wants to release them under a Creative Commons license for free use by anyone, then please upload to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. You can require that your archive be credited as the copyright owner, and listing your website is fine, connected to each image. Linking to the archive in individual Wikipedia articles may present problems in some cases. If you tell us more the archive and the articles in question, we can be much more specific. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Fonds if that helps cullen? Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Theroadislong. I still think it would be useful to have an example of what a possible photo would show, and how it might be used in the article. And also whether the archive holds the copyright to the images in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PeaceofHistory. This is my understanding of the subject; other editors may correct me: Wikipedia references should be to individual published documents. Citing a collection would be like citing a shelf in the public library, rather than a specific book. If the document has been published, then the references should indicate where it was published. If it was never published, it wouldn't be considered to be a reliable source. That said, if a copy of a published document were to be in one of the fonds, a note at the end of the standard citation as to where the copy is located may be appropriate if the document is rare and hard to find. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article Submission

Hi Everyone -

I have been working hard and am looking to get feedback regarding my article before I submit. If you have time, I would love to hear your thoughts on what I can do to improve my article before submission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnKnox77/sandbox

Thanks

JohnKnox77 (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, JohnKnox77. Your well-documented article illustrates the classic conundrum in describing a business on Wikipedia--the products are exciting and cutting-edge, and you describe them thoroughly. Therein lies the problem. I think sometimes editors give advice to change the tone ("reads like an advertisement") when the real issue is content. The focus of the article needs to be on the company, rather than product description. Product descriptions tend to sound promotional no matter how neutral you try to be, and mentions of where the product is used will always sound like endorsements. If you refocus the article on the company (the history, development, acquisitions, company leadership, bottom line, etc.) it is less likely to sound like an ad, and more likely to be neutral in point of view. There is no doubt in my mind that this company is noteworthy and deserves an article on Wikipedia, but it should only mention the product line in passing. All the best, Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a log of sense. I will re-purpose the article. Thank you so much for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKnox77 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Floating Text Box Warning is getting annoying

I keep getting the following text box floating over my screen when I edit my sandbox:

"AFCH error: user not listed AFCH could not be loaded because "MadScientistX11" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there."

To my knowledge, I'm not involved in creating any new articles right now. A long time ago as a result of trying to help some new user requesting help at the tea house I tried doing some of the work to move their article along from their sandbox to an article for creation. Not sure if that is what caused this or what but it's getting annoying to see that box all the time. MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MadScientistX11. If you don't review articles at AfC then you can disable "Yet Another AFC Helper Script" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was easy. Thanks!. I must have checked that box by mistake a while ago when I edited my options to add Twinkle and other things I do use. thanks for the prompt response. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots and piles of chunks of questions

Hello, and I'm sorry for being a host with lots and piles of chunks of questions! We should start now!

I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but I hate vulgarities in my talk page. Can I censor them?
I do not understand why a user deleted my pages, mainly User:NN4 and User talk:NN4. Is it because short forms are not allowed? Then, in this case, why can User: I dream of horses use User:IDoH to redirect to her page but I can't use mine?
What should I do if I have a feeling that a user is wikihounding me?
Can I put shortcuts like User talk:Nahnah4/A to User talk:Nahnah4/Archives?
How can I create a bot if I can't read programming language?

To answer, please ping me and specify which (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) are you answering. Thanks! --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Nahnah4, Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's a answer to Question 1: If you hate those vulgarities on your talk page, you can request that an Administrator grant your page semi-protection; see WP:RFP. Hope this helps :) Cheers, Z10987 (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Z10987: Nope, it is not a vandalism nor an IP, it is a host who just, I don't know. It was a song title. I'm quite sensitive. --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnah4: I see. Let's wait for someone more experienced to respond, then Z10987 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Nahnah4:, some answers for you:

1. Although it is not encouraged (archiving is preferred), per this guideline you can remove whatever you want from your own talk page except declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See this guideline for more details.
2. I'll look at the deletions and get back to you.
3. It depends on what the Wikihounding involves. You should first try engaging with the editor in question and if that fails raise it at the administrators' noticeboard.
4. I'm not sure of the rules on User talk space redirects, which is what this would involve.
5. If you don't understand programming languages then I would advise you to stay away from creating bots as they can do more harm than good. Based on your short time as an editor on Wikipedia, it is unlikely that you would received bot approval at this stage.

Hope that helps. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: Thanks. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnah4: (e/c) You may remove posts from your talk page, but you should not change the text of another user's post;
You created a user page and a user talk page of a nonexistent user, which is why they were deleted under section U2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You can create user and user talk subpages but they should be subpages of your actual account name. If you want to use "NN4" as a nickname, for example, in your signature, you can pipe a link from your actual username, to that alternate text → [[User:Nahnah4|NN4]] will produce NN4. The fact that someone else has done something does not mean it was correct, or ever noticed, or not a bad practice or is not grandfathered in at this point;
It's hard to say without specifics. Have you tried discussing it with the person at their talk page? Doing so in a non-accusatory and civil manner is probably a good idea;
Use the pipe trick, as linked above: [[User talk:Nahnah4/Archives|User talk:Nahnah4/A]] will appear as User talk:Nahnah4/A;
I don't think that's possible (and if it is, say, through someone else writing it for you, it's probably not prudent). Note also that for bots to run they need to be approved. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: On #2: But why does User:I dream of horses allowed to use User:IDoH to redirect to her user page? and on #4: I did not use the pipe link, just User talk:Nahnah4/A into a redirect to User talk:Nahnah4/Archives. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 06:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nahnah4. You redacted my comment on your talk page over ten days ago, and I didn't revert you, so I am unsure why you are bringing up the issue again. I do not object to you removing the whole section if you want. But please note that if you start a discussion about explicit song titles on an album cover, then some explicit song titles may well be mentioned in the discussions that follow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page history [1] of User:IDoH shows it was created with the edit summary "This is my IRC chatroom screen name, so I am redirecting this userpage to my userpage. If anyone creates an account under my name, revert me." That seems sensible to me but you can try to nominate it for deletion if you want. I don't see a good reason to create User:NN4, especially when your username is only 7 characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the reflist template

Hey everyone :)

I just created an article about a blogger in Singapore, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Ngerng_(blogger)

Even though I added the reflist template at the end of the page, an error still shows up saying that there is no reflist template on the page. How do I correct this error?

Many thanks! 05:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Z10987: Hey, high-five! I'm a Singaporean too! (LOL) I think that it did not show up because you put the title before the url and please make the accessdate in dmy dates (since it's SG). Please try. --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Z10987:

Done. I fixed it. It was a missing close </ref>. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnah4: High-five! It's nice to see Singaporeans here in Wikipedia :) Thanks so much for helping to fix that one! Cheers, Z10987 (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Z10987: No problem. :) Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a file page

Hello! Sorry for keep asking questions even though I'm a host. Just want to ask, how to move a file page? --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 04:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nahnah4. Ask as many questions as you like, that's what the Teahouse is for! You can move a file in exactly the same way you would move an article. That is usually done from the task bar at the top right, but it depends on how you have your preferences configured as to where the option actually appears. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: But not all file pages have that black arrow. --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnah4: Hmm ... Odd. Can you tell me the specific filename so that I can take a look? Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 05:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: File:Don't Tap the White Tile screenshot.png. --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nahnah4: I get the option to move it but I see that it is also tagged for "move to commons". Is that what you are trying to do? If so, cross-wiki moves are handled slightly differently. You need a tool like For the Common Good. If you want it moved to commons I'll do it for you. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: Nope, the picture was just requested to be moved to Commons by random users. I want to change the name, from Don't Tap the White Tile screenshot to Piano Tiles screenshot. It applies to the app icon.

Why are articles included in Articles that need updating even though they do not have the update template within?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_in_need_of_updating_from_January_2013

In the above page, for example, we see 'HIV' listed as one of the articles in need of updating, but there is not update template to be found on the page.

This is normal? How did this occur?

Z10987 (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Z10987, hello and welcome to the Teahouse! It's in the category for at least the fact that it has a {{Failed verification|date=April 2014}} tag in the Entry to the cell section. — 03:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)}

@Z10987: (e/c) Hey Z10987. The category is placed by other templates, such as {{Update after}} and {{update inline}}. In the case of HIV, you can see the latter template in use in the last paragraph of HIV#Diagnosis, where it says ^{[needs update]}, which is what is placing it into the category. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your clarification on the use of these templates! Z10987 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

file

I uploaded this file File:Texas vs texas tech.jpg They said it was apparopite, but they already had an image but this is a horrible image File:2008 TTUvsTT Fans.jpg So they are deleting my photo which is better than the other one Cincao03 20:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cincao03 - the image you have uploaded is fully copyrighted and considered non-free. Wikipedia's goal is to provide free content whenever possible; however, there are times when copyrighted images have to be used under a claim of fair use, such as to illustrate a video game cover, a comic book character, or any other situation where a freely-licensed version will not do. In this case, using the non-free picture to illustrate a football game when we already have a freely-licensed picture that conveys the same thing is not accepted. Let us know if you need any more clarification! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article help

I am really having trouble with my article iw ant to make. I went to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and oyher people, its complecated, is there any kind user's that could fix it for me Cincao03 19:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cincao03 and welcome to the teahouse. I don't know much about basketball, but I do know sometimes basketball players are notable here on Wikipedia even if not by our normal rules. Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge1000 (talk) Do you know anyone that know s about basketball that could fix the article.Cincao 03 20:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cincao03! I had a look at the article, and unfortunately it looks like this freshman college player, as noted by the draft reviewer, is not notable enough for inclusion at this time. This is not a problem that can be "fixed", because it is not possible to make a subject more notable via editing. VQuakr (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr (talk) But this person needs a wiki article because its to good of a player. 1. you could fix it yourself. or 2. do resarch on him and see how good he is. or 3. Get someone else to do all this crap. Do one of them!!! Cincao03 20:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which newspapers mention him? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Cincao03 but that's not the way Wikipedia works. "Because its to good of a player" or "because I really like them" or "because she is so popular", are not enough. We require that at least a couple of major newspapers, or reputable book publishers, or websites with a reputation for fact checking, have already found the subject important enough to write about them: then there will be enough published information about the subject to write a good article. If he's as good as you say he is, then that will probably happen some time; but it may not be there yet.

The other point is that Wikipedia is entirely created by volunteers. I don't know about other people, but I know that when somebody comes along and tells me what I should do, I'm not inclined to help them. You want this article, you do the research Cincao03. And if you, caring about it, can't find the references, then they probably don't yet exist.

