Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tigraan, a Teahouse host

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Most recent archives
1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236

How to move a page from a draft namespace into my userspace?

When my AFC was declined the contents of the sandbox was put into the draft namespace. A sentence placed at the top of the article offered me two alternatives. This sandbox is in the Draft namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the This sandbox is in the Wikipedia namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. template. I would like to retain a copy of the sandbox in my user space just as it was before the submission. How do I move the page from the draft namespace back into my Userspace? Thank you. Janvermont (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody help me to improve an article?

I created this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varenucha/Forced_adoption_in_norway which I submitted for review. An article was rejected because of "not enought reliable sources". So I made some necessary changes but it is probably still not good enough. Since this is my first article and I do not have time to study all those extensive materials how to write a proper Wikipedia article I would like to ask anybody and everybody, who is interested in that issue to contribute to above mentioned article. I believe that it is a very important matter so it should be covered on Wikipedia. I always thought that Wikipedia is based on cooperation and collective work. Sometimes people publish just stubs which other people extends. 88.146.137.45 (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look. You do editorialise a little bit and make statements not backed up properly by the sources, which are more indicative of original research and essay-writing rather than keeping to an encyclopaedic style. As it's something that you are passionate about, you need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not somewhere to try to promote or campaign on issues like this; everything needs to be kept to the facts alone. Public/international objection to child protection services is a good subject for an article, but needs to be approached with care and circumspection on Wikipedia. That other less well-written articles exist is neither here nor there - what people care about when reviewing your article is what you have done. In general, new articles are more strictly policed than older articles are. Part of being a collaborative project is that other people will exercise quality control over your article, particularly if you send it for initial review rather than immediately launching it into the main Wikipedia project.

That said, if you could try to find some good sources for your assertions, particularly the first section of the 'Controversy' section, and document the cases and public response exhaustively, this is probably a reasonable article to have. You might also find that talking to WP:WikiProject Norway helps you find other more experienced editors who can help you with sourcing, wording etc.

For now I've simply corrected some of the style issues in the draft, such as putting citations in the body of the text rather than attached to titles. Copy-editing it right now would mean I took out your assertions, so please find sources which not only show your primary sources (the YouTube videos) but also places where reliable secondary sources have covered the situation in detail. You also need to read about neutral point of view, which considers the balance of source opinion rather than putting a personal slant on the article.

Also, another Wikipedia article (Child Welfare Services (Norway)) is never an appropriate source. If you need to link to it, use a wikilink like in the previous sentence from a reference in the article itself.

Writing an article that is within the guidelines for Wikipedia is, indeed, hard. Nevertheless, I think this is an encyclopaedic subject, so I wish you luck getting the assistance you need. LS1979 (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not as passionate as it may seem :) This is maybe just my writing style. I created the article only because in Czech republic this case really fills headlines today. I am not personaly attached to it in any way. That is why I most probably would not work on the article unless some new information would find a way to me. Varenucha (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj, Varenucha. It sounds very passionate to me, and that's generally a good thing IMO. The emotive language in it, however, needs to be slightly toned down so it can go live. Since it involves Norway, and these stories are probably also of Norwegian media interest, obtaining Norwegian sources with the help of the Wikiproject might help you get some balance to the article in a genuinely collaborative style. I could post on the Wikiproject page for you, or you could ask them to have a look at it. LS1979 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could do the posting on the Wikiproject, since I do not know how :) All those processes at Wikipedia are rather too complex for a beginner :) Thank you in advance. Varenucha (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should this have an article of it's own? It seems to me that it's best covered over in the CWS article, for the moment. Bromley86 (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is an article "Forced adoption in UK" already. I think that separate article allows for more research about the subject. As I already wrote, there is much ado about it in Czech republic. Quite understandably, most information in Czech media present only one point of view. When I searched for more information online I discovered that it is really very difficult to obtain unbiased ones. There is for instance quite i big coverage in Russian media, but when I went through them I became very suspicious about their truthfulness - at least in some cases.

