Wikipedia:Teahouse

Finnusertop, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

I noticed some discrepancies on a page and would like to correct them and i need an opinion about whether the changes would be allowed or not.

I was looking at the page about Curtis Lee and noticed that it mention two groups who had covered the song but did not list a third that I knew of from watching them on Youtube and this was Sha Na Na performing Pretty Little Angel Eyes in one of their performances on their variety show. Many times I will add some information to a page and it will be deleted and I am wondering if the information shown on my sandbox page would work within the rules.

Kargandarr (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

Many thanks, AmaryllisGardener, for your prompt (and successful) answer. We WP editors are always trying to help our readers, For7thGen (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How to change my watchlist from 3 days to 7 days (168 hours)?

I've searched hard and long for a way to change my watchlist to display the last 7 days, permanently. An absolute failure. It always comes back to the last 3 days. Is this permanent change even possible?

Please spell it out, what do I do first, etc. For7thGen (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello For7thGen and welcome to the Teahouse! In the toolbar, click "Preferences" and then go to the watchlist tab, then you should see "Days to show in watchlist". Then change the 3 to 7. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Direct link for your convenience. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I eliminate old citations from a wikipedia page I am editing for my internship?

I am trying to edit a wikipedia page that has not been updated since 2010 and need to remove some citations that are external links that no longer exist. I am new to editing wikipedia and basically need to completely re-do the the entire reference section but have no clue how to do so. How do I delete all of the dead links/citations and I do I begin to create new references/citations? Can someone give me a VERY basic, easy to understand tutorial, step-by-step guide? Ca33ie (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ca33ie. If by chance you are editing the article about the organization where you are an intern, then you have a Conflict of interest and should not edit the article directly. If so, please disclose your conflict of interest. Instead, you should place edit requests on the talk page.

As for dead links, the first step is to try to find equivalent links that are live. Not every reference needs to be available online, if it is a reliable, published source on paper. Please see Referencing for beginners for technical details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's also sometimes possible to 'rescue' dead links from the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive.[1] You do that by adding the |archiveurl and |archivedate fields to the existing {{cite web}} template. Revent (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

HiCa33ie. In addition to things that have already been suggested, you might find the information in "Wikipedia:Link rot" to be helpful, particularly the stuff in "Keeping dead links". A link doesn't necessary lose it's value to an article just because it's "dead". I suggest that you try discussing things on the article's talk page before deleting any cited sources (even dead links). That way you'll give others who may be watching the page the chance to comment. You may also want to ask about this on the article's respective Wikiproject page(s) for more feedback. You can find the Wikiproject(s) for a particular article by looking at it's talk page.- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Is my article on TurboVote objective enough?

I'm interning at TurboVote over the summer. When I was trying to find information on the organization I went to Wikipedia but found nothing. I wrote a draft for the Wikipedia page which is currently my user page. I'm not being compensated at all for writing this, but "turbovote" is googled enough to be on ngram and I figured a website would be useful for people like me who wanted to find out more. I absolutely don't want it to read like an advertisement or infringe on any of Wiki's policies, so would be grateful for any advice from more experienced editors about the article.Maxkennedy18 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Maxkennedy18. I recommend you move your draft to your sandbox page, and disclose your internship on your user page. Many editors will be of the opinion that you have a Conflict of interest even if you are not being paid. Your draft relies too much on sources that are not fully independent. Please beef up the independent sourcing, and format the references properly, following the guidance at Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Something To Do

Hey teahouse, I really need something time-consuming to do. Any ideas? Thanks, SkaterLife (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, SkaterLife, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have already been busy training and editing - congratulations for taking it seriously. If you are looking for more to do, there are plenty of projects that work on particular subject areas. Pick one or two that interest you, and where can make a contribution - see Wikipedia:WikiProject#Finding_a_project.

Alternatively, if you want to practice a particular skill then you could look at the lists of pages needing attention at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs. For example, I wanted to improve my referencing so I worked through a bunch of pages from Category:Pages with missing references list. And the Wikipedia:Community_portal also lists areas looking for assistance. So there is plenty to keep you busy. Enjoy! --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could start by reading up on things like page protection and user names for admin attention, so that you see what criteria are required to justify a request. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ha, Guessing my request was denied. And yeah, I'll read up on those.SkaterLife (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Article rejected because of insufficient/not objective sources. Additional sources available but too old to be linked.

I submitted an article about Alexander Haim Pekelis which was rejected because the two links were 1. A book of his essays published posthumously by Cornell University Press 1950 and 2. A memoir by his wife in Italian (Sellerio, 1996) and in English (Northwestern University Press, 2005). Though those are both reputable publishers, the article was rejected because both sources were family memebers (ie himself and wife). There are many other sources. However, some of the periodicals no longer exist and the ten (10) references/ articles (an obiturary and an letter from Pekelis himself both in the Times) in The New York Times are from 1946 or before. The latter cam be accessed online through the Times archive by individuals for a small sum which I have done, but there is no way that I can forward them to Wikipedia or link them in the Pekelis biography. Should I just note them in the source section by citing the date the article appeared. Thank you, Simona McCray 2604:2000:8587:8901:216:CBFF:FEB1:A80B (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Simona McCray. There is no requirement that the reliable sources you use in your references be available online, or be available for free. Reliable publications no longer in business are valid as well. Cite the sources fully, so that someone who wants to find the source can do so. See Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What can I do to make my post less like an advertisement?

Hello,

Could someone please help me edit my Wikipedia submission so that it reads less like an advertisement? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fischer_Homes

Thank you, Fischer Homes (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fischer Homes. To start with, your user name violates our username policy as it is the name of a business. Please change it. Your draft article consists of promotional material for your company, masquerading as an encyclopedia article. It is written in a style similar to a brochure put out by your company. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia. The article should avoid superlatives and should concentrate on the history and structure of the company, rather than the marketing names you give to various types of homes your company builds. A sentence like "The company has worked with leading designers from different regions of the country to create a unique portfolio of refreshing design offerings", referenced to the company website, is not encyclopedic and is "marketing speak".

The article should rely primarily on what independent sources say about your company, not material that you have published. Please read Referencing for beginners and fix your references. Please also read our Conflict of interest guideline, and do your best to comply with it. If the article is accepted to the encyclopedia, do not edit it directly in the future. Place edit requests on the talk page. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Twitter?

Is twitter a reliable source for a song? like if the artist tweeted a link to the song?Camcamhamham (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The guidance is at WP:SELFSOURCE. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Creating an article for a Wello - which is currently being used as a redirect page for no reason

Hi I would like to create a a page for Wello, a product that has been the subject of extensive media coverage by various notable sources. The 'Wello' article on Wikipedia is currently being used as a redirect page to point to the 'Wollo' page which seems a superfluous role. Is it possible to create a page for Wello the product?Antweebs (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Antweebs. It might be best to submit the proposed new article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and then if it is accepted the accepting reviewer will deal with the redirect at that time. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Information professional - globalize and Refimprove

Hi all, I have just edited the entry Information Professional. I have added content, references, and what I believe is a globalised view of the subject. Could you please give me some feedback on this - would it now be ok to remove the globalize and Refimprove warnings from the top of the page? MargRouk (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MargRouk. It seems to me that you have resolved those issues nicely, so go ahead and remove the tags at the top of the wikicode. Well done. In the future, you don't need to ask permission. You know what you are doing, so just do it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the feedback and encouragement Cullen. MargRouk (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Please clarify the scope of Redirect entries

On the main JavaScript page is a section: Use as an intermediate language. It details a number of JavaScript code generators. I would like to include 2 more: PureScript and FunScript. There are no page entries for either PureScript or FunScript in wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to redirect to the main PureScript and FunScript web pages: PureScript, and FunScript. Can I add Redirect entries do this or, are redirect entries only used for wikipedia entries? MarkPawelek (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC) MarkPawelek (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC) MarkPawelek (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mark, welcome to the TeaHouse. No, I am afraid Wikipedia does not provide for redirects from Wikipedia titles to external web pages. Instead, appropriate encyclopedic information about PureScript and FunScript should be added to the main Wikipedia JavaScript article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for PureScript and FunScript might even be possible if there is enough information from independent reliable sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •
20:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I list a CD Single that was released to radio only?