Alternatively, Demiurge's suggestion that you ask at WikiProject Basketball is a good one. But I recommend you have a go at inviting people to share your passion rather than telling them what to do. Cheers, --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When to split-out a list from an article

Hi Teahouse - I'm trying to figure out if this list of Dale Chihuly's works in permanent collections should be split out into it's own (list) article. I've been reading some MoS pages, particularly Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works, where it says "a separate article for a list of that person's works ... is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable." I think the list on Chihuly's page does seem long compared to the rest of the article, but I wanted to get your advice before I go ahead and split it out. Is there anything else I should take into account? Thanks in advance, rchopman (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extabulis (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hey rchopman - I could definitely see why you want to split the page. The best way to go about this is to propose the split on the article's talk page, and then mark the list section on the article with Template:Split section to let others know that you have have proposed splitting the list. I'd let the discussion run until there is a consensus (or, if no one contributes to the discussion and there are no objections after a couple weeks, I'd go ahead and split it). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - thanks! rchopman (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster: Hello! Is a new page preferable to a "Wikitable collapsible collapsed" or a collapsible "sort table" in articles like this. I'm going to face a similar problem with a new article I'm working on, and had thought to use that option. - W.carter (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Yea, I'd say a new page is preferable. Concealing article content is typically a last resort. In addition to the MOS section Extabulis linked to that discusses splitting off long lists into new articles, MOS:COLLAPSE describes how article content typically shouldn't be collapsed. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You SuperHamster, may nuts, sun flower seeds and dry cookies always be abundant to you. - W.carter (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

help making a citation, not clear on text fields, e.g., "Last Name" and "First Name"

does "last name" and "first name" refer to the citation author or my name? Also not clear on "Ref" ("ID for anchor"), is that a nickname, so to speak, for the reference? I looked around some but did not find a guide for these questions. Thank you. Chauncey (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chaunceyiv. The name fields refer to the author of the work that you are citing. If you are using the reference only once, you simply designate it as "ref". If you are planning to use the same reference several times in the same article, then you use "ref name=X", with X being a simple memory device to help you to keep track of it. Yes, it is a nickname. A distinctive word from the title or the author's last name are possible choices, and this is not displayed to readers of the article. I recommend Referencing for beginners for a good overview. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resign from being host

Hey Teahouse, I am a relatively new editor and I don't think that I have enough experience for being a Teahouse host. Is there any way I can resign. I have really enjoyed working with you other host. But I think I should resign until I am experienced enough. Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you were on the list of hosts, I think that's fine. There isn't any problem with you answering questions you know the answer to though, you don't have to be a host to answer queries. Thanks, Mat ty.007 15:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has added their name to the list of hosts can remove it at any time. Schoolskater, you are always welcome to ask questions here, or to answer them if you are reasonably sure you know the correct answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best part Schoolskater, is that you don't even have to remove your name from the list! If you become inactive on this page, then HostBot will remove your name for you! Since everything on Wikipedia is volunteer based, you can come and go as you please, there is no "resigning" per-say. Experience comes from making mistakes, or at least being accused of making mistakes. Many of our hosts here don't know the answer to a majority of the questions asked. What we do know, is where me might go to find an answer for many of them, and if you don't know, or don't have time to research an answer, it's okay to leave it for the next helper! Anyways, happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Schoolskater, one of the important parts of the teahouse is that it's an, umm, teahouse. What I mean is, if someone gave you advice two weeks ago, then someone else asks for advice here today, and you are sure the advice is relevant, you can help that person! That has always been part of the teahouse ideal and ethos - and I can say this even though I am not a Teahouse Host but in fact I am only a Junior Wrangler here.

It has made me very proud that some of the people I have helped at the teahouse have gone on to be great editors themselves, and some of them have also gone on to help other people who asked for help here. I may be slightly biased, but there isn't really an Approved and Unapproved. Just sometimes take it very slowly - but your input is always welcome. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed to untangle multiple Undos of Undos...

I am too new to sort this tangle out, and I hope somebody can help. The article Canadian Rockies is a mess - basically the whole article is repeated twice. And there is a complex chain of people undoing one another's changes to try and fix it, which all seem to be digging it into a deeper hole. Could some kind person who knows what he/she is doing please take a look at it?

P.S. If this is not the proper place to ask, then I ask whether you can find it in your hearts to forgive me, and perhaps even to point me in the right direction. Gronk Oz (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. As far as I can see, the last good version was the one at 11:33, 3 May 2014‎ by Der Golem. Gronk Oz (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks to Fylbecatulous, who fixed it! --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get an individual athelete a page amongst his peers as athletes from Paterson NJ

Oftentimes, I research Wikipedia to get information on various folks. however, today I happened to research many of my friends who are athletes and did not see certain names of some very inspirational local individuals who were not on the list. My name is Mr. Zatiti Moody and I am the Principal at the famed Eastside HS in Paterson NJ. I happen to know many of the names on the list that was hoping to help add to this site by submitting some valuable names to this site. Myself, I am an esteemed graduate Eastside high School(1992) in Paterson, NJ who was an all-state football player and honor student who went on to start for 3 years as a defensive end at the University of Pittsburgh. I went on to secure my Masters degree and came back to Paterson as a School Social Worker and in only 3 short years became a building administrator equivalent to a Principal at the age of 26yrs old. Now currently the Principal of one of the most famous schools in America. Through, this journey I have many, many friends and family members who are depicted on this wonderful site. However, I also have some folks who definitely deserve to be depicted as well. Just this past week our current Basketball coach Mr. Juan Griles who is regarded as one of the best HS coaches in NJ was recently inducted into his college Hall of Fame. Coach Griles who had his Team ranked as high as #1in NJ and #38 in the USA today Polls beat the legendary Bob Hurley this year and received some national acclaim for having our Public School Team reach heights that have not been reached in over 70 years. Coach Griles was a standout basketball player at CW Post (now LIU Post) and was inducted into the Hall of Fame there last week. Coach Juan went on to have a 17 yr professional career in Puerto Rico. I would really like to have Coach Griles along with notable others submitted to be added to your site to represent our great City of Paterson. Eastsidehs1992 (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eastsidehs1992. I recommend that you read an essay called A Primer for newcomers, and also Your first article. Please be aware that some athletic figures may be considered famous locally, but may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines in the relevant sports. I encourage you to read up on the relevant guidelines as well, at WP:ATH. If you conclude that they meet our guidelines, then start the articles. Return to the Teahouse any time for specific questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eastsidehs1992, and welcome to the teahouse. Your request is quite a tricky project, for reasons that I will try to explain. Wikipedia has a concept of "notability", and treats it somewhat differently from how normal people use that word. So for example, after some lengthy and quite bitter arguments, Wikipedia has a general understanding that all high schools are notable, and thus that there can be a separate article about each high school. The same general understanding indicates that almost all primary schools are not notable, and thus there should not be a separate article about each one, unless certain exceptions apply.

Now, it is our practice that an article about a high school would normally list the principal, but it would not list the basketball coach (or the Head of Science) unless that person were notable in their own right. Thus Wikipedia's article Shrewsbury School lists its current headmaster (and, curiously, the current head of the governing body), and later in that same article it also lists Anthony Chenevix-Trench, who was not notable (by Wikipedia's standards) while he was merely a teacher and head of house there, but later went on to become notable by other things he did. But it does not list the Head of Science or Head of English or indeed whoever is in charge of Sport(s) education there currently.

Even being mentioned or listed (by name) in the article about a school, does not make one notable and therefore does not mean there is an article about the person. So, using that example, Wikipedia lists Mark Turner as the current headmaster of Shrewsbury School, but does not have an article about him. (I recently invented a rule of thumb that there are some very few secondary schools, for example Eton College, where having been head master there means a person is almost certain to be notable, but neither Shrewsbury School nor Eastside High School would be included in this very small category of schools.) Curiously, if you click the wikilink Mark Turner, you find that there are six Mike Turners about whom Wikipedia does have articles, and that four of them are sportspeople.

And that's where you may be on to a winner, because Wikipedia's notability requirements for sportspeople are considerably more lax (as far as I can see) than those for educators and military leaders and have-a-go heroes and minor local politicians and many other categories of people. So for example, if someone spent seventeen years as a professional basketball player, then there is a possibility that he might meet the notability guideline WP:NBASKETBALL. It's worth reading the top part of that page as well just to understand what it is saying.

Sadly I am rather ignorant about basketball, and about U.S. sports in general, so it would be well worth your asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football about the likely notability of the people you mention. (Or alternatively, perhaps people more knowledgeable than I can reply here - User:Go Phightins!, for example?)

Notwithstanding the notability guideline above, Wikipedia puts a great deal of emphasis on reliable sources that talk about the person - for example newspaper articles. Cullen is right that local fame does not translate to notability by Wikipedia's standards. But another rule of thumb I have is that if seven different local or regional newspapers talk about a person in some detail, that person may well be notable; by contrast if the The Times, The New York Times and the Washington Post (for example) all talk about the person in some detail, that's certainly enough on its own.

Your best approach might be to decide which of the people you mention would most easily meet some of these requirements, and then ask at the Wikiproject talkpages I mention above. Ultimately you will need to draft the article yourself - it's easier than you think! But do feel free to ask further questions here if you prefer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page submission rejected - why?

Hi there,

As you seem to have noticed, my page submission was rejected twice. Most recently, I was advised that the discography is 'not referenced at all'. This is not exactly true, as far as I am aware. I did add references to that section and every other one possible.

My question is, basically, what can I do to make the page acceptable? The subject of my page already has Wikipedia articles in both Dutch and French (he is a Belgian DJ). I wonder, therefore, why an English one is not allowed because 'subject notability' isn't sufficiently proved?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Nikify (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nikify. I'm not going to express an opinion as to whether notability is established, but the French and Dutch articles do not directly establish notability, for two reasons: first, each Wikipedia has its own rules, and so the criteria may be different; and secondly, even within English Wikipedia it is a well established principle that other stuff exists is not a strong argument.

As for the Discography: as far as I can see, there are seven references for a discography of about eighty items. While this is no longer "not referenced at all", it is still not adequately referenced. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page issues

Hello fellow Teahousers! This user sent me something about filling in "Grammy Award nominations" here and I'm wondering if it is because I nominated this article for deletion. Also, it appears from this page that he only sent me messages about The "Grammy Awards". Was he assuming good faith or just telling me something I don't really have interest in? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 13:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome back to the Teahouse, WoohHoo. I am not sure I understand what the problem is. Could you be more specific please? Schoolskater (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Schoolskater:! By the way, my username is User:BrandonWu, not WooHoo, as that's just my signature ;). I was on patrolling new pages, and I found Cheryholmes III: Don't Believe. I tagged it for CSD and then the author, Dfrr, sent me a message on my talk page about Grammy Awards. I believe that it could've been because I nominated his page or it could be spam? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 20:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to link two articles to one pseudonymous name?

Hi Teahouse. There are two separate bio articles that I would like to link with some kind of page to their shared pen name. Currently, it doesn't appear this pseudonym needs a bio of 'his' own. I don't see an actual redirect working as this needs to go to two separate places. Would a short page with a brief bio and explanation work with wikilinks to the two 'real' people? Or is some other solution better? Thanks, Oldbeeg (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Oldbeeg! I'm assuming by link you mean merge so here is what you should do. Other hosts may also help you out, as I not 100% clear on what you mean. You can seek consensus of both talk pages to merge both articles into one pseudonymous name or you could probably even put redirects on both pages to the name with both articles' information in that pseudonymous name article. WooHoo! • Talk to me! 13:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WooHoo. I found that a redirect from Sam Cabot (the pen name) to Carlos Dews (one of the writers, a newly created page) was created by the reviewer who accepted the Dews page. The problem shouldn't be solved by merging the two (S. J. Rozan is the other writer) pages, though, because they are separate people, each of whom is more noteworthy than Sam Cabot. But for those who look for Sam Cabot, I'd like to see a way for them to easily find both Dews and Rozan information. By linking, I had meant to use wikilinks to the two writers separate pages. Best, Oldbeeg (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of image novice question

Hi. I created a template that included an image (Template:Albert Einstein World Award of Science Laureates), and the image was flagged in the past related to not having a good source. I changed the source, however it is not clear to me whether this is enough for auditors to be happy. I have expressed permission from the owner(i.e. World Cultural Council) of the image to use it in Wikipedia. Is it ok to start using the image again? Thanks in advance!

Healing Mandala (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Healing Mandala, and welcome to the Teahouse. As of right now, the image is fully copyrighted and considered non-free. Wikipedia's goal is to provide free content whenever possible; however, there are times when copyrighted images have to be used under a claim of fair use, such as to illustrate a video game cover, a comic book character, or any other situation where a freely-licensed version will not do. In this case, using the non-free picture of the medal to illustrate a navigation template is not necessary for the sake of illustrating the template. It is, however, necessary to illustrate the Albert Einstein World Award of Science article. Hope this helps. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the permission from the owner to use the image on Wikipedia, that's only useful is the owner has agreed to freely license the image with a free license accepted by Wikipedia. If that's the case, the owner will have to forward their expressed permission to Wikipedia using Wikipedia's OTRS process. Let us know if you have any more questions! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Welcome to the Teahouse, Healing Mandala. Fair use is a legimate legal concept, but Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects strive to provide completely free content wherever possible. Accordingly, our standards for use of Non-free images are much more restrictive, and in general, we use a non-free image only when it is not possible to substitute a free image.

If the copyright holder, the World Cultural Council, wishes to release the image under an acceptable Creative Commons license, then they must do so formally in writing. This will release the image to be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose including commercial purposes, as long as the owner/creator is credited properly. Please refer to WP:OTRS for instructions about how to communicate with the Wikimedia Foundation about the licensing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SuperHamster! I saw a template from the Nobel Prize and thought that I could use it in a similar way. I just realized the Nobel Prize medal design is considered public domain in the US. Thanks again!

Healing Mandala (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen! I'll have to read and document myself more on this. The WCC may need to review all legalities first. Thanks! Healing Mandala (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't change my bio photo

I created my account and have had my username and password for a long time. For some reason, someone deleted by bio photo. I own the photo and now I can't seem to get it back on my page. I am "Frank W. Gaskill" - psychologist. Thanks for your help Fgaskill (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fgaskill, and welcome to the Teahouse! Here is the deletion log for your photo, as seen at the Wikimedia Commons. It looks like your picture was deleted for a lack of permission. Do you own the copyrights to the photo? If so, you need to follow the process outlined for the Common's OTRS process in order to establish that you own the rights to freely license your picture. If you don't own the copyrights, you will need to get hold of the copyright holder and ask if they will freely license the picture by emailing OTRS. Hope this helps. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do own the rights. I will check the link. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgaskill (talk • contribs) 02:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with my first article about a performer, Gail Boggs

Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gail_Boggs&action=edit Thanks, CherylAnneGelling CherylAnneGelling (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, CherylAnneGelling. The reviewer who declined your submission gave you some excellent advice. So your first step is to read all of those links, and implement those recommendations. YouTube and IMDb.com are almost never accepted as reliable sources in Wikipedia articles. I noticed an unreferenced quotation from Bonnie Raitt, and unreferenced quotations are unacceptable. Every single quote needs a reference. I encourage you to read carefully about the neutral point of view. Much of your prose is overly promotional, and needs to be edited to a dry and neutral statement of verifiable facts. Your references are bare URLs. Instead, format them as proper footnotes as described in Referencing for beginners. I hope my comments are helpful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to help by adding a reference for the Nile Rodgers book. Best, Oldbeeg (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking to other languages

Please, tell me how to link to Wiki articles in another language. I tried using the template Languagecode:Title, as explained in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Interwiki_linking, but I can't make it work. The link in the saved page appears as Languagecode:Title. The part of Languagecode shouldn't be visible. Thanks in advance.

Bramblebough 00:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Bramblebough Bramblebough 00:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramblebough (talk • contribs)

@Bramblebough: Hi Bramblebough. to link to another language Wikipedia's article (not "wiki" btw) Just type inside of doubled brackets a colon, followed by a language code and another colon followed by the name of the article at that Wikipedia. So for example, if you wanted to link to the French Wikipedia article on Bertrand Russell, you'd type [[:fr:Bertrand Russell]]. For a list of language codes, see List of ISO 639-1 codes. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it not to look like fr:Bertrand Russell, but Bertrand Russell, you can use a "pipe" symbol thus: [[:fr:Bertrand Russell|Bertrand Russell]]. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bramblebough and thanks for the question. Having looked over your draft on Manuel João Ramos, where I assume you want to use inter-wiki links, I think that you need to read Wikipedia's linking guidelines to understand what should be linked to what and how to do that. For example, you have included inter-wiki links to Portuguese Wikipedia in the article body without giving any indication that the target article is in a foreign language. If you want to link to Portuguese Wikipedia you should use the {{ill}} template to alert readers that the target page is not in English. Similarly, you have also linked words directly to external sources (inline URLS), which is not how Wikipedia works. If you want your article to be accepted then you will need to ensure that it meets the required guidelines. Good luck! Philg88 ^♦talk 07:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit. Have I done something wrong? Again. Since I translate from the Swedish Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia I have to write these exact words a number of times when talking about articles with other users and here at the Teahouse. To save time (not being disrespectful) I usually use the short SweWiki and EngWiki. Am I considered rude when I do this? If so I will cease it this instant, it was never my intention to be rude. Btw, is it ok "to Wiki"? Or is Wikipedia fighting a similar battle as Google did when they tried to get people not "to Google" but "to use the Google search engine"? Unfortunately, there are so many ways to "be rude" without knowing it when entering into a new community. Best, - W.carter (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey W.carter. It would never be considered "rude" (the linked page is intended to be a lighthearted way of explaining the issue and uses hyperbole like "foul-mouthed"; that's not serious); it's just that it's tortured grammar when wiki is used as a proper noun because it's a generic term and there are thousands of wikis.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit. Time for me to exhale... :) - W.carter (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this question was also asked on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk (where it was quickly removed by the original poster) and Wikipedia:Help desk#Interwiki linking help (where it received an answer by me and ColinFine). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is trying to contribute so frustrating? First the sources where the problem, now the writing?

Hey,

as I am very interested in Tuning companies I have so far mostly done some minor edits on articles about 1 or 2 of these companies.

Some time ago I wanted to contribute more and write my first own article, of course about a tuning company. After some initial problems with submitting, the article was rejected because of the references. I added a reference from one of the recommended source, unfirtunately there was a typo and the link was dead. However the editor who then rejected it due to the dead link now suddenly also criticizes the article overall, saying "it just mentions the company exists and spends the rest of the paragraph talking up how effective their mods are". First of all I have tried to describe what this company does while keeping it short and informative, therefore I think this comment is abit unfair. Second, I tried to give an example of which effects their modifications have, but kept it very objective. I think talking about that when writing about a tuning company it is relevant to give some examples with numbers, and I have not written anything like that they are "super effective" or have an "awesome performance" (which you can actually find in some articles about other tuning companies).

So my question is basically, is it usual that editors add more reasons for rejecting an article? Because if it is like that, then I don't see any point in working on it any further, as the next editor might criticize something new after I have worked on the earlier reasons for the rejection of the article.

Best regards

Ladehemmung (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ladehemmung. I understand your frustration, but encourage you to stick with it. What you describe is not at all uncommon. Put yourself in the shoes of an experienced reviewer: You see a draft article, written in good faith, that seems to have many problems. Your natural tendency is to first mention a couple of the most serious problems. If those are resolved properly, now two or three moderate problems seem worth mentioning. You may perceive this as "moving the goalposts" but the reviewer may see it as "getting the article into shape" so that it can be accepted into the encyclopedia. Even at that point, the article may have four or five minor problems, but those can be dealt with later.

Please remember that what you write and contribute here no longer belongs to you, and it can be criticized, analyzed, changed, edited, expanded or cut back by any editor for any good reason. Your article could be approved in good faith by the reviewer at Articles for Creation, and then a couple of days later, another editor could nominate it for Articles for Deletion. At that time, a bunch of new editors may start criticizing it or defending it. This is just a brief description of the collaborative work that makes this encyclopedia function. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in car tuning, then I'd suggest leaving companies alone and maybe looking at some more technical articles. Articles on companies are always hard. Unless they're huge, notability is often unclear and sources tend to be self-published. There are lots of topics and articles though on the technical aspects of tuning or car design where there's either nothing, or a very poor stub. There's lots of scope in that area. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility of tables

Hi, I have stumbled across several articles that use the color of a table to convey important information; articles such as List of supercentenarians who died in 2014 and pretty much every other list down in the navbox for that article. WP:COLOR recommends not to use color in this way because visually impaired people may not be able to see them. I am sensitive to this issue and would like to fix these articles but I have absolutely no clue on what symbol to use if any, or how to convey its meaning to the reader. I noticed they used a "pending" and "verified" labeling system at the top of the tables - I was thinking to maybe add an asterisk* but, again, I am stumped on how to integrate it into that area. Anything constructive is welcome! Thank you. 「dsprc」 ^{[ talk ]} 22:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsprc: Hmm...good question! That bright blue looks so bad. I imagine there's a number of acceptable ways to do this. What about adding a new "Verified?" column to the table, listing yes/no for each person? Example of a similar idea being executed can be seen here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The extra column is a great idea and should solve this problem. The example was also very helpful. Thank you so much. (: 「dsprc」 ^{[ talk ]} 07:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Want to check before I change the structure of this article

I am trying to figure out if it would be okay to change the Glossary of BDSM from bullet-style to template-structured as described by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries, and exemplified by the Glossary of chess. But when I try to ask on the talk page for that article, it refuses to save.