Hello, I recently edited a page to include a radio only pressing of a CD single. I thought it was important to the track listing section as the radio CD features a remix of the single that was not commercially available but was the version radio DJ's played. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_It_Together_%28Madonna_song%29) The CD was an official release from the record company with it's own catalogue number, but another user has removed my contribution stating that 'Promotional content is not allowed in Wikipedia'. As it's not personal promotion, nor company promotion this would not apply? For example, Janet Jackson's "State of the World" single was released as a radio promo only song and it has it's own page with promo CD listings as do many other pages. Could somebody clarify? Thanks ever so. Silencegrenade (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Creation of article for Azoi

Hi, I created an article for Azoi, using information from notable sources but it has been identified as promotional. Is it possible to change the article so that it meets Wikipedia guidelines and the banner is taken off?Antweebs (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Antweebs, welcome to the TeaHouse. I have removed some templates from Azoi because those issues no longer seemed present in the current version of the article. The notability of the company is still in question though, so you may wish to continue adding inline citations to independent reliable sources that discuss the company in detail. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur goes shopping. I have made further additions to the article Azoi to illustrate why the company is noteworthy and provide additional examples of media coverage. Unfortunately all the media coverage focuses on the product as it is highly innovative in nature. I've also placed links to {Azoi]] on other pages so that it is no longer an orphan. I would be most grateful if you could peruse the article and review whether it still needs to be taggedAntweebs (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

problem in finding

my question where will I get the correct definition of bad microorganismsSasuke ucchiha (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What specific sort of microorganisms are you looking to get information on? I would start here, as for more specific information, let me know what you are looking for :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sasuke ucchiha. The Teahouse is a place to ask and answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Please try WP:REFERENCEDESK for more general questions, as they are set up to answer them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

How does one get an article to be classified as Featured?

The article on the front page is called a Featured Article but i thought that meant that it was the article hat was featured for that day on the front page... but what it really means is that there is a group of super editors that decides if an article qualifies to be classified as one of about 4500 articles on Wikipedia that are so good that they are called "featured." Now, these Featured Articles are the only ones that you can choose from if you want to nominate an article for the main (or front) page. I wanted to nominate a number of articles that are about women, their works and their activities... ie a biography, a work of art or music or drama or literature by a woman, a woman's organization, a woman's sport or biology or philosophy... because there are not very many currently showing up on the front page. Finally i found out about the page with the list of Featured Articles and when i got there i discovered there are not very many women approved...

soooo.... how does one bring articles to the attention of these super editors and where are they? LOL really this is a lot of work and no wonder so few women have been represented here... its shameful actually... half the human race is female.

fluffykerfuffle (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

2601:1:9A00:592:7ACA:39FF:FEB0:6D92 (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay and on top of all that... i thought i was logged in but i guess not and so some of my activity is registered under the ip address thingie and part of my activity is registered as fluffykerfuffle... this is really really really annoying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffykerfuffle (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the question fluffykerfuffle. I agree it would be great if we had more featured articles about prominent women.

There are pretty rigorous criteria for what makes a Featured articles, but if you find excellent articles on women that you think are up to standard (or better yet, if you'd like to try to write one), then you can nominate it to be assessed by following the directions provided here.

There are also many articles about women that have already been through the assessment process and have been ranked as featured articles. As I understand it, any of these can be nominated to appear on the landing page as "Today's Featured Article". You can nominate an article to appear on the home page by going here and following the process. For a list of eligible women's biographies that you can consider nominating, check out these lists:[2][3][4][5][6]. Good luck! Keihatsu ^talk 02:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fluffykerfuffle. We have over 20,000 Good articles, which is the second best rating after Featured articles. That's nearly five times as many. So one strategy is to work to upgrade Good articles into Featured articles. That's a less daunting challenge than writing a featured article from scratch. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

great!! thank you and i will follow up on those... and good advice on using the good list too! ...i looked at the list of not-used-yet featured articles and it really looked like there were not very many females there... that is my problem, see? i cannot tell which have been used in those lists you gave me ...maybe they have already been on the main page... and maybe that is okay that they show up again...

here is the thing... you mention Notable women and yet i keep seeing such obscure little subjects in those featured articles like some obscure battle way back when in god knows when or some obscure little general who happened to be 3 times removed cousin to the 27th swedish king's wife... and the thing for me is this... i have a playlist in my itunes just for women... it not only includes female singers but also instrumentalists and composers and lyricists... and conductors!! so a song may pop up that is a classical orchestra piece that has been either written by a female, conducted by a female or a soloist in the piece is a female :D

i want to see articles like that... not just female biographies... but all the other stuff .... what i really want to see is a truthful representation of the human race that this encyclopedia is supposed to be documenting!!! 50-50  !! The human race is half male and half female !!

fluffykerfuffle (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) I wrote a featured article about a female (Masako Katsura) which was featured on the mainpage and I've been floating around this place a long time and I assure you there is no pro-male bias in assessment of articles on women. But, there is a systemic bias always at play in who writes what. What that translates to is that if more writers are American and thus choose to write about American topics, there will necessarily be more articles on American topics (we see that at play a lot in the did you know feature). By the same token, if the people who are writing top quality articles happen to write about more men, then there will necessarily be more featured articles on men. Possibly of relevance is that more editors are males than females, and *may* tend to focus more on males as topics to write about than females. None of this is the direct kind of bias I think your post implied. There is of course a historical bias that interjects here, in that the world has spent far more time focused on the exploits of males in its writing than it has on the exploits of females, so there is, from a big picture sampling view, more male topics to write about than female.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

good points Fuhghettaboutit - here is the problem i am having...

when i say i want to see things be 50-50 i dont mean 50% of the articles that have been written on men and 50% of the articles that have been written on women... when i say 50-50 i mean i want to see that for every article emphasizing a male thing there should follow (and i truely mean follow) an article emphasizing a female thing... yes yes there are nongender topics and i am not being all anal about this... just 50-50... we can do it! fluffykerfuffle (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Also another thing is it would be very neat to be able to see on the actual article page if it has ever been on the front or main page... like your article, very good by the way, she was amazing! I looked to see if there was some sort of citation saying or signifying it had already been on the main or front page... yes i know about the bronze star... something else... fluffykerfuffle (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We cannot do it unless you vastly change how Wikipedia operates in a most fundamental and top down way, which I cannot envision. You have to understand how it works. There is no central authority choosing topics to write about – not at all. Instead, in the main, this is the path: an individual editor comes to Wikipedia and writes up some subject of their own choosing that they are interested in. They polish it to a point where it's good enough for a possible featured article nomination and they do so and are succesful. There is no one handing out assignments. It's all individual editors writing about what they choose with their motivations being their own interest (almost all featured articles, by the way, are the brainchild of one person – once in a while two – but the idea that any article reaches the stage through random edits by the world with a person adding a tidbit here, and another, there until it grown to a unified and polished whole is a fiction; it has never happened once). So we are left with the pool of articles that those editors, all randomly editing by their individual lights, have chosen to focus on that have wended their way to featured status. If that pool of articles is 10% on females, 40% on males and the remaining 50% on hurricanes, we cannot place on the mainpage anything more than that ratio of topics because that's all there is.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. See also Jean Balukas, a good article I wrote. She was (and is) unbelievable; I played one game with her a few years back.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

P.P.S. Found it; here you go: Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "it would be very neat to be able to see on the actual article page if it has ever been on the front or main page", this is noted not in the article itself but on its talk page. See, for example, the third beige box at the top of the talk page of yesterday's featured article. Deor (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Why was my project rejected?

I published an unfinished document about me and friends' YouTube videos (The Adventures of Ice J and King Weirdo) and of course, instant rejection. My friend created a page about making music on a free online site and I don't understand how it signifies importance anymore than what I wrote, yet it wasn't taken down. The videos mean a lot to me and I checked it over and over to make sure my attitude was neutral and I was speaking in third-person. Therefore, I'm understandably cross and as a first article, I'm currently finding Wikipedia too strict and lying about letting ANYONE publish articles. Saying my videos don't have importance has upset me - you NEED to think about how you word these things ("an article about yourself is nothing to be proud of" - Wikipedia. So I'm not allowed to be proud of myself?). So can you please tell me what I need to do to allow people to find out information about my videos? I wasn't advertising in any way shape or form. YouTube partners have Wikipedia articles. Are you trying to say they're more important than me? If what I'm writing about isn't important, because they aren't well-known, that's like having the same thing for dinner every night, since you're just taking in information from well-known stuff you already know about. (If you don't reply or delete this message you would have officially proven my point.) Please can you tell me what I need to do? Isaac Lawrence (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Issac Lawrence: Hi, the article is indeed deleted because it does not seem notable enough - or rather, it does not make a significant claim of notability. I can completely understand that you feel frustrated - it happened to me before. I understand that this project may be very important to you, but please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a blog or place to advertise your channel. As an encyclopedia, we have to have strict notability criteria and see things in a worldwide scale - think, should a random Youtube channel be suitable to be put on history books? Obviously not. Nowhere in the message was it stated that you are not allowed to be proud of your project, in fact you should be. As people, we are proud of many things personal, but most of those things are too insignificant to be placed on an encyclopedia. Also, addressing the fact of why your page was instantly taken down, it has simply no claim of notability whatsoever. If it had some claim of notability, perhaps a few tens of thousands or subscriber, it would be considered somewhat notable (even though not notable for Wikipedia yet), and not be instantly deleted. Please note that Wikipedia is not about everything. Please do not demean us by calling us "lying", we are simply following our notability guidelines. Lastly, we can't serve every possible dish, well-known or not to everyone, we don't have enough chefs, and our goal is not to be a showcase of every single type of food possible, just a showcase of the notable ones. I highlight the word encyclopedia once again. Please see Wikipedia is not about your garage band, while you are indeed not a garage band, the explanation on the page still holds up. Thanks. Darylgolden^(talk) 00:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Image file size reduction for userbox use

Hello again, Teahouse! I have created a userbox using a wonderful picture - File:Male mackerel tabby cat.jpg - that has unfortunately much too large (2.6 MB) a file size to load well. I have been trying to find a way to insert one of the smaller 'preview' sizes, but have been unable to figure how to specify the file name. Can the previews be used, or do I need to download the file, reduce its size, and re-upload at the new size? The problem I haven't gotten past is that the URL for the original file starts out (//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:...) and the preview sizes start with (//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/...) I've tried all manner of combinations of ../, ./, etc., which may not work in any case for this application. Thanks for any help! Best, Old Beeg _··warble·· 23:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back to the teahouse! When I look at User:Oldbeeg/userboxes/Cat owns it looks absolutely fine to me; the image and userbox are a sensible size (pixel width and height) on my screen, and my web browser claims that the image only involves downloading slightly more than one kilobyte of image data to my computer. Where are you seeing the problem?

In general, no you should not need to re-upload the file at a different size. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Arthur goes shopping, thanks for the answer. I noticed that the picture took a bit to load when I first loaded the userbox. I was afraid that the 2.6MB of the file would, when added to other similarly sized files, would make for long page loading times – at least initially. I thought it was more important to save the first download time. It seems after that, though, the smaller file is available. Best, Old Beeg _··warble·· 02:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I found an image error, not sure how to fix

I see an icon image error here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Companies/Related_portals

However I don't know if there are standard images to reference, or if I can help by making a new icon. Any advice would be great.

Thanks! Cupcakeboss (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cupcakeboss and welcome to the Teahouse! I've replaced that non-existent file with "United States penny, obverse, 2002.png", which is what other portals use when linking to Portal:Numismatics. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Great to know, thank you AmaryllisGardener! --Cupcakeboss (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Categorization problems :)

Hi, I was just wondering how I can remove the category Banks established in 2002 from being a subcategory of Companies established in 2002. I am attempting to better organize the category Companies by year of establishment, and am moving Category:Banks established in 2002 to be a subcategory of Category:Financial services companies established in 2002 (which, in turn, is a subcategory of Companies by year of establishment. For some reason, I cannot figure out how to do this, because I cannot see the source of the category. :$ Help! ~ Anastasia (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Missionedit! I believe the template Companies established in the year automatically add that category on the categories that it is transcluded on. You should probably edit the template or request it be edited. You should probably create a template specifically for bank categories. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What of Template:Banks established in year cat? ~ Anastasia (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Missionedit: I guess you could replace [[Category:Companies established in {{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]] in Template:Banks established in year cat with whatever category would be more fitting. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: Hmmm. OK, thanks so much! ~ Anastasia (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Missionedit: You're very welcome. Let me know if you need any more help. :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have drafted an articule in my sand box, I am unsure how to proceed

Hi, I have drafted an article about X Band Satellite Communication. I have drafted it in my sand box. I think that I have accidently created two versions of it, one at the root level (User:1Oddsocks/sandbox) and another one level down (User:1Oddsocks/sandbox/X Band Satellite Communication). I would like to get it reviewed and then moved to the live area. can someone help with how to do this?

Thanks

1Oddsocks (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 1Oddsocks. I added a Reflist template to the version you edited most recently, to enable the references to be displayed. That shows several problems with your references, including missing titles. So please read Referencing for beginners, and clean up the references to eliminate those red error messages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Rejected

I submitted a page called "Conger Street Clock Museum" and it was rejected but I don't know why. I don't want to just start deleting without knowing what I should delete. I sure could use some help. I am 70 years old so I'm not as quick as some of you younger guys.

Thanks for any help you can provide

JD Olson curator: Conger Street Clock Museum Congerstreet (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi JD, welcome to Wikpedia. The reason given is that it "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia"

Many people think our use of the word "advertisement" means it says "please buy this:. The term has broader usage, and more generally means prose written in a PR tone.

Phrases such as "the next time you plan a visit to Oregon, please take a little time, to take a walk back in time,..." are good copy for a brochure promoting the palce, but are not encyclopedia in tone.

I'll follow up shortly with an example which may help.he next time you plan a visit to Oregon, please take a little time, to take a walk back in time,--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This American Clock & Watch Museum is an example of an article about a clock museum. In fact, it is borderline, and many editors would challenge some of the content of this article. However, if you look at the tone, you will see that your draft is much more casual, more of a conversation, while the American Clock article is more formal.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Two other examples:

• Willard House and Clock Museum
• National Watch and Clock Museum

Neither of which qualify as meeting best practices, but I picked these two, because of the subject matter. For better examples of well-written article, check out any of the Good Articles. On this list Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture, scroll to the bottom to see the Good Articles covering museums. You do not have to meet the standards of a Good Article to get the Conger Street article accepted, but looking at Good Articles is a good way of seeing the style and tone of well-written articles. Good luck.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

My contribution is rejected

Hi. I am first time user and just uploaded my company profile. It has got rejected due to various reasons which I am unaware about. Can you help me make necessary changes to my contribution so that it is acceptable. Joseph M ImpetusTechknows (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ImpetusTechknows. I am sorry to give you bad news, but pretty much everything about your participation here on Wikipedia so far has been wrong. I encourage you to read in great depth about the basic principles of Wikipedia, starting with the Five Pillars, and reading all the links as well. To start with, your user name violates our username policy as it is the name of a business. Your user page, until you removed most of its contents, consisted of promotional marketing and advertising for your company, masquerading as an encyclopedia article. This is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Please read our Conflict of interest guideline, and do your best to comply with it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi ImpetusTechknows - looking at the original contents of your userpage, there are two major problems:

• The page was promotional, and Wikipedia is not a means to promote. Wikipedia's goal is to provide neutral encyclopedic entries on its subjects. Companies don't get their own "profiles" per say, but rather, articles about them.
• The contents were also directly copied from Impetus TechKnow's official website. According to the website, the contents are fully copyrighted, which means that we cannot use it here on Wikipedia, whose contents are freely licensed. This constitutes a copyright violation.

If you simply wish to host a company profile on your userpage, that wouldn't be appropriate. Editors should represent themselves, not their companies, and using a userpage to promote or provide a profile for a company isn't appropriate. However, if you're interested in writing a neutral, encyclopedic article on your company, you can do so through the articles for creation process, which will let you create a draft of the article and then submit it for other editors to review before going live. Since you have a conflict of interest with the company you represent, creating the article directly would not be appropriate (which is why I am recommending the articles for creation process). Before creating the article, though, I recommend you take a look at our notability guidelines for companies and seeing if your company meets the criteria. Article subjects need to be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, which is proven through significant coverage through reliable sources. I also recommend taking a look at Wikipedia:Your first article for more useful info.

Another quick issue is your username; usernames cannot represent a company. I will leave a message on your talk page with more info, including the process to request a new username. I highly recommend you take care of changing your username as soon as possible, before anything else. Thanks for reaching out, and if you have any more questions, feel free to ask. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please help me embed a picture.

Hello. I want to embed a picture below the opening statement, "Not to be confused with" and above the description of the topic at the top of the page, "The Philadelphia Eleven are eleven women . . .". I've read several tutorial articles and attempted to follow their advice without success. I need step by step instructions on exactly how to do this. I want the picture centered at the top, with a caption under it that says, "The Philadelphia Inquirer July 30, 1974, reprinted with permission." I wrote the newspaper for permission to use the image on my web pages including my blog http://allabozarthwordsandimages.blogspot.com/p/the-philadelphia-ordinations-and-what.html, and elsewhere. I was granted permission and not required to pay a fee. I'd be so grateful for instructions because I am unable to make sense of how to do this from the tutorials. If I need to list the pixels, how do I determine the pixels from the jpg. in my files? The picture is waiting in my sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alla_Bozarth/sandbox The article seems lifeless without the picture, and this one is the best choice to describe the event. Thank you so much for your help and the invitation to tea!Alla Bozarth (talk) 1:12 pm, 17 June 2014, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC+9)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alla Bozarth. Just because the newspaper granted you permission to use a photo on your blog does not mean that they granted a free license to use the photo on Wikimedia Foundation projects and everywhere else. We favor free content, freely licensed for use by anyone for any purpose anywhere. We use non free photos only under strict guidelines described at WP:NFCI. So, to use the photo in question, it must either be freely licensed under a Creative Commons license, or fall under those ten exceptions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alla Bozarth. From your user name and your statement "I wrote the newspaper for permission to use the image on my web pages including my blog", I am wondering if you are one of the women referred to in the article Philadelphia Eleven. It looks like you have been the primary editor of the article according to its page history and it also seems to be the only article you edit on Wikipedia. So, it might be a good idea for you to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if you have not already done so. When an editor, particularly the primary editor of an article, is perceived to be directly associated with the subject matter of an article, the reliability and neutral point of view of the article may be called into question by other editors. This has already happened on Talk:Philadelphia Eleven. Furthermore, if said editor adds pictures from their own personal websites or external links to their websites then such perceptions will only be reinforced and possibly even considered to be a form of self promotion or original research. Therefore, it might be better in such cases for the editor to leave the major editing to others by making suggestions via the article's talk page per "Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest". Moreover, it might even be a good idea for the editor to officially make it known to others that they have a direct connection to the subject matter in order to avoid any misunderstandings or problems with other editors. Once something is posted on Wikipedia, it is there for anyone to edit as long as they follow the rules. Once an editor posts material about themselves or something they are closely connected to, they lose all control over it and must follow the same rules as every other editor. - Marchjuly (talk) 4:52 pm, Yesterday (UTC+9)