Should I just go ahead?

Xiaoyingtai (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to become a page patroller

Hey fellow hosts, This is actually a question from a Teahouse host myself, I wanted to know how one can become an page patroller? Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no formal permission or requirement in order to start patrolling. There is a practical requirement that some degree of experience is needed to properly evaluate a new article. If you haven't already, consider reading over the guidelines at WP:NPP, particularly the parts about not being too aggressive with speedy deletion tags or otherwise violating WP:BITE. You could add a userbox from that page to your user page if you wanted, as well. Then, head over to Special:NewPagesFeed and start reviewing! If you have questions or would like a second opinion on any patrols, feel free to post a message on my talk page or at WT:NPP. VQuakr (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela - Registrating This Proyect Legaly In this moment can I submit the info? Yli Scarch (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Congratulations on your growth during these years, big fan of the wiki family. You guys are like my Bible. I want to star the submission of information about a proyect I've been working with 40 other people or more. Its creating Music Embassies Around The world, But it takes time, since the artist are being included by a workshop wich includes several levels. And we have to In the present, the first One its been made on our I Location in - Caruao, Vargas - also, through FB pages, and other outside activities we hve with musicians here in VENEZUELA and other countries.

Howerever, We are currently on the legaly paperwork of the Corporation World Music Embassy (since 2013) It includes so far 25. We need to star submitting and organizating info on the web. What happends with the copy rights. DO you guys protect also that the information provided came from my user name and this country right?

Cheers M8 Have a Nice one.

Yli Scarch (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yli Scarch, and welcome! By submitting content to Wikipedia, you release some rights to it, as explained in detail at Wikimedia:Terms of Use and linked next to the "save" button at the bottom of the editing screen. You do keep the right to be attributed for your work under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, which is visible in article histories. Since it sounds like you have a close personal connection to the subject of your inquiry, please also review our policy on conflict of interest. Thanks, and again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we use UTC?

Why do we use UTC instead of our local time zone? UTC is hard and confusing to understand, Idont get it. Also, I have an idea for the encyclopedia. I think there should be a comments section on every article. Many places on wikipedia are for "talking anout things that only relate to the editing of wikipedia". Well, a commemts section would help make the encyclopedia more "freespeech" and have anybody talk about what they want on the comments section. Future WWE Champion, DrewieStewie (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We use UTC because Wikipedia is an international project with contributors from every timezone. UTC is useful because it is effectively the "middle" of all the world's timezones.

As for comments, Wikipedia is a project to build an encylopedia. It does not want to organise a general forum for discussion on everything, there are plenty of other places on the internet for that. --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrewieStewie, welcome to Wikipedia. Not exactly sure why the default is UTC, but probably has to do with what LukeSur posted. FYI, you can set your preferences set to display times in your local time zone. Go to "preferences", then "appearance" and then "time offset" to pick whichever time zone you like. You might also want to read WP:LOCO. As for your other questions, please check out "What Wikipedia is not?". That might clear up a few things. Hope that helps. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Wikipedia is a global project. We have editors here from nearly every corner of the world, across many different time zones. We use Universal Time as a way to unify all the time zones. I often imagine it as a "wiki-time". If you want, you can change the time zone that appears in edit histories by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering.

A section for free comments on Wikipedia is a commonly proposed idea, but remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus there are certain things Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a social networking website or a means for advertising/promotion. The page at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Allow discussion about the topic of the article puts it best: our purpose is to create an encyclopedia, not to provide a place for people to hold random discussions on various topics. Additionally, hosting such discussions would require volunteers or staff to monitor and/or moderate these discussions, delete WP:BLP violations, block or ban disruptive users, and so on, which would reduce the time these people (likely Admins) have to spend on activities that do improve the encyclopedia. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Wikia does the system (on certain wikis) and doesn't really have a problem with it, i understand, considering Wikipedia is a more popular website and has a lot more vandalism than Wikia. Even though I still don't understand UTC, I'll still try to do my best with it :) Thank you very much :))))) Future WWE Champion, DrewieStewie (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can set your local time at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. It doesn't affect signatures and a few other things, but user contributions, page histories and most other places will show your local time. Additionally, at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets you can select "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time." PrimeHunter (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DrewieStewie. UTC is the standard abbreviation in all languages for Coordinated Universal Time, which is the modern equivalent of Greenwich Mean Time. It is the worldwide standard time used by worldwide scientific projects, and is clearly appropriate as Wikipedia's standard time. Getting used to it helps remind you that this is a worldwide project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Say, I live in Northern California. Which one do i choose? thats the part I need help with. Future WWE Champion, DrewieStewie (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of California is in the same time zone. Pick "America/Los Angeles". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usage question about the word "the"

2 examples(from 2 articles) where, to my ear, the word "the" is missing:

1. After two years at UMass Lowell he moved to Boston where he worked in a silk screen shop and joined proto-synth/punk band The Girls with abstract painter Mark Dagley, avant garde musician Daved Hild and Robin Amos, founding member of Cul de Sac. (No "the" after the word "joined"??)...This is from the article George Condo.

2. His family house is preserved at 816 South Hennepin Avenue, and authorized by Congress to become Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site.[4] (No "the after the word "become"?? -- I have added the word "the" in the actual article)...This is from the article Dixon, Illinois.

Sorry my question is formatted/ worded oddly. The page keeps reverting to the main help page every time I type. My question is...is omitting the word "the" in these examples above conforming to a Wikipedia/ encyclopedia writing style? These are only 2 examples; I have come across more of them. My ear can stand no "the" in the first example, possibly because the name of the band contains the word "the." However, in the second example, I have a hard time reading the sentence aloud minus the "the" and accepting that it sounds correct.

Thanks for any responses.

Badgernation777 (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Badgernation777, and welcome to the teahouse, although I cannot guarantee that we can accommodate an entire nation of badgers here. (Do badgers drink tea anyway?) I totally agree that the second sentence sounds utterly weird without a pronoun of some sort in there. The first one is, I think, less clear-cut. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question Badgernation 777 and here's my two RMBs worth. 1) I don't think you need "the" before "proto-synth" because it's acting an adjective to the following noun, "The Girls" (which should be in quotes I think). 2. Definately needs "the" for the following noun. I cannot comment as to whether badgers drink tea, but if they do it must be when they are taking a break from digging up gardens ...grrr... Philg88 ^♦talk 08:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting an inappropriate username

Going through Wikipedia, I stumbled across a user with an inappropriate username, one that could be seen as offensive. As I'm still rather new to all this, I'm not sure how to report the username.

Thanks in advance! IsisAthenaArtemis Talk 06:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IsisAthenaArtemis, welcome back to the Teahouse! I'd first try talking, so the user can have an opportunity to create a new account or request a change in username. But if it is coupled with inappropriate conduct on Wikipedia (as I suspect is the case with the user you want to report), then it may be better to just head straight to usernames for administrative attention. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Anon126's response, Wikipedia's policy on usernames is at Wikipedia:Username policy. The page entails what constitutes an inappropriate username and how one can deal with them. Best, Mz7 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles tagged citation needed

Hi, I've started going through articles listed in Category: Wikipedia articles needing factual section and I've already done several but just this afternoon for example, I worked on two articles listed under May 2014, the NetBSD article and the Big O notation article. But when I went back to category list I noticed that the two articles were still in the list, even after I selected the link to update the page.

I just want to make sure I'm doing it correctly. Thanks. David Condrey (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big O notation doesn't seem to have the category listed on the page anymore (which means it will be cleared out of the category on the next pass of the job queue). I'm researching why NetBSD seems to still be in the category, I'm guessing a buggy template or something.. Be back momentarily... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find what is causing it, but I'm just too tired tonight. It has to be one of the templates is placing it in all of those categories, and based on what digging I've done, it is none of the directly used templates, so it must be a template called by a template which can be a pain to find... I'll dig it out tomorrow if someone reminds me. I wouldn't worry too much, you did everything correctly. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's {{Better source}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David. I was just too tired last night to do any more digging. Perhaps Category:All pages needing factual verification should have a note at the top of it saying that pages using {{Better source}} are listed in that category so the next person will be able to figure it out more quickly? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 11:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sign

I wanted to change my signature i did and it was Cincao0 3. And i went to preferences and changed it to that. And put it in but showed up in wiki text. And does not have the colors and it looks weird. The hole thing is linked and says user:cincao03. It works for other users is there anything i could do to correct it [[User:Cincao03|'''Cincao''']][[Special:contributions/Cincao03|'''0''']][[User talk:Cincao03|'''3''']] (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preferences -> Signature -> Treat the above as wiki markup. . Make sure that box is ticked! --LukeSurl^{t c} 23:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hey Cincao03. This is far from my area of expertise I should say, but I think the problem is from the unpaired and strangely located , which is I suspect an artifact from a prior version that never got removed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LukeSurl^{t c} and Fuhghettaboutit (talk) I tried both of them and it was not fixed the right way, could one of you put it the right way and send it to me on my talk page please!! — Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relax... Set the code to: [[User:Cincao03|'''Cincao''']][[Special:contributions/Cincao03|'''0''']][[User talk:Cincao03|'''3''']] and check the treat as wikitext box directly below it in your preferences. Doing this will result in a signature that looks like Cincao⁰³. I will note that most of that signature has too low of a color contrast ratio and therefor will be difficult for many readers to see and as such I suggest darkening the colors a bit [[User:Cincao03|'''Cincao''']][[Special:contributions/Cincao03|'''0''']][[User talk:Cincao03|'''3''']] for Cincao⁰³ — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} but i want it all in bold. i want the 03 in bold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cincao03 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to to the Teahouse, Cincao03. You can have a spiffy signature if you want, as I do. But please keep in mind that the purpose of this project is to build a free encyclopedia, and everything else is secondary to that. You've made over 80 edits so far, but only a single one was to an encyclopedia article. Please try to pay attention to the purpose of this project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Technical 13you and User:Sinebot everything you have sent me or told me for the signatures have not worked!!! Technical 13 i tried the 2 choices you sent me it didnt work, and Sinebot what the hell are you talking about, i want this Cincao0 3 but when i put it on my preferences it come up as [[User:Cincao03|'''Cincao''']][[Special:contributions/Cincao03|'''0''']][[User talk:Cincao03|'''3''']] (talk) , but i want to just hit the 4 tildes ([[User:Cincao03|'''Cincao''']][[Special:contributions/Cincao03|'''0''']][[User talk:Cincao03|'''3''']] (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)). But it dosent i will give one of you my pass word, and do it for me!! And dont hack it or i will report the crap out of you[reply]