Thank you very much, Jim, for helping me with my question about including a photograph, and thanks to the author of Marchjuly, for your help, also. I've withdrawn the photo from the sandbox accordingly.

I did not originate or write the Philadelphia Eleven article, but I did add to the Background section and edited other sections for clarity as needed. I discovered the article by accident and found so many statements and references that needed clarification or correction, for both accuracy and understanding, that I felt it imperative to tend to them. As an author who wrote one of the books cited by the original creator of the article, and as an eye and ear witness of the events with first hand documentation, my purpose was to provide accuracy and context to some of the events mentioned that would have otherwise been misunderstood. The additions in the External Links area also are about or related to the ordinations as are the sources listed in the Notes area, and not promotional of materials.

For readers who were not familiar with the structure of the Episcopal Church, I wrote an explanation that would provide understanding of the events. I clarified the purpose, nature and significance of the 1970 change of the Canon Law on women in the diaconate. In order to provide information that would avoid the likely inference from text that the Philadelphia Eleven were the first women priests in the Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is the American branch, I cited the Anglican women ordained before the Philadelphia Ordinations, both as deacons and priests, explaining the significance of the Anglican Consultative Council and its 1971 decision which was also the basis for the Philadelphia Ordinations. So much essential background information was missing that needed to be included for the reader to receive a comprehensive understanding of the historical nature of the event, and in order not to omit significant others whose ministries led to the Philadelphia Ordinations. No self-serving was intended, only the provision of needed information in the service of historical accuracy. Even though I am one of the Eleven, I did not bring in personal impressions, only essential facts which I knew from being present at the events mentioned, and from knowing the persons involved and their background.

I'm grateful to all the dedicated Wikipedia people who keep a sharp eye out for compliance, and I'm deeply grateful to the person who wrote the article and worked hard to compile so much data. I preserved as much of the original writing as possible, while adding data or rephrasing certain passages for clarification. It took me a long time to edit the text because I was looking for typos, misspellings, and incorrect use of Wikipedia's format for references in both my additions and in the original text as well. My inexperience with Wikipedia processes and need to go over the material many times are why there were so many entries on the editing history page, which may have given the impression that I wrote the article.

With your help and the gracious help of other Wikipedia experts, I made all the necessary corrections I could find. I'm sure it will still be apparent that different writers contributed to the article, but Wikipedia readers understand that editorial changes are often likely. I didn't want to rewrite the article, out of respect for the original work, and was careful not to change what the original author had written unless it was absolutely necessary, as in the discussion about Bishop Pike's 1965 recognition of the Rev. Phyllis Edward's ordination the previous year. This has been one of the most misunderstood elements in the account of events, not merely by the author of the article, but by the various journalists who wrote articles on which future writers based their statements. The journalists did not know Episcopal Church policy and structure, nor did they know about the ordination rite used during the era of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the confusion that the old Canon on Deaconesses had caused, and it was essential that it be clearly explained. I knew Phyllis Edwards and the nature and purpose of Bishop Pike's recognition of her as a deacon virtue of her ordination by laying-on-of-hands the year before, in the same way that male and female deacons had been ordained historically. His intention was to end the confusion, and though it was instrumental in leading to the ousting of the anachronistic Canon Law on Deaconesses five years later, at the time it was misunderstood and misrepresented by secular journalists. That was one of the more serious misrepresentations that required attention and correction.

My editing was to take care that the meaning and context of historical events were described as accurately as possible. I hope that explains why I felt no conflict of interest. I tried to approach the material as objectively as possible, as a scholar of church history, separating my own participation in the events from the editing of the material in the original article as well as I could. The sections edited for content did not have to do with me, but with the women ordained before who had served the Church so well. To overlook them would be to imply that they were not the ordained women they and their ordaining bishops knew them to be. It would have been a grievous omission. I wanted so much for someone else to do the work, but none of the others still living and sufficiently knowledgeable came forward. It had to be done, and I was able to do it.

Thank you again for your concerns, Jim, and the author of Marchjuly. I appreciate the invitations to join you in the Teahouse, and hope that you, Marchjuly, are enjoying your time away and will feel greatly refreshed by your break. Best wishes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alla Bozarth (talk • contribs) Revision as of 23:32, 18 June 2014

How to see the saved draft in wiki ?

I have written page about me in wikipedia.but i didnt submit it but i saved it.How to see that file now ? (Ragahvendhra Reddy 03:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghavendhra (talk • contribs)

Hi, Raghavendhra. Welcome to the Teahouse. I think the page you are looking for is the page that you wrote in your sandbox at User:Raghavendhra/sandbox. Is this correct? Kind regards, Matt (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Raghavendhra. Before you do any more work on that page, please read WP:autobiography, to understand why writing about yourself on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. --ColinFine (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Over-writing logo images with new versions

I want to update the logo images for KECI/KCFW/KTVM on the KECI-TV Wikipedia page. The ones currently showing are outdated. I was previously banned for editing that page due to a conflict of interest, so I need to avoid that and seek a third party to upload those images. They are just the new versions of the logos for each of those stations. If the images currently displayed are able to be over-written, the new ones would fall under the same fair-use rationale currently posted. I just need to figure out the best way to get a third party to do that, so I can avoid the conflict of interest. Thank you. Ec1954 (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ec1954 and welcome to the Teahouse. If you plan to upload images with identical filenames then you do not need to edit the page itself so AFAICT there will be no COI. Assuming that the licensing details are suitable, use the "upload file" option in the left hand menu bar. Whether the images are local or on Wikipedia Commons, there is a button towards the bottom of the image file page saying "Upload a new version of this file". Once you have done that, the image will be automatically updated and you won't need to edit the article. If the file names are different you can ask on the article's talk page for someone to help you. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 02:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

how to order your comments properly?

I just updated my user talk page to thank some people who had given me tips, but I was unsure whether the ettiquette was to place the most recent comment on the BOTTOM, or the TOP. When editing talk pages, how do you decide where in the page to put a new comment?

NerdGirl1988 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NerdGirl1988. Almost all talk pages on Wikipedia are organized in chronological order, with the oldest thread at top, and new threads starting at the bottom. The Teahouse is an exception to the general rule, since we are trying to be friendly to beginners. Here at the Teahouse, a new question goes at the top of the page, so it is immediately visible to both guests and hosts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Soundcloud as a source?

Can soundcloud be a source for a song?Camcamhamham (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Soundcloud says it is "An audio platform that enables sound creators to upload, record, promote and share their originally-created sounds". Because it is user generated I do not think it will prove to be a reliable source. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

what if the soundcloud audio was posted by the label of the artist? (yes the actual label... not a fake.)Camcamhamham (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Camcamhamham and welcome back to the Teahouse. Soundcloud is a crowd-sourced website (i.e. anyone can upload a song), so it is not considered a reliable source. The answer to your second question is that this is a repository, not a source of editorial comment, so who uploaded the song won't help establish notability for the song. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 03:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Stigmata (song) draft

somebody please review my draft for stigmata (song)Camcamhamham (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Camcamhamham, welcome to the Teahouse. I have submitted Draft:Stigmata (song) for you through the articles for creation process. It has been placed in a queue and will be reviewed by another editor as soon as possible. Best, Mz7 (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is a new unreviewed article.

I have edited a page with an {{Unreviewed|date=June 2014}} tag. Can I remove this marker?

The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Georges_Perrin.

Thanks!

JamesMcPeterson (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello JamesMcPeterson, and welcome to the Teahouse! If the article has already been reviewed by another editor (and it looks like it has), then yes, you can remove it. Happy editing :) ~ Anastasia (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, JamesMcPeterson, and welcome. As the {{Unreviewed}} tag says itself: "This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator". The documentation of the template (Template:New unreviewed article/doc) explains: "The template should be removed manually by any editor except the person who created the page as soon as the editor has looked over the new article and determined that the new article does not qualify for speedy deletion." So, if you are sure that the page is not a candidate for wp:speedy deletion, you are welcome to remove that tag from the page. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

JamesMcPeterson (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Article does not appear in search drop down.

When I search for the topic of an article that I recently had published, it does not come up on the immediate drop down. It does appear if I select to search articles that contain the search term. How can I improve my article "Bob Davis (Businessman)" to gain better search results within Wikipedia? Reetersivad (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Reetersivad! Since your article is new, it will take some time for it to show up in the drop-down search. The more people that click on it, the higher up it goes. The best thing to get people to click on an article is to link to it on other articles. I see that Bob is or was CEO of multiple companies, so mentioning him and then putting this for his name: [[Bob Davis (businessman)|Bob Davis]] will generate a link and more people will see the article. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 19:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article appears for me in the search dropdown after typing "bob davis (b", so I suspect some form of caching issue if isn't showing for you. If you expect him to appear in the list of 10 for simply "bob davis", well, there are a lot of Bob Davis's, and he may not be as interesting/searched for and thus not appear as prominently. Chris857 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you @Brambleberry very helpful. I see that both the Lycos article and Highland Capital Partners article have links to the Bob Davis (businessman) article. Do those take a few days to be recognized?

Reetersivad (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Reetersivad: Hi there, I've removed the orphan tag from the page. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 03:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I added links to my article, but they do not show up in a blue font. What to do?

I have several links in the article I wrote yesterday, 06/15/14, however, they do not show up as links in blue color. They only appear when the mouse hovers over them. How do I fix this? Please help. Thank you. Kay HettichKhettich (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Khettich: Hello! As far as I know it's not a problem with Wikipedia, nor the way you wrote the article, but it may be a problem with your browser/OS? What browser and operating system are you using? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Khettich. When I look at Gisa Adler, the links show as blue and work just fine for me. But there is a much more serious problem with the article you have written. You have not provided references to WP:SIGCOV significant coverage in reliable sources that show that this person is notable as a musician. Unless you can produce evidence of such coverage, it is likely, I regret to say, that the article will be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If you click on a link it may change colour. It should go back to blue if you clear your browser history. Jodosma (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I add a Category for my article? Which category should I choose?

I wrote an article on 06/15/2014 for the first time. It is now online with a message: "This article has not been added to any categories...." I'm sorry, it was all I could do to write the main info for the article. (I was in a car accident a few years ago; someone hit me.) I would appreciate if an editor could contact me or just make the necessary changes. The article is about "Gisa Adler," a former pupil of Emil von Sauer in Vienna. Adler now appears among the list of von Sauer's pupils. Thank you. Kay HettichKhettich (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have started with Category:Austrian classical pianists, and have included a {{DEFAULTSORT}}; further categories can be added later. One thing which you ought to do without further delay is to include references to published reliable sources to support what you have included in the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Status Bar

Hey teahouse, I wanted to know how you put those pictures and status bar at the top of your user and talk page. Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Schoolskater. Can you add a link to a user or talk page that has the kind of pictures and status bar that you want? If you click on the edit tab of a user page (but don't actually edit or save it), you can see how the user added items to his or her page. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Mention other users

Hey teahouse, I'm having some trouble trying to link another username. What I mean is, When I make my signature, it will show up as my username being linked to my userpage, like this, Schoolskater (talk). But I want to know how to link another user's username so that when I write something and include their username, it will give them a notification saying that they've been mentioned. Do you know what I mean? Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep. What you need is the "u" template. For example, I made sure you, Schoolskater, got a notification about this message by using the code {{u|Schoolskater}} to write your name. --LukeSurl t c 14:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Schoolskater: Welcome back, Schoolskater. LukeSurl noted that the u template is one way you can notify an editor by way of mentioning them. There are a few others:

{{ping|I JethroBT}} results in @I JethroBT:

[[User:I JethroBT|I JethroBT]] results in I JethroBT

All of the above will send a notification to the editor that they've been mentioned on that page. Also, you can specifically not ping an linked editor using the noping template. Take care, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, LukeSurl and I JethroBT. I really appreciate all that you do for Wikipedia!Schoolskater (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Deprecated infobox templates

Is there a list of deprecated infobox templates and respective preferred replacements? Mandruss (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean by, "Deprecated"? Thanks,Schoolskater (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Mandruss, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm unaware of any "deprecated" infobox templates, but if you could tell me exactly what you want an infobox to do or what your goal was, I'd be happy to help you find the infobox you need or point you in the right direction. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, deprecated infoboxes (like any other deprecated template) are usually deleted (either via WP:T2 or WP:TFD). The TFD archive is therefore probably the only listing that we have for them. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify my question. I had read discussions about "merging" certain infobox templates. I took that to mean that the function of one template would be assumed by another, thereby deprecating the first one. In particular, I needed to know whether infobox mass murderer was deprecated. Did I misunderstand the discussions? Mandruss (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Let's add some links to see... Template:Infobox mass murderer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Clicking on Template:Infobox mass murderer takes me to Template:Infobox criminal and says (Redirected from Template:Infobox mass murderer) which means they were merged. I'm still unclear on why it is important. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Important to me, or to Wikipedia? From Wikipedia's perspective, I think the idea is to minimize the number of infobox templates, thereby reducing maintenance effort and making things less complicated for editors who need to choose an appropriate template. In this case, it looks as if infobox mass murderer is, in fact, deprecated. Mandruss (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Both, if you're planning on going and cleaning out the "What Links Here", it's probably not a good idea since that would be considered a "cosmetic" change on most pages unless you actually sit there and fix a bunch of other stuff while you are at it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not planning on doing that, although I don't know why they don't just change all of those with a bot and be done with it. That's the missing piece of the puzzle, since many editors will continue to use infobox mass murderer for new infoboxes if they see it used in existing articles. Mandruss (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

An edit I made several times does not appear

This question regards the title of an article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriyananda . When I noticed that someone had removed "Swami" preceding "Kriyanada" in both the title of the article and the start of the 1st paragraph, I put it back. The fix appears in the 1st paragraph but not the title. I've tried several times without success. Is it possible that whoever removed "Swami" from the title was able to ensure that it could not be put back?

It was very mean-spirited of whoever made these changes, for Swami Kriyananda was indeed a swami most of his 6-plus decades of discipleship. He officially left his vows for several years in the 1980s. But realizing that renunciation was his path, he took them up again for the rest of his life, till his passing in 2013. PKChatsworth (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PKChatsworth. There was a note left on your talk page that explains why swami is not used on the article. I will copy paste it for you here. "Wikipedia does not normally use honorific, job, or academic titles such as Mr., Dr., Swami, President, Count, and such. Rare exceptions exist, but none of them is applicable in this case. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)" The person that reverted you was not doing it so to be mean spirited. It just confirms with Wikipedia policies. Please readwp:honorific and wp:NCIN to understand this. NathanWubs (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Expanding on NathanWubs's answer: You can always view the editing history of an article by clicking on the "View history" tab at the top of the page. Here is the editing history of Kriyananda. Looks like User:LeadSongDog reverted your edits, citing his reasoning each time.

In addition to the policies and discussions mentioned above by Nathan, there was also a discussion about whether or not to include "Swami" with Kryanada's name here. The discussion lead to a consensus that it shouldn't be included, per the policies and guidelines pointed out by Nathan. Hope this helps, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a clarification: PKChatsworth, you would not have been able to change the title of the article. This requires a move, and you have too few edits to make such a change. But obviously if the change is not permitted in the article text under Wikipedia's rules, a move definitely would not happen.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

approved article not coming up in google search

So my article got approved recently, but it isn't coming up on google when I search for it. Is it because there are not enough references or maybe the article is too new? Or maybe its just because of google's algorithm? Thanks in advance! The article --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qianhai Qianhaisghzq (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Qianhaisghzq. It often takes a few days before Google indexes a new article properly. That being said, I just searched for "Qianhai" here in Northern California, and your article came up as the #7 hit in my search. You might want to purge your cache, as Google may be replicating an older search. My guess is that your article will probably rise in Google searches if you keep working to improve it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

thank you so much for your timely response!! Qianhaisghzq (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thanks for your work to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Uploading Image