Do NOT reveal your password to anyone. Compromised accounts will be blocked. Please try to get your priorities straight. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it i tried to change my signature to this Cincao0 3 and i go to preferences and put it in and shows up as [[User:Cincao03|'''Cincao''']][[Special:contributions/Cincao03|'''0''']][[User talk:Cincao03|'''3''']] (talk) , but i want to just hit the 4 tildes ([[User:Cincao03|'''Cincao''']][[Special:contributions/Cincao03|'''0''']][[User talk:Cincao03|'''3''']] (talk) and they have told me everything and it dosent work. So could you please tell me anything else about my signature getting changed. Cinca03 — Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see there are still ... tags in what you are claiming is coming back for your signature, which means you are not doing what I guided you to doing. I suggest you read over WP:SIG#CustomSig and take a look at File:Raw_signature.png. I want you to start by making your preferences look exactly like what is in that screenshot. Then, I want you to change [[User:Example|Example]] ([[User talk:Example|talk]]) into:

[[User:Cincao03|'''<span style="color:#C00;">Cincao</span>''']]<sup>[[Special:contribs/Cincao03|<span style="color:#00C">'''0'''</span>]][[User talk:Cincao03|<span style="color:#D77">'''3'''</span>]]</sup>

Then, scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and click the save preferences button. Finally, come back here and post {{U|Technical 13}} ~~~~, and click the save button. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My new sign Cincao03 Cincao03 Cincao03 Cincao03 01:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost looks like you got it working. You apparently just need to just completely blank that box and put ONLY:

[[User:Cincao03|'''<span style="color:#C00;">Cincao</span>''']]<sup>[[Special:contribs/Cincao03|<span style="color:#00C">'''0'''</span>]][[User talk:Cincao03|<span style="color:#D77">'''3'''</span>]]</sup>

in the box and click save preferences. You seem to have multiple overlapping and poorly coded versions in there. Clearing it out completely and just pasting in the code in the box above should fix it. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 11:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Hello fellow Wikipedians! On this page I appear to have put in the following parameter:|class=B, but when I preview/edit it, it pops up as "C Class." How do I fix this? Thanks! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 22:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BrandonWu: Hi WooHoo! The class will not be accepted unless you fill out the form stating that you have checked the article against b1 through b6, i.e., you would have to add |b1=yes|b2=yes and so on through b6 to the template code. Please go back the that talk page and click [show] next to where it says "This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status:" Here's the thing though: I don't believe you should do so, because I don't believe this article has achieved B status. Its lead does not adequately summarize its content; the content appears to be short of broad coverage; it has unsourced content, and it has some sources that look questionable. That is from only a very short look. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back for another round of "do I have it yet?"

Hello again, Teahouse. I've been working on my resubmitted article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Dews and would appreciate someone letting me know if it seems okay. I will admit to not understanding why some of the references aren't reliable, but I need to take others' word for it. I have tried to encompass the suggestions from at least four Wikipedians. Is it ready for primetime? Thanks and regards, Oldbeeg (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome (back?) Oldbeeg. You're references seem find to me. The only problem that I can think of is the sections labeled: FICTION and NONFICTION. On Wikipedia, we use this policy which does not allow you to use all caps on section headings or even prose! I also recommend using other articles such as this one which you could use as a reference. To add with that, on the bottom you have a redlinked category you should remove. I may/may not give you comments on the talk page and I'm assuming that other Wikipedians will give you tips on your article. That was a long reply :). Cheers! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 23:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WooHoo, and thanks for the notes and article to reference. I didn't realize about the all caps. That's fixed. My understanding is that the categories (and redlink) at the bottom have been commented out, so they aren't "live". The redfont link isn't a category, but indicates the subject name's sort order. If the page is accepted, they will all be un-commented and then go live. Oldbeeg (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The DEFAULTSORT isn't a category, the preceding colon didn't belong there. I've removed it. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help and clarification, David Biddulph! I didn't understand commenting things out when that was done several weeks ago. Oldbeeg (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see what I'm doing wrong that it cannot be published . Going crossed eyed looking for the errors.

User:Flowervr/sandbox

I've copied similar templates and everything seems in order. What are the changes I need to make to get it approved?

Any help is greatly appreciated! Flowervr (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flowervr and welcome to The Teahouse. The problem I see is that there are no sources listed in the text. Ideally, we want to see an independent reliable source for each fact in the article. After each section of text that you have taken from a single source, you should type <ref>Information about source</ref>. You can learn more at WP:CITE and there are templates you can use, but you don't have to.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flowervr. Your draft article is an entirely unreferenced biography of a living person. That is completely contrary to Wikipedia's policies, and the draft article has no chance of being accepted until it is properly referenced. Follow the procedures described in Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

userbox help

i made this userbox

Tyler

This user's real name is Tyler .

and i want to make it a userbox with the code. And i am having trouble with the code making it. Could someone just make a code or tell me how to do it. Cincao03 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cincao03 and welcome back to The Teahouse. I don't know how to do what you are asking, but for some reason your userbox is appearing two questions below. I have Windows Vista and Internet Explorer 9.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's appearing in the next question.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've fixed the issue of the userbox showing up in the wrong section. Cincao03, what do you mean by "Code"? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Userbox}} Technical 13 This is what i am talking about the code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cincao03 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you right, all you want is {{User:Cincao03/userboxes/Tyler}} (which I've already created) that contains your above code. Is that correct? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee and Technical 13: The userbox was appearing too far down because its upper edge was unable to position itself above the upper edge of {{Teahouse questions navbox}}. This is normal behaviour for floating boxes in HTML. As further threads are added at the top, this one will be pushed down and so the userbox will gradually work its way to the intended place. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing unpublished Club documents

Hi. I am working in my sandbox with an introduction to the formation of the Motor Caravanners' Club. Some of my information is from early unpublished documents. Can I put copies of these documents on the Motor Caravanners' website and point to them, or can I add these to Wikipedia so that they can verify my statements. Many thanks Harrycuthbert.Harrycuthbert (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Harrycuthbert and welcome to The Teahouse. You can't add the documents themselves to Wikipedia, and if unpublished, they might not qualify as an independent reliable source.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harrycuthbert. Relying on unpublished documents is considered original research, which isn't allowed here on Wikipedia. But original research is perfectly fine elsewhere. You can write an article based on such research and submit it for publication in an historical journal or other such reliable source. Once your article is published, it can be used as a reference here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, thanks for the information. I thought that I may have problems here. I'll have to consider what my next step will be. Thanks againHarrycuthbert (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi all! I would like to submit a draft for review, of bio in the academia, just before

hi all! I would like to submit a draft for review, of bio in the academia, just before the final decision to publicize it, Is it possible? it is also a stub... Histoire2020 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Histoire2020, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to the article in your sandbox, it's not really ready to go, because it has no references to reliable, independent sources to verify the information. You may want to read Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and WP:Referencing for beginners. The process for submitting a draft for review is to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haloo Anne Delong

as you may realize , I am new to all these,,, thank you fpr you response and help if you have a moment I would appreciate it... I intended to write a stub with only biography section , at this phase, as you can see (how can you see my sandbox?!) I have a longer version of bio with many references... what would you suggest to do then? thank you in advance Best wishes Histoire2020 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help moving a page please!

Hi, I am interning at this organization who recently rebranded and would like their page renamed accordingly. The current page is European Committee for Children of Imprisoned Parents, however the new name is Children of Prisoners Europe. As I do not meet the criteria to be an autoconfirmed account and thus cannot move the page myself, I was wondering if someone could move the page for me? Thank you! Cabowitz (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cabowitz, welcome to the Teahouse. I have

moved the page on your request. To improve the article, add references to reliable secondary sources, such as books, newspapers, and websites that are independent of the organization. Best, Mz7 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabowitz, welcome to not only the Teahouse, but also to Wikipedia. Since you are interning at the organization in question, you probably should read WP:COI (particularly the part "Writing about yourself and your work") for reference. Although it is not expressly prohibited, editing, etc. articles that you have more than just a casual association with (e.g., the company you work for) may lead other editors to question your neutrality. In such cases, it might be a better idea to post on the article's talk page first when you notice changes that you believe should be made (other than obvious non-controversial ones), explaining both your reasoning and your vested interest, and then waiting a bit to see if another editor comes along to discuss or help. Just a suggestion. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected article

I just want to know the reasons why my article submission has been rejected. I cited several sites for references and put in all the necessary information in the article, is there something wrong with it? Rg allstar (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rg allstar and welcome to the Teahouse! Your submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kristine Cecille Isidro was declined because you didn't cite the references you used in the article itself. For help on referencing, see Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and attributed to a reliable source. Especially information about living persons. While it's good you did research, you didn't cite the sites you used in the content of the article. Best, Mz7 (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello

DarjanDRE (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)I just want to know how to make a new page: like a list of argentine slovenians?DarjanDRE (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the article wizard, an easy way to create new articles: right here. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 14:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Go and Cross the White Tile

Hello, I just created a page some weeks (or months) ago called "Don't Tap the White Tile". I figured out its real name is Piano Tiles and that is only for Android.I created that page and all I need is an admin to move the page. NahNah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 10:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the tea-house - with 992 edits over 6 months, you shouldn't need an Admin - you should be able to move the page yourself - see Wikipedia:Moving a page for instructions. If you get stuck - please come back- NahNah4 (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NahNah4 and Arjayay: The title Piano Tiles is currently a redirect to Don't Tap the White Tile. This is preventing non-admins from moving the page themselves, since a user would have to delete the "Piano Tiles" page to make way for the move. To request an admin do it for you, place the following code at the top of this page: {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}} Best, Mz7 (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I just moved this myself, and I'm not an admin... Any autoconfirmed user should have been capable of preforming that Move Over Redirect. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thanks Technical 13 for the follow-up. Mz7 (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My article was not approved but not sure if my edits are being reviewed