How could I upload images on my article? It seems i can not upload images because of permission issues.Cybals (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cybals. Image permissions are a very complex area on Wikimedia projects. If you describe the details of the image you want to upload, then we can give an answer tailored to your specific situation. Let me describe the easiest ways: If you take a photo yourself of a landscape, a common object, a historic building or the like, then there will be no problem uploading your photo to Wikimedia Commons if you agree to the terms of a Creative Commons license. This does not apply to photos you take of things that are already copyrighted, such as recent published works or recent works of art. If you find an image that was first published in the U.S. before 1923, copyright has expired, and you can upload that in a similar way. Any image already on Wikimedia Commons can be used freely, and there are tens of millions of them. But a large majority of images you find online or in recently published books are copyrighted and can't be used here, with very narrow exceptions described in our policy on use of non-free images. This is a brief, simplified summary of a complex area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

new uploaded page has title error and duplicate pix

Yesterday evening, I uploaded the article I was working on during a local wikipedia meetup as the host library closed. In the rush, I put (new article) at the end of the title. I noticed it today, but don't know how to remove it, and (flustered) don't even remember how to add the new article template to the top of the page. Also, I took a relevant picture for the article using an old book available at the event. My cable not working yesterday, I managed to upload it today. Unfortunately, it seems to display twice on infobox I put in the article (Christ Church (Easton, Maryland) (new article) yet I see only one link call. The good news is that it only shows once when I added it to another page (List of the original 30 Anglican parishes in Maryland), but then because of the title screwup, the article link doesn't work. Clearly, I'm not going to use it as a template for another article I wanted to create yesterday (for the historic All Saints Church in Frederick). At least I managed to take a couple of photos relevant for that article and uploaded and used them in the Frederick, Maryland article today without undue stress. Any help you can offer about the Easton church article problems would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.Jweaver28 (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jweaver28. I've changed the name and fixed the image problem. To change the article name, it is necessary to use the move tab next to the history tab. When you click it, you are presented with a simple form. There is a line which begins with "To new title:", next to which are two boxes, the second of which should have the current article name. Click and correct that name to whatever you want it to say. Then in the box below it, add a reason for changing the name. If the article has an associated talkpage, there will be another line below the reason box which says "Move associated talk page". More often than not we move talkpages when renaming the article although there might be a few occasions when you might need the talkpage to stay. Below that tickbox is another line which says "Watch source page and target page" which is entirely optional but most of us tend to watch any articles we edit because you can be alerted if the article is edited. Finally click the button which says "Move page".

As for the image problem, the infobox/template doesn't need the file code to be laid out as you would normally. Have a look at my edit and note how the name doesn't need the "File:" bit and the caption has a separate place further down the infobox parameters. Hope that helps. Green Giant (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

To explain the redlink in the original question, I think the OP intended to refer to List of the original 30 Anglican parishes in the Province of Maryland. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

How can i delete my uploads

How can i delete my upload like i uploaded an image i want to delete that how can i do this Alham Hussain (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Alham Hussain. You cannot delete an image yourself, but you can request an administrator delete it. You can make such a request by placing a {{Db-self}} template on the image page. After you do that, administrator will delete the image soon under the WP:G7 criteria. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

How can i creat and edit a page

i am new in wikipedia and i want to create a page so i want a little help for creating and editing the page how can i make tables some lines headlines and some other like this like titles so i need help for it to create a pageAlham Hussain (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alham Hussain. Please read Your first article, and the Primer for newcomers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CHEATSHEET is good too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, Demiurge1000. Thanks for mentioning that one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Creating a subpage or draft in sandbox - I need advice please

Hello,

I would like to add another article to my wiki account. What is the best way to do this if I have already created an account? Do I first create a subpage or should I just go to my user sandbox and just add Template:Userspace draft/Article name in the above space? I searched and the article name is not in use but I want to make sure that I have the article name indicated within my draft.

I read on Wiki that subpages were not recommended. So, should I start the new article in my sandbox, then have some editors review and then submit my draft for review? Please advise on the steps on how to start another article draft within a current wiki account. Thanks in advance AdBCWi14 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello AdBCWi14, welcome to the TeaHouse. One way would be to click this link User:AdBCWi14/sandbox2 and create your second sandbox there. Then your third sandbox at User:AdBCWi14/sandbox3 and so on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AdBCWi14. You may create a new user subpage called User:AdBCWi1/Name of article, and many articles are created in this way. But the recommended method is to create Draft:Name of article. I believe that the Article wizard will do this for you. --ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Support from a previous FAC

During the first FAC of Gemini (2002 Tamil film), User:ColonelHenry gave some comments which have been addressed, although the article was not promoted. Now it is at its second FAC, but Henry is blocked, even though his concerns are still addressed. Can his "Support" tag from the first FAC still count? 19:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, ColonelHenry is now a blocked and banned editor. I do not think it likely that his past comments will have much influence on the current FAC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hunnid Stax draft

could someone give my draft "Hunnid Stax" a look? I would really appriciate if it could be done today... get back to me once you look over it. Thank You!Camcamhamham (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Camcamhamham. The main technical problem with your article is that the references are not formatted properly. See Referencing for beginners for information about proper referencing. But the fundamental problem is that it seems unlikely that this song complies with WP:NSONG, as discussed in detail in the section below. If the song is not yet notable, then its title should be a redirect to the album, assuming the album is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

a response?

how do i know that wikipedia has read an article i create? will it just publish? will i get a message? and, also, how long will it take them to respond? Camcamhamham (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Camcamhamham and welcome to the Teahouse. Once you have created a suitable article, you need to submit your article here so that it can be reviewed. At the moment, Draft:Stigmata (if this is the article you mean) has no references and will be rejected I'm afraid as a non-notable topic. Wikipedia already has an article titled Stigmata so you will need also need to change the title - adding "(song)" after the name should be sufficient. I recommend that you read this introduction to article creation and this guide to referencing before submitting. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, but i have a question. What makes the article non-notable? It is by a notable musician (Ab-Soul) and is on a new notable hip-hop album. Camcamhamham (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NSONG#Recordings states "A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article."
So the notability of the artist and/or the album are not the criteria - "notability is not inherited" - it needs to be notable in its own right.

The questions NSONG asks are:-
1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
If not, then it probably does not deserve its own article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

about inline external links

I was asked to remove inline external links - I had three of these I think - the comment was

Comment: Please remove ALL the inline external links - some may be usable as references, so they could be formatted as such. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a little unsure whether or not the inline external links are links to web sites or not - I have references in the footnote style and links to web sites - I presume this is Ok

JerzyQQ JerzyQQ (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@JerzyQQ: Hi JerzyQQ. What is being referred to is the places in the article where instead of having a footnote to a citation like,^[1] you have instead a link to an external cite directly in the text, like: NYT. The first of these appears in the second paragraph linking "City Catapult" directly to its website. Such external links directly in the text might be proper for conversion to footnoted references to verify the information, which is what Roger was talking about, e.g., you might convert:

[https://futurecities.catapult.org.uk/ City Catapult] to

<ref>{{cite web|url=https://futurecities.catapult.org.uk/ |title=|publisher=...|date=... etc.}}</ref>

so that it becomes a footnoted citation, but you should only do this if it's correct that it verifies the content. To be clear, when you say "and is currently active with the Technology Strategy Board’s City Catapult", you wouldn't provide a citation to City Catapult just generally there, but only if the website page, were it cited there in a footnote, would corroborate the statement that "CASA is currently active with City Catapult". If it doesn't verify that content, just remove the link and don't convert to a citation (and then maybe cite some other reliable source that does). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User box

Hey Teahouse, I was wondering. Is this an acceptable userbox? I don't want to start any arguments so I wanted to ask you guys.

Thanks,Schoolskater (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Schoolskater. Your userbox is not showing up for lack of one more "|" at the end. I'm not sure if you did this intentionally to be discrete, so I didn't fix it. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The userbox is at his link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Schoolskater/Userboxes/NRA

Please check it out, Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Schoolskater: Hey Schoolskater, thanks for your question. I get why you might be reluctant to put it up; while it's true that folks have strong opinions about the National Rifle Association, as long as you are making a good-faith effort to edit within our guidelines, I doubt that your userbox will be problematic for anyone. There are some articles, for instance, related to gun control where editors have often taken a battleground approach to interacting with other editors, and honestly, it doesn't end well for them or the article content no matter what opinion one has on the matter. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

An analogy might be useful. Imagine if you, Schoolskater, were working on the encyclopedia one day, and encountered another editor, perhaps had a minor disagreement with them over what content should go in an article. (Possibly even a political article.) Imagine you then went to have a look at their user page, and it had a userbox proclaiming them to be a proud member of the Communist Party USA, complete with the nice red logo from that party. Think to yourself if that would make it easier for you to work constructively with the other editor, or if it might lead you to be suspicious about their motives or their editing, and thus cause problems. It wouldn't necessarily cause problems - after all, you would now understand where they were coming from, even if that wouldn't be a set of views you might agree with yourself. Ideally, seeing such a userbox might have no more impact on how you interact with the other editor than if they had a userbox saying they enjoyed potato soup. But on the other hand, others might not be so open-minded in their views. That's why userboxes are perceived by some as potentially causing issues.