Hi, I wrote an article and it was rejected because it did not contain cited references. I edited my article in sandbox but am not sure it is back in the review process. How can I find out? Thanks Roxannequintl (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne, your sandbox draft isn't in the review queue at the moment but I've reinserted the notice after the last review. a) it comtains the button for you to resubmit the article for review, and b) having the previous notice there gives the reviewer some information about what happened before and work out if the draft has improved since the last review. Nthep (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) But, don't start yet. I think you still have insufficient references. ASnd for your WP:REDLINK iPhone page, please tag it to [[iPhone]] instead of [[iphone]]. Please read this page and WP:CITE. --NN4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxannequintl: Just to let you know, I have moved your sandbox draft to Draft:LEEDIR, which is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Feel free to keep working on it there. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a follow-up question at this Teahouse. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected Submisssion

Hello everyone. I recently submitted an article about the Smart Sex Movement but it was rejected and I am trying to understand why and what needs to be done to get it approved. Any advice would be much appreciated. ThanxMarcfu (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcfu and welcome to the Teahouse! The reason your article has been rejected is that it does not cite any references that establish the notability of the subject. You might like to read WP:Referencing for Beginners or Yunshui's excellent guide to references. I have moved your article to Draft:The smart sex movement to give you time to work on it. Please feel free to ask further questions as and when they arise. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need a policy clearly discouraging addition of red links

Not sure if this is the place to post this. I guess since I'm looking for input on how to change Wikipedia then it is. I was recently involved in a debate on an article that I watch and consider myself an expert on. Here is the talk section Talk:Expert_system#Write_the_Article_First While the issue was resolved as I think it should have been I think the fact that so much discussion was required is an example of why adding ANY red link is never something we should encourage. Indeed I would go so far as to say red links should just be considered errors that are flagged the way a reference that doesn't parse is flagged. There are no professional web sites that consider links that don't exist to be anything but errors. One of my areas of expertise is User Interface design and a link that goes nowhere but instead suddenly shifts you from being a user/reader to an expected editor is terrible design. I understand how it was a cool idea in the cowboy days of the Internet, but I think now it encourages people to make unconstructive edits. It's not that hard to create a stub article. It's even less hard to add an article to a queue of one of the appropriate work groups. Simple math shows that if we want exponential wiki growth than red links will eventually drown us. It's an order of magnitude easier to create a link than an article. Things like red links provide fodder for the people like Steven Coulbert who like to mock Wikipedia rather than acknowledge it as one of the best sources to start doing research. Sorry for the long rant, is there a place I can advocate for an official change to the red link policy? MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RED and let me know if this answers your questions on the topic of redlinks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hey MadScientistX11. You could of course go directly to the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Red link, but I think a better venue would be Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I personally disagree with you on this, but this is not the forum for the discussion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @MadScientistX11: Our guideline on redlinks exists at Wikipedia:Red link. It has a section on when one should avoid the creation of redlinks. In a nutshell, you shouldn't create a redlink to a title if an article at that title is not likely to be created. However, the inherent nature of Wikipedia makes the project forever incomplete—there will always be new topics to write about. If a topic mentioned in an article is notable and suitable for Wikipedia, but doesn't yet have an article, then a redlink should be created for it to promote its creation in the future. Red links help Wikipedia grow. If you would like to change the red link guidelines, you may do so at Wikipedia talk:Red link, but if you want to propose the complete elimination of red links, my gut feeling says that the community will not support you. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I use red links sparingly, and dislike creation of list articles crammed with them. But red links are useful when dealing with topics where there is widespread consensus that a certain type of topic can be considered pretty much inherently notable. Examples include accredited degree awarding secondary schools, colleges and universities; state and provincial legislators; Olympic athletes; populated towns and villages and the like. This encyclopedia is far from complete, and a red link to a notable topic is a signal to any editor who wants to write a new article that another editor believes that an article is needed. I will oppose any attempt to restrict red links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, do I feel targeted by this discussion! I expand articles about Sweden marked as stubs by The Swedish Portal, by translating from SweWiki. When I translated Ljugarn I also translated the Template:Gotland County. In SweWiki it is all "blue" but once in English most of it (not unexpectedly) turned "red". I asked other editors about how I should deal with this, and got the advice that I should keep them "red" for now. But since I made the mess I think I should also try to clean it up, and I doing so I discovered that some of the articles (not "red") listed in the template were disambiguation pages, some lacked important information and some were plain wrong. I have made it my pet project to fix this little corner of Wiki, but if it were not for the "reds" I would never have noticed the rest. So sometimes red links can be good. - W.carter (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in sandbox need some one to say if content is encyclopedic.

need help can you read my sandbox and critique.Arnlodg (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnlodg: Hi Arnlodg. My critique is that it is not for a number of reasons. First and foremost, reading the draft, I really have no idea what the intended article is actually about. Oh, I have a few sentences stating some concepts but there's nothing there to sink one's teeth into to understand the thrust of any of it. Even my assessment – that it *looks* like the start of an original research piece to advocate for a personal theory based on synthesis of [possibly] existing concepts but put together to advance ideas that no reliable source actually says – is suspect because I have so little to go on. Here's a test: can you point me to any published, reliable source that explains what exactly "Philosophy of Observation Cosmos Self" is, directly and without any interpretation? If not, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it based on some of the concepts, policies and guidelines I've linked to, as well as Wikipedia's verifiability policy and notability guidelines. By the way, discussion pages like this one are where you should sign, but your signature should never appear in the body of an article, or proposed article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am advocating for a theory based on synthesizing existing concepts...to your test: "can you point me to any published, reliable source that explains what exactly 'Observation Cosmos Self' is, directly and without any interpretation?" I have resubmitted trying for more clarity as you've pointed out to me, please read again, thanks...this is an experiment by me to see if those of us that practice 'ways' can influence the world through wikipedia, its looking doubtful based on what you here are saying, thanks again.Arnlodg (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arnlodg. It seems that another word for trying to "influence the world through wikipedia" is promotion, an activity which is specifically forbidden on Wikipedia. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Map streetview

I thought I had seen instructions for using Google Map streetview photos for articles about specific locations-- or maybe the instructions were NOT to use captured streetviews? Can you point me to the relevant policy, please? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google owns copyright to the images that make up Street View, and so, that media is wp:non-free. Because those images are almost surely easily replaced (by being taken from public streets), those images fail point 1 of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. So, NO Google streetview screen captures. Chris857 (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris857--Thanks for the clear, succinct answer. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are the wikipedia policies on photos of artwork?

I uploaded a photo for the Willow Tree (figurines) article and it was tagged for possible deletion. I am having a hard time finding the policies regarding photos of artwork to review. Bali88 (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bali88. Copyright issues can be complex, but I will try to simplify. A work of art is copyrighted when it is displayed or published. Registration is no longer required. A photograph of a work of art is a derivitive work, and is subject to the same copyright restrictions as the original work of art. It can be difficult to determine if a specific work is copyrighted, or if copyright has expired. Here's a rough guideline: If the work was first published or exhibited before 1923 in the U.S., it is no longer covered by copyright. Artists of more recent works can relinquish copyright or issue a Creative Commons license. You need evidence of that. If it is more recent, then you should assume that is is copyrighted unless you have solid evidence to the contrary. Example: there are a group of Ansel Adams photos, called the "Mural Project" photos, that are copyright-free because he was a contract employee of the U.S. Federal government when he made them. Federal government works are not copyrighted. Adams' earliest published photos are also copyright free, because they were published before 1923. Other than that, all Ansel Adams works are copyrighted, and his heirs own the rights. Bottom line: When in doubt, leave it out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What if I own the artwork? I don't know if this is how it works, but it seems like I would have the right to take a photograph and allow others to use that photograph. Bali88 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bali88: If you own the copyright to the work in question, you can donate it to Wikipedia by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. You will have to license your work under an acceptable free license. Note that most licenses allow anyone (not just Wikipedia) to use your work for any purpose, as long as they say that you are the author of the work. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I found your image (File:Willow Tree Nativity.jpg). It has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because someone doesn't think you actually took the picture. Personally, since the image looks like it was taken in a house or apartment, I don't see any reason to doubt you. If you want, you could try sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the text at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. This will allow the Wikimedia Foundation to have an archive of your permission and declaration that the file is yours. Best, Mz7 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is incorrect. As Cullen328 says above, the photograph is a derivative work of an original creation, which is automatically copyrighted. Who took the photo is immaterial and use of the photo is a copyright violation for which permission to use cannot be granted except by the creator (or copyright owner) of the work. The only possibility is that if the nativity scene was created more than 100 years ago (or 70 years after the creator's death), then under US copyright law, it is now in the public domain. Proof will be needed for such an assertion. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Philg88. In this case, you own figurines which are copies of the original art work. When you buy figurines, you buy the physical object not the copyright. If you commission an original painting and there is a written legal agreement that you acquire all rights to the artist's work, that would be another matter. But normally, artists sell works of art, not copyright to those works of art, which the artist retains. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Philg88 and Cullen328 for your follow up responses. I misunderstood the situation. Bali88, to answer your original question, Wikipedia's policy on image use is readable at Wikipedia:Image use policy. Best, Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article help

If i were towant to create an article, and sent it in on my sandbox. And said it was declined, is there any way someone could help you fix it. Cincao03 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cincao03, and welcome to the Teahouse! When an Articles for creation article submission is declined, the editor who reviewed your submission will leave a note explaining why he or she declined your draft. They may also recommend how you can improve your draft to get it accepted. If their advice isn't clear, you could a question here—in this Teahouse, and a host will help you. You are also encouraged to ask a question at the Articles for creation help desk if the reviewer's advice is unclear, or you can ask the reviewer personally on their user talk page. To avoid your submission from being declined, make sure you follow the instruction of the Article Wizard and choose a notable topic. Remember, not all topics are suitable for an encyclopedia. If you ever need help, this Teahouse will always be open.

Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a question.

If I may... can I just say a big THANK YOU to all of you Teahouse hosts.:) I really like just hanging out at the TH and read all the Q&A. It is one of the best ways to learn how to Wiki. - W.carter (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, W.carter! It was an invaluable aid to me when I first started out as well. hope we can be of further assistance in the future. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second @W.carter:'s comments! As a newbie myself, you have all been helpful, encouraging, and incredibly tolerant of answering the same questions over and over. Reading the Teahouse updates is a highlight of every day - thank you! --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the support W.carter! Here at the Teahouse, you can be assured that we, the hosts, will dedicate our time to helping those who need it. Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

As the submission problem is now solved i would like someone to review or address me the changes the article needs. Or can someone take a look and tell if its good enough to be accepted. Draft:2006 ICC Awards Abhinav0908 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That can sometimes take a couple weeks. Review is done by volunteers just like you and me and they more or less go in order received. I don't know enough about cricket to attempt review myself, but it seems good to go. John from Idegon (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will wait for someone to review it.Abhinav0908 (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding A picture

How do I add a picture from my computer to an article?Zuriah7 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zuriah7 and welcome to the Teahouse! To upload an image, make sure that it is free to use. You must have the correct copyright tag on it. If you took it yourself, you can use it. Go to Wikimedia Commons and upload the file. (top toolbar). If it is not free but believe it is fair use (cover of a book), you may use the File Upload Wizard. If you still have a question regarding the copyright tag, you can always reply. Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to upload a picture of a little bit popular bandZuriah7 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you took it, you most likely cannot use it, assuming the band is still around. If the picture is of Pillar, almost certainly not unless you yourself took it. John from Idegon (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How then, should I go about adding a nice profile picture to the main page for Pillar?Zuriah7 (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer is that you don't, unless you can persuade someone who owns the copyright of an image of the band to release it as explained here.--ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to submit a draft

I made a new article using my sandbox then moved it to a draft Draft:2006 ICC Awards. How do i submit it to be reviewed? I don't want the edit history to be removed. Please help me submit it to the articles for submission.Abhinav0908 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abhinav0908, and welcome to the Teahouse! To submit it for AFC, you first have to add the template that states the article is for AFC. I did that for you. Now you just have to press submit and away you go! Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 20:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TheQ Editor Abhinav0908 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

orphan pages

how to get a list of orphan pages ? Sorarara (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorarara, Category:Orphaned articles is a good place go start, there's over 117,000 articles for you there. Nthep (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia editing

I've been using Wikipedia for years, have sometimes read talk pages, and have even made minor edits, but only recently created an editor account. I've read the policies page and the editing guidelines page, in addition to already being familiar with some things from my past experience. The few edits I've made already using my new account were easy; I was able to figure things out from the notes provided in appropriate places. Is there anything else I should know? Why is my personal page link red while most editors' are blue? (Is it just because there's nothing on it, or does it have something to do with my account being new?) Are there certain things I'm discouraged from doing as a new editor? DrSocPsych (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DrSocPsych, any page that is linked with the double square brackets will show up red if the page hasn't been created yet, or has been deleted for some reason. As soon as you have made ten edits and had an account for four days, you will be an autoconfirmed user, and have the same general user rights as most editors. If there are specific things that you want to do, and are not sure if you should, or don't know how to do them, just ask here at the Teahouse. The friendly editors here will answer as many questions as you want to ask (I know from experience; for a while there when I was new I was their best customer). Welcome to the Wikipedia community! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DrSocPsych, and welcome to Wikipedia and the teahouse. One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that you cannot break it. There is nothing you can do that cannot be undone. That being said, what do you like? There are Wikprojects on virtually every subject under the sun. Perhaps joining one of them might help you find your niche here. Us folk who help others can always use help too. Once you get your feet under you, you may want to consider hosting here or helping at the help desk. John from Idegon (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an article of a notiable person but I have been rejected, can you help?

Keith Scramble Campbell is a very notable person with over 2300 artworks to his credit. There is an award winning documentary on him and his artwork, I have referenced all of this. He has worked on many national projects, and his artwork spans the globe in many collections. He is the Leroy Neiman of our times.

How is he not notable? Please help.RMJams (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and welcome! I took a quick look at your article through your user page, and while I think you're on your way, I do agree that there's not much that establishes this artist's notability. What we're looking for, generally, is articles in third-party sources that comment on the artist, review their work, etc. In other words, if others feel he is worth writing a story about, then Wikipedia should, too. --McDoob AU93 18:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tag

I tag a picture for deletion by mistake, can I remove the tag? Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 15:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are referring to the section below, and to the deletion nomination in Commons, not here in the English Wikipedia. No, you shouldn't remove the tag, but you have commented on the deletion nomination page, and in any case the grounds for nomination were invalid, so the file won't be deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, I appreciate your quick answer. But who will remove the tag? or this tag will remain forever?

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 15:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tag will disappear within at most two weeks. No harm will come from this, don't worry. --LukeSurl^{t c} 16:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Perhaps you haven't read the deletion process in Commons? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of wikipedia titles

How do I capitalize the first letter of a person's last name in the title of a wikipedia article? Wikipedia automatically turns it into a lower-case letter but it's a public person so it needs to be upper-case. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seda_egridere

Thanx for the help in advance.

(GavXX (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GavXX. I see that Nthep has just moved the page to the correct title. This incidentally means that the former title (with lower case 'e') is still there, but just redirects to the new title).

Resolved

--ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help Nthep--92.36.177.227 (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POLEMIC

Does POLEMIC apply to myself? I want to list my block log on my own user page, but apparently that is not in order ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonkers The Clown: My advice would be to tread carefully here and listen to the admins. You don't want to get indeffed a third time, right? I've also seen people keep similar lists of admins who took action against them, and such lists were soon removed. --Jakob (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that advice. Such lists have no place in a collaborative project.--ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first major edit, thoughts, advice?

Hey, I recently began my Wikipedia career and decided to rewrite the article about Spime, since I believe it's misguiding and somewhat outdated.

I have my version in my Sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Techfy/sandbox

I'm still in the middle of adding ref tags, they be marked by [XXXXXX].

Thanks in advance!

Techfy (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the existing article is better. Good grammar is key. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing an entire article in your sand-box is not prohibited, but may I suggest you introduce the changes incrementally, as this allows identification, isolation and discussion of any controversial issues; whereas, if you cut and paste the entire article from your sandbox, this leads to a "spot the difference" competition. If an editor objects to any part of a wholesale change, they are highly likely to revert the lot, whereas they may agree with 95% but cannot, easily, reverse, or isolate, your changes to the parts that they disagree with. - Arjayay (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Arjayay already said its better to do it in step. It would be a shame after all that all your work would be reverted whole sale. just because of a few errors you might have made in the re-write. NathanWubs (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Dear Cullen. I thought that the picture Kids-175.jpg is not being used anywhere, so I marked it for speedy deletion, but I realized later on that it is being used in article "lake". Kindly help me and remove the tag of deletion. I dont know how to remove the tag. Best wishes Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 07:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image is on Wikimedia commons. Commons is a free media repository and does not exist solely for the benefit of Wikipedia. Images do not need to be used on a wiki page to be kept. I've said this on the deletion nomination on commons. It is very unlikely to be deleted. --LukeSurl^{t c} 11:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also now added this image to the Khanpur Dam article here on the English Wikipedia. --LukeSurl^{t c} 11:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear LukeSur1 I am realy greatful. I hope it will not going to be deleted Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 11:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get rid of a file I uploaded?

I uploaded but due to my dialect I pronounced it differently from the pronunciation it was intended to demonstrate on the Dutch phonology page, how do I get rid of the file? - Cilibinarii (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cilibinarii and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you sure that this is the correct filename as right now it doesn't exist. If you are the author/uploader of any file you can request Speedy Deletion. Just place {{Db-g7}} on the relevant page. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the correct file name. The deletion log reads as follows:

02:07, June 5, 2014 Little Mountain 5 (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Nl-freule.ogg (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page).

--ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will someone please help fix it?

Hi Everyone, I just created a new article, and yes i am new to this, but someone please look at this article and help fix me? Now this appeared on the page, "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged...etc". SusanBeir (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is The Mazeking I added the tag because the article doesn't explain why they are notable.Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

its fixed I believe. SusanBeir (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SusanBier. If you have any questions about what is considered notable, the notability guidelines for artists can be found here: WP:ARTIST, the basic criteria can be found here: WP:BASIC, and the general notability guideline can be found here: WP:GNG. I hope this helps. Paisarepa (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SusanBeir. I'm afraid you still haven't established notability for this artist. Although you have added multiple references, these all point to the same website, which is self-published and therefore not independent as required by Wikipedia guidelines. Please see this guide, which will explain what you need to do to avoid deletion of the article. Until you have done that, the article needs to remain tagged for notability issues. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

these do not all point to the same website, and i had many others and someone removed them. SusanBeir (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This will be fixed and I spoke with someone who has done many many wiki articles and they said they will asst. I will say that it's rather interesting, because I looked around and many of other articles and found no reason at all for them to have a article page, non. So be care how and who you exclude. SusanBeir (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and your point is clear and well made and I completely get it. However, I must say that I find it very interesting and rather annoying that this article is less than 20 hours and has been seemingly unwanted from the start. I think that is rather interesting, no matter how its presented. This artist is not at the level of Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin or Picasso at this time. However, this artist has been around for over teen years, has done exhibits, auctions, and now in the past two or three years this artist has done a form of art, that is really interesting, which has gotten lots of attention for around the world. I did two searches myself and found over 200 images other people have taken of them with his work, and two videos and several media sites showing his work, including Oprah, NPR and a writer- editor of the WSJ. So with that said I find it rather interesting that maybe you and others feel that this artist is not worth including or at best giving me a crash course in Wiki writing, editing etc. However, I did some looking around at artist articles including some from music and photography being that I know some of those types myself and I must say that I found many articles just like this one. Even more so, with fewer links, fewer public interest link or ref and even with seemingly no reason they are important or notable at all. I can cite them if you wish. I am just trying to get an understanding of who gets to pick who's in and who's not. a few articles, Richard Phillips, Wyatt Gallery, Stonehoney. Anyway I asked for help and rather than help many article got tagged and that just does not seem like help. SusanBeir (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I upset anyone, I got annoying and felt it was unfair and not balanced, being that I saw other articles that seem to have very little in the way of real value or meaning for inclusion, but that's my perspective. I was simply trying to create a page that I thought was worth creating, about an artist and his work which I had seen a few time in NYC and then heard about on the radio, and later saw images of on many of my friends Facebook, Instagram, etc. So I guess I'm not really good at writing this type of thing, so I will leave it as it is and if someone wishes to continue it or if the wikipedia community wishes to keep or delete it, then okay. Yet I do feel that the reasons stated regarding "notability" is very weak, being that there are many Wikipedia articles that truly fail that test. Thank you. SusanBeir (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan, don't worry, you haven't upset anyone - most of the regulars have thick skin! One piece of advice, if I may - we look at each article and draft on its own merits, so while it is tempting to do so, don't worry about other articles, just concentrate on this one and continue to work on it.(For more on the thinking behind this see this page.) We realise that there are thousands of articles that should probably be deleted because their subjects don't meet the notability guidelines. That's just the nature of the Wikipedia beast - as an open project without an editor-in-chief or an editorial board, articles about non-notable subjects do sometimes linger longer than they should do - we will get to them eventually, there is no deadline.--ukexpat (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlinks to other pages