But no-one would ever get away with saying you shouldn't or couldn't have a userbox expressing your political views; and indeed there are some editors with "communist" or "socialist" userboxes, and "conservative" userboxes too, that have a history of working well with the community and the community working well with them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Schoolskater and welcome back to the Teahouse! I've taken the liberty of cleaning up and reorganizing your code in the userbox and I think it looks nice. You are who you are, and no-one should be judging your editing abilities based on stereotypes based on userboxes. I'd display that userbox proudly (if I could afford to be an NRA member ;])> — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Submit the article

Hi, I have my article ready in my sanbox but i dont know how to submit it for review?Shubham.opensource (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse. It is correctly submitted and is awaiting review. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shubham. I have now reviewed your article Draft:Swarachakra, and I'm afraid that it does not provide the required references to establish why this article should be included in Wikipedia. I have left more details in the review comments. You might like to read this guide to referencing or Yushui's excellent guide before you resubmit the article for review. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

What to do with inappropriate comments on an article's talk page?

I would appreciate some guidance on what to do with a comment on a talk page that is inappropriate. It is the only comment on the page. Would it be advisable to archive it? And if so, how would we go about it? Thanks.Historian (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse. If the comment is purely disruptive and has no relevance whatsoever to improving the encyclopedia, I would just blank it (even if it's the only thing on the page), with an appropriate polite edit summary. If someone else then insists on restoring it, or further discussing your reasons for blanking it, then you would need to discuss that with them. (And of course you should not edit war with them over it.)

Sometimes people consider comments inappropriate because they contain profanity or because they advance an unwelcome point of view; but if the comment has any relevance at all to improving the encyclopedia or part of it or how it works, such problems are not sufficient justification for removal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the suggestion above, but will also add that if the inappropriate comment includes personal information that should not have been posted to Wikipedia, you may request to have it suppressed. Not sure if this is the issue here, but mentioning it just in case. Keihatsu ^talk 22:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Absalom Jones - the talk page message would indeed be fine to remove as vandalism. Sam Walton (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hi, I have removed the aforementioned comments from Talk:Absalom Jones per WP:Vandalism#Silly vandalism and WP:GRATUITOUS. Please revert if it was inappropriate for me to do so. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You were 100% correct, Marchjuly, and all editors should immediately delete such garbage on sight. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge1000 Keihatsu Sam Walton Marchjuly Cullen³²⁸ Thanks so much for your generous responses. That's exactly what I was concerned about. Your responses have left a good impression on me about what this teahouse is all about. Historian (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

my page deleted with strong explanation

ISKCON Ipoh... this is my page .... and ithave been deleted and this is what stated --> This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC [14:49] <dhayalan> kindly plz help me....why deleted ...im new and this is about non profit organisation then hw coud there be any advertising or promotion... so plz state what i shouldnt include on the article Dhayalan94 (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like your page was deleted because it had an unduly promotional tone. If you have a look here, it will explain why. Have you also messaged DGG to find out what was wrong? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dhayalan94. Our restriction against advertising and promotion applies to non-profit organizations as well as profit making ones, as such groups most certainly do advertise and promote themselves. As a long time volunteer for non-profits, I try to help promote them all the time, but not on Wikipedia. Please study the neutral point of view carefully, and comply with it going forward. This is expected of all Wikipedia editors. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

ok seems u are nt specifying any of the content whih sounds promotional. ok is it bcoz i hv included offical blog and also official facebook page. ok may i get back my article in HTML format so that i can edit.it was so hard to make such article and im very new so it took me hours to do..

plz reply as soon as possible Dhayalan94 (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

ok seems u are nt specifying any of the content whih sounds promotional. ok is it bcoz i hv included offical blog and also official facebook page. ok may i get back my article in HTML format so that i can edit.it was so hard to make such article and im very new so it took me hours to doDhayalan94 (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Please understand that for the most part the volunteer hosts here at the Teahouse are just regular volunteer editors like you. You were advised in a previous comment to contact the administrator that actually deleted the article. As an administrator, he can look it up and see it. Us regular editors cannot. Additionally, I cannot help but notice that you are struggling with the use of the English language. Perhaps it may be better to try to contribute to an edition of Wikipedia in your native language? John from Idegon (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

lol are u sure uh? u talking about my english now.plz i know what im doing.

and plz dont humiliate people like this in public.plz have some common sense.and where did u noticed that my english is very weak.yeah imusing short words is it wrong?for sure gt typo error as im normal user.hope u understand. ya i have contacted the person who hv deleted my article. but thats ok.can i get back my article in HTML form.plz so that i can edit and correct my mistakes.tq Dhayalan94 (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

anyway tq so much for ur kind suggestion...tq very much againDhayalan94 (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dhayalan94! I am sure John from Idegon did not mean to insult you about your language. It is just that since this is an encyclopedia, people here prefer that ordinary English written text is used even when posting here at the Teahouse. This is so that there will not be any misunderstanding. I understand exactly what you have written, but many others here are not used to the short "text talk" you are using and may think that you have a problem with English. If you don't use "text talk", "LOL", "l33t" or any other form of online lingo you will be taken more seriously. Best of luck to you, - W.carter (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

ok now i understand...im really sorry

ok i really need help now...plz help me... my page entitled ISKCON Ipoh have been deleted, so can i get back the article that i wrote in HTML format.It took me hours to write the article as im inexperienced and im very new to this.i would be glad if anyone could get me back the article so that i could edit. you can e-mail me the article. Tq so much Dhayalan94 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

And Skamecrazy123 and John from Idegon have both advised you to ask the editor who deleted the article DGG for that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(actually I only nominated for deletion; Malik Shabazz deleted it. But here's the problem: the article consisted almost entirely of the sort of information that would go on a web site, and be of interest only to members of the congregation: a list of the order of service weekly assemblies, a list of the annual festivals, information, information about its catering service, its address, blog, Facebook , and email.(there was a paragraph explaining what sect it belonged to, and when it was founded--that part would be proper content, but almost all of it is about ISKON in general, not this particular branch. But none of it showed notability: the references consisted of listings in directories and its own website. We normally do not make articles on local congregations of any religion, because there is very little in the way of source that would concern the readers of an encyclopedia, and the articles necessarily consist only of the directory information that is not suitable.)only thing (the main exception is when its building is of major historical or architectural interest.) Unless you can find references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but press releases, or material derived from press releases, I don't really see much chance of making an article. In this context, "independent" usually means not published by ISKON. I'm sorry to disappoint you; possibly I could make an argument that we should include such content, but the very firm agreement here is that we will not, and I don't see it changing. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Review Timelines

I submitted an article for consideration. My name is garryanas and the article is Ashley Little (author). I'm new to this, but I think I posted the article over a month ago, and I have not heard back yet. Did I submit the article properly? Or is there simply a backlog in getting responses. Thanks!Garryanas (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Garryanas and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like you accidentally removed your article from the review queue on 11 May after it was rejected for notability issues. If you intend to resubmit the article for review I would suggest that you clean up and improve the references to avoid the article being rejected again.  Philg88 ^♦talk

Thanks PhilG88. When I go to my 'contributions' link, the May 11 entry says 'currant' in bold next to it. On May 11 I cleaned up the article and added some recent information and then clicked the submit button at the bottom of the page. Are you sure that I removed it?? I must be confused about how to submit. If you can, please clarify. Thanks!Garryanas (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome Garryanas. I don't know what happened previously but Darylgolden has now kindly replaced the header and resubmitted the article for review. I would still advise you to improve the referencing. As for your original question, reviews sometimes take up to a month depending on backlog. Now that your article has been mentioned here at the Teahouse it may well get done sooner. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Garryanas (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Garryanas. I took a look at your draft and made some minor changes. A big problem is the messy way your references are formatted. Please read Referencing for beginners, and be sure that all of your references are formatted properly. This makes it much easier to evaluate the notability of the topic. Good luck to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

How can I put the infobox in?