If, for example, I wanted to put a link to the Wikipedia Advanced Placement site I would normally put Advanced Placement, which works fine. However, I want to be able to put AP and specify the page, rather than have the hyperlink be rerouted to AP (Disambiguation). Is it possible for me to do this? Entriess (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Entriess and welcome to The Teahouse. What you want is called a piped link. You would type the following: [[Advanced Placement|AP]]— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piped links can be very useful, but in general, it is not a good idea to pipe to acronyms. You may know what "AP" means in the context of this particular article, but a reader less familiar with the topic than you are may not appreciate having to visit another page to learn what those letters mean. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article is an orphan issue

Hello Teahouse,

Thanks for the invite. So I have created this page and before I could finish it, it said the following "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related" So at this time the page is not an orphan i believe, being that after that I completed a number of additions and updates. So can i do next to have that "Orphan" article removed? or will it remove itself after a day or so?SusanBeir (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. Maintenance templates such as that one are not removed automatically. If you think that the article has sufficient incoming links from other articles to meet the guidelines explained at WP:ORPHAN you can remove the template yourself, but please explain briefly in your edit summary why you are removing it. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SusanBeir. I took a look and noticed that you added a link to The Mazeking to the article Mixed media. I have deleted that link, since we would need a reliable, independent source that indicated that this artist is among the most famous of this genre, or widely considered representative of this genre. The artist's website is promotional and not independent and not a reliable source for such a claim. The mixed media article is weak, and should be improved and expanded, mentioning the best known artists working in the genre. Adding a lesser known artist as the only example of a genre is not an improvement to either article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and your point is clear and well made and I completely get it. However, I must say that I find it very interesting and rather annoying that this article is less than 20 hours and has been seemingly wanted from the start. I think that is rather interesting, no matter how its presented. This artist is not at the level of Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin or Picasso. However, this artist has been around for over teen years, has done exhibits and auctioned, and now in the past two or three years this artist has done a form of art that is really interesting and which has gotten lots of attention for around the world. I did two searches myself and found over 200 images other people have taken of them with his work, and two videos and several media sites showing his work, including Oprah, NPR and a writer- editor of the WSJ. So with that said I find it rather interesting that you and maybe others feel that this artist is not worth including or at best giving me a crash course in Wiki writing, editing etc. However, I must say that I did some looking around at artist articles including some from music and photography as well being that I know some of those types and I must say that I found many articles just like this one. Even more so with fewer links, fewer public interest link or ref and even with seemingly no reason they are important or notable at all. I can cite them if you wish. I am just trying to get an understanding of how gets to pick who's in and who's not. SusanBeir (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

clock time display for uk

in preferences / gadgets, the clock on the toolbar displays the server time no matter what changes I make to the settings, tried them all and the clock is one hour behind the UK, what is the fix please Manc1894 08:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manc1894 (talk • contribs)

As preferences/gadgets says "Add a clock in the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC" - It does exactly what it says on the tin. This means it is the same as local time (GMT) during UK winters, but an hour behind BST in the summer. Wikipedia works on UTC - which can be far more confusing for people elsewhere in the world - at least it is the same as your local time for 50% of the year.- Arjayay (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than the clock in Preferences/Gadgets, I use User:Technical 13/Scripts/Gadget-LiveClock.js, which shows the time in local time, UTC on mouseover, & also provides a purge link, see docuumentation at User:Technical 13/Scripts/Gadget-LiveClock. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so for displaying a correct time UK on the toolbar in the UK it's useless then? and the "correction" hours box in preferences is a waste of time [excuse the pun] as this does not correct the UTC time does it, so what's the point? I am a new user and the intuitive indexed help on a scale of 1-10 is say 2, designed by geeks for geeks, hv to get used to it I suppose, thx for the help to understand that it UTC display only? can anyone confirm what the correction box does or why there is a drop down box that also does not affect the toolbar clock? too much time wasted on this already! a useless gadget if ever there was one Manc1894 22:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manc1894 (talk • contribs)

Hello Manc1894 and welcome to the Teahouse. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a worldwide project with editors working in every country and time zone around the world. The project operates on UTC which is either identical to or one hour off your local time. I operate on Pacific Standard Time, used in Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles. I don't complain about a seven hour difference from UTC. To me, it is just a friendly reminder of where I am on the globe as compared to what used to be called "Greenwich Mean Time", which is a British thing, after all. I recognize it as a worldwide standard. Perhaps you should give that a try. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The clock gadget and the time zone are on different pages and are two independent features which control different things. The time zone setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering controls times in automatically generated pages, for example user contributions like Special:Contributions/Manc1894 and page histories like [2]. The clock gadget at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets says: "Add a clock in the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC". The whole point of that gadget is to display the UTC time. Discussion pages like this one have signatures with UTC time and UTC is also used in some other ways so it's often practical to be able to see the UTC time, for example to easily see how long ago a signed post was made. Many people already have a wristwatch or a clock with local time in their operating system and Wikipedia does not have a one-click gadget for it but there is a user script at User:Technical 13/Scripts/Gadget-LiveClock.js. The green box links to the documentation which shows how to install it. Any registered user can make users scripts and there are thousands. A limited number of scripts have been selected to be gadgets at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

problems adding a page to a book

the tutorial video for creating a book shows that if u hover your mouse over a highlighted article a quick link tag "add to book" appears. does not on mine - any help Manc1894 08:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manc1894 (talk • contribs)

Hi Manc1894, welcome to the Teahouse. Have you started the process by clicking "Create a book" under "Print/Export" in the left pane? I'm not sure what you mean by "hover your mouse over a highlighted article". You have to view an article to get "Add this page to your book" at top of the page. It doesn't appear when you hover over a link to an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

prime hunter - thx for the welcome, why not try what i said in the original txt?

run the video then make comments, thx Manc1894 22:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manc1894 (talk • contribs)

Help:Books displays File:Enwp screencast4.theora.ogv. It's a four minute video and I didn't know whether it was the one you referred to. I did play it before posting but given the length I started doing other things at the same time and didn't pay close attention to every second. At 01:27 I see "Add linked wiki page to your book". It's also mentioned at Help:Books#Step 2: Collect articles. It doesn't happen for me either. I don't know whether the feature has been removed or doesn't work. PrimeHunter2 (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am new too. What I know so far is that you can add and edit the information on these pages. Also, be sure not to use unacceptable language or your account will be deleted for good. I hope you keep your account and you won't need to create a new account!!! Save4278Save4278 (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about autobiography/conflict of interest

Hi. I have found a page that appears to be an autobiography (WP:AB). The page is WP:BLP and appears to have been created and edited almost exclusively by two single purpose accounts (WP:SPA) and it appears to me that the accounts may belong to the subject of the article. I have read WP:AB, WP:BLP, WP:SPA, WP:COI, and more, but I'm still not sure how to proceed from here, beyond marking the page with the "written like a resume" template and pointing the SPA's towards the WP:COI guidelines. I'm not sure if I should even link to the page here, since it is a WP:BLP created and maintained primarily by the SPA's, I'm worried about WP:OUTING. What is the proper plan of action here? Or is the best plan of action to take no further action? Thanks. Paisarepa (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the subject appear notable? If not, then WP:AFD would seem appropriate. If he/she might be notable, I think we might need to know which article it is to suggest a way forward. Chris857 (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Ryan Van Duzer. I'm really not sure if it meets the notability guidelines or not (I am a relatively inexperienced editor). It certainly isn't high profile, and there is nothing in the article that appears libelous, so it isn't an urgent issue needing speedy deletion or anything like that. Just what appears to be a probable conflict of interest, and an article that is more an advertisement than anything. Thanks. Paisarepa (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paisarepa and thanks for the well thought out question. Autobiographical/promotional (which can be addressed by editing) and COI/SPA (which are not prima facie grounds for deletion) concerns aside, notability sufficient for an article's inclusion in Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Picking some of the references in the Van Duzer article, the Daily Camera is a local source based in Boulder, so it does not carry as much weight as would a national newspaper. NPR on the other hand is considered a reliable source, but the reference contains only a passing mention of Van Duzer. Horny Toad is a commercial site with no evidence as to editorial independence. Unfortunately, the New York Times reference does not work. This is just a snapshot of the referencing and is not a judgement as to the article's notability or otherwise.

In short, assessing the suitability of articles for deletion requires a degree of experience and a familiarity with all the policies and guidelines involved. If you use the Articles for Deletion page as a start point you will find a lot of information that should help you become more familiar with the process. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philg88. I was more concerned with the apparent conflict of interest/autobiography/advertising and single purpose account issues than the notability of the article. With that said, I have been spending a lot of time on the articles for deletion page, trying to get a good handle on that so I appreciate your advice. For now I think I will just leave the page and users be, as I don't want to overstep my bounds as an editor since I don't have a good handle on the policies and culture around here yet. Thanks. Paisarepa (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Paisarepa. As I said above, the autobiographical and promotional aspects can be dealt with by editing. I'd suggest that you boldly edit the article to address your concerns. If you follow Wikipedia guidelines on Biographies of living persons et al you will be on solid ground. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Non-free Image

Is there a talk page where I can ask questions about the use of images? Can I use a non-free content image of an album cover which is in a band's article to illustrate the article of the artist that created the art originally? How do I do that?CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our non-free content criteria are pretty strict (more so than concepts of "fair use" under copyright laws). Generally speaking, copyright album cover images are only permitted in album articles (just as copyright screenshots of characters from movies and TV shows are not permitted in articles about the actors who portray them). If you have questions about non-free use, you can ask them at Wikipedia:Non-free content review.--ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much, ukexpat for your very helpful reply. I read the criteria first, and they seemed very strict; that's why I'm asking lots of questions, rather than plunging in.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]