I can't put the infobox in. Can you help me? Naomitwin (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Naomitwin. I have inserted a song infobox into the page for Neko Miko Reimu. Best, Old Beeg _··warble·· 00:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It can be found at Template:Infobox song along with instructions for filling in the fields. Best, Old Beeg _··warble·· 05:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

uppercase and lower case searches

I'm currently working on some spelling errors. The latest one concerns the use of aquarius instead of Aquarius. Is there a way to force a search to discriminate between upper and lower case. Jodosma (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Jodosma and welcome back to the Teahouse! There is no way to do a case sensitive search that I can find anywhere I'm afraid. The only way you are going to get that information is to request a database dump scan. I'm currently in the process of downloading and processing the approximately 50GB expanded file for this. As soon as that is complete, I'll see what I can find for you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Update I'm about 3 hours into a 5 hour database scan, I'll have the rest of your results in about 2 hours I expect. For now, if you would like, there are a few instances of "cancer" that you can find in Special:PrefixIndex/User:Jodosma/zodiac/cancer/. Not sure how many are related to the zodiac sign which should be "Cancer" and how many are related to the disease, but I'm sure you can sort it out. I hadn't even thought about the disease until just now, but I'm sure I could refine that search quite a bit to try and cut many of the medical ones down. Once I complete the last 4 signs, I'll post the entire results to User:Jodosma/zodiac. Didn't want you to think I forgot about you, database scans can be slow is all. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a bit of work you've done for someone who was rude to you a while ago. Thank you for taking the time and trouble, although I don't know yet how I'm going to use the info as I don't have any interest in the zodiac and I fear that having all these subpages may lead some people to think I'm some kind of astrological nutcase. I would have come across the zodiac signs in WP:Lists of common misspellings anyway eventually, if I don't get tired of it. I'm simply interested in misspellings at the moment, not the subject matter. I hope you won't mind if I get those extra pages deleted if and when I decide I don't need them. ciao. Jodosma (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Native knows better

Hello,

I wonder why contributors edits massively on an Wiki page of any topic or person of which the contributor is not native!

I have witnessed native users creates a Wiki page about a topic or person and non-native person uses his/her Senior level with manipulating edits.

For example I know my neighbour better than a person who lives in thousand miles away and tries to edit Wiki pages on the basis of some reference which the person believes or may be stack with. :)

Correct me if I am wrong.

Regards.

Dhruba Deka

DhrubaDeka (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello DhrubaDeka, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedians can edit any article they want to, whether they're familiar with the topic or not. They may be editing to copy edit the article, fix syntax or typos, or revert vandalism. However, as long as they cite their sources and write in a neutral point of view, there's nothing wrong with them being there. While a native might know about a subject more than others, sometimes other editors need to get involved to ensure the article meets encyclopedic standards and avoids any conflicts of interest. Cheers! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, DhrubaDeka. It might be true that a native knows better; but the overriding criterion for Wikipedia is verifiability. The problem is that if the material is not referenced to a reliable published source, a reader tomorrow or next week or next year has no way of checking that it is correct: the person who posted the information might be mistaken, or lying, or pretending to be somebody close to the subject; or the person might have posted correct information and somebody else come along afterwards and vandalised it. Only if the information is referenced to a reliable published source has the reader got a way of checking it. (It does very rarely happen that an apparently reliable published source is itself wrong; but Wikipedia cannot do anything about that case, and still follows the source). --ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:K6ka & User:ColinFine,

I agree with your point. And thanks for your response.

I am aware about the citation and reference.

Even so, I have little confusion. Mostly the references are either News portal links or Official sites. And in India, media/newspapers itself under controversy of vandalism and bias reporting.Most of the well known and reputed Indian media are known for bias reporting now a days. While some small circulated media has the coverage of TRUTH but bigger media dominates the TRUTH by its circulation and read counts.

In such case, whom should we cite? The low circulated local media(which try to give a fight against bias and vandalism of reporting) for the local incident/topic/people or largest circulated bias media?

Your response will help me to come out of this confusion.

Thanks-

DhrubaDeka (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, DhrubaDeka. A Wikipedia article should summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about a topic. Academic sources such as books published by a university press are among the best sources. Newspaper sources should have professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors. The circulation size does not predict reliability of a newspaper. When in doubt, specific sources can be evaluated and discussed at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Echo Point (lookout)

Echo Point (lookout) I've made a few links [7] to this entry as the shorter form name is showing details of a tv show.
Is this an acceptable name-ing usage ?
Should Echo Point the tv be changed to include something else ?
Can I make a disam page for three items as opposed to the disam page for just Echo ?
Compared to Ruined Castle how short is too short ? Dave Rave (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dave Rave. We have no article by that name. Please provide a link to the exact name of the article, so that we can comment appropriately. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I really hate elaborating when the details are already in the question. --Dave Rave (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Since Dave Rave doesn't seem inclined to provide the clarification that Cullen328 requested, I think the point is that existing links to Echo Point should not be pointing to and article about a television programme, so Dave has changed them to redlinks, and is asking about the name he has chosen for the non-yet-existent article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine, I get it now. Dave Rave, this is a collaborative project and sometimes we all need to make an effort to clarify a point so that we can help each other. You are correct that a link should not go to an unrelated article. The red links you've created are appropriate, if that Echo Point is commonly called a "lookout". If the TV show is the most widely known usage of the term, then the main article title should stay the same. But discussion of which meaning is primary is premature until an article about the lookout is written. Short articles are OK and we call them stubs, but it is best to make the effort to write a somewhat longer and more informative article, properly referenced. If you want to do so, you may find Your first article to be helpful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I change the image in an image file?

Can I change the actual image in an image file (say, to a sharper or better-sized version of the same thing) without having to re-do upload process, re-submit fair use rationale, and leave an orphan behind? If so, how? Specific problem (currently) is with " File: Wood Pile, 1949, b&w print by artist Fay Chong.jpeg " in article Fay Chong. Right-hand border of image keeps getting cut off, just want to tweak it a bit w/o having to create entire new file each time. Thanx, Tomseattle (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tomseattle. The answer to your question is "yes". If you click on the image, you will get basic information including that you uploaded it. Then click on the license information, and the full details will appear. You will see a choice "Upload a new version of this file", so that's what you should click, with a simple explanation of why the new version is better than the old one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. I'll look for it.Tomseattle (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Cullen328:. So is it really possible to tweak the above mentioned picture even though the file is tagged with: "This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed..."? This is the case with the pictures at Fay Chong. (I am curious about this for pictures I might want to use in other articles, and this seemed just as good place as any to ask.) Best, - W.carter (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I've sorted out the licensing templates with the image but I see no reason to crop it. Maybe it is a problem with your browser/settings, Tomseattle?  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The version of the file I saw yesterday had less than the original image. The right hand edge of the image was missing. So uploading a low resolution version of the full image is acceptable. The image is being used as a representative example of the artist's work. That is an acceptable use of a non-free image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I was using "crop" here in the photographic sense i.e. to remove the border, I didn't mean that the upload/use was unacceptable.  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

After reading Fay Chong in detail, another issue concerns me, Tomseattle. Here's my concern: We should use non-free images only in cases where no free image is available. It seems that, during the Great Depression, Chong worked for the Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration, where he created art works on the Federal payroll. All works of employees of the U.S. Federal government are in the public domain, and therefore free. As Wikimedia projects prefer free works except in the limited cases when no free works are possible, I recommend that you find one or more of his WPA works which can be freely uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used by anyone without restrictions. Then, add those to the article and delete this non-free work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I am failing to create a wikipedia page every time, can anyone help me to create one?

Since yesterday I have been trying to create a page but I am failing every time. The reviewers are deleting it saying it as "unambiguous". I really need to create one. So any one out here who can help me create one.

The email I received is below:

The Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Phoenix Of My Heart has been deleted on 13 June 2014 by RHaworth, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Phoenix_Of_My_Heart.

Editor's summary: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion

Mosiur Rehman 14:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosiur Rehman (talk • contribs)

Hi Mosiur Rehman and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, your article has been deleted for being unambiguous advertising so I can't give you any specific pointers on what's wrong with it. Please read this guide to assist you in creating future articles.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you create one for me?

Mosiur Rehman 16:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosiur Rehman (talk • contribs)

@Mosiur Rehman: What is the page about? We can give you tips on writing articles. For example, try to write in a neutral tone. Try not to promote ideas or viewpoints - just state the facts directly. Think about wearing a jabbawockeez mask - the mask isn't happy, sad, funny, or serious. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mosiur Rehman: My apologies, I missed your earlier reply. I'm afraid I can't create an article for you but you could read this guide to give you an idea of what is required for an acceptable Wikipedia article. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

After edditing my sandboxed ext. links and references are gone

Dear Wikipedians I was just reveiwing a project I am responsible for in my Sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Mansouri/sandbox) when I confirmed the changes the last bit of my document isn't appearing in the read mode any more. As we'd like to send this article soon to review to Wikipedia I wanted to set up everything and now an important part is missing. How can I get the external links and the references back to appear again? In the edditing window they still show up.Magnus Mansouri (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse. Looks like you had a reference formatting issue in the final section. I think I've now fixed it.

Incidentally, Wikipedia accounts are intended to be used by one person each, so "we" is an alarming pronoun to use. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Demiurge1000 I think Magnus Mansouri is referring to the two users working in tandem on the article. (This is evident from the history log of the sandbox.) Not so uncommon and within the lines of the Wikipedia. I would also say "we" if some user was helping me getting "my" article in shape. Best, - W.carter (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. Indeed we are working together on this project. We were setting it up as being part of a medical master thesis from Ursuala (s. History log). I am supervising and correcting it (online and offline) together with my superior at our university laboratory.Magnus Mansouri (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)