So I believe that a separate article on Wikipedia can by really helpful.Varenucha (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article declined, not sure how I can make it better - help!

Hi

I recently created an article for the website 'Soundblab' but it was rejected. I've been advised to add citations. The trouble is I'm not sure where to add them.

I'll be honest, I find the wikipedia editing experience really confusing, I'm guessing they do this to stop everyone posting random nonsense.

I'd also like to get one of the little info boxes down the right hand side.

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks Alex

DeLarge2071 (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DeLarge2071:. I suggest you have a look at guidelines on reliable sources, and the notability guidelines, particularly as regards organisations and companies. WP:Referencing for beginners will help with citations needed to create a fully-fledged Wikipedia article. LS1979 (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have really bad body odour and i'm not sure how to get rid of it. What are your suggestions?

(

123cartman (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 123cartman. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing the Wikipedia, it is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer shamelessly copied from Roger (Dodger67)'s further down the page. w.carter-Talk 13:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a contents box for an article?

Hello,

I want to include a content box in a Wiki article on a book publisher. It is that box that often appears at the top of the page on the right-hand side and includes information such as the company name, location, date founded, key people, ect. What steps would I need to take to put that template box into the article?

24.230.84.138 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It automatically appears when the page has at least four section headings. See more at Help:Section. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I referred to it as the wrong thing. For example, on the Wiki page for Random House, there is a panel on the right side with an image and basic information about Random House, such as its parent company, date founded, founder . . .

What is that box and is there a way I can include one like that to an article?

Thanks,

Sue

24.230.84.138 (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sue. That is called an "infobox", and you can learn all about them at Help:Infobox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I thought of the table of contents but your description did show you were talking about an infobox. A book publisher can use {{Infobox publisher}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stub templates

Should a new stub biography article about (let's say) an English entomologist be flagged with every possible stub, e.g. {{Scientist-stub}}, {{European scientist stubs}}, {{British scientist stubs}}, {{English scientist stubs}}, {{Biologist-stub}}, {{UK-biologist-stub}}, {{Zoologist-stub}}, {{UK-zoologist-stub}}, {{Entomologist-stub}}, {{UK-entomologist-stub}} (and possibly others) - or just with the lowest-level, most precise, one? (FWIW, I see some overload and redundancy in that list.)

(Non-overlapping stubs are a different matter. There might be stub articles about where the subject had studied or worked; in the instance I'm thinking of, there are.)

Summarising: if stub markers are needed on an article, should all levels of relevant stub markers be placed upon it, or just the deepest? Narky Blert (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: Welcome to the Teahouse. It's advisable just to add the deepest ones. Adding too many is often considered to be a sign of over-tagging. I'd advise not adding more than two or three per article (at most). --Jakob (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakec: Thanks! that makes very good sense: only the deepest in any particular field; if a person is notable in more than one field, then the deepest in each. But, looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#People made my brain hurt. Parts of it are an unsorted mish-mash: for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#Scientists. Sigh. If I can find the time, I'll try to sort it into a more logical order. Also, a catch-all like {{Scientist-stub}} strikes me as so broad as to be near-useless: I'd guess that all the entries there need restubbing.

A side issue: I'm English, and a Brit. Dad is Scottish, and a Brit. His mother was Irish, and a Brit. I know people who are proudly Welsh, and who are also Brits. Therefore, templates like {{UK-scientist-stub}} and {{England-scientist-stub}} or {{Scotland-scientist-stub}} (and like stubs, and categories) are not always mutually exclusive: Brits should be categorised under their home nation as well as under UK/British, where the possibility exists. This can be a sensitive issue, but I think it's one where WikiBoldness is required. One of ~~England's~~ ~~the United Kingdom's~~ the all-time greatest generals was born in what is now the Republic of Ireland. Narky Blert (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why was my article speedily deleted?

Hi. I tried to make a page on my most well known invention, the Galvactivator, which was the very first washable, wearable biosensor ever invented. (something one would think would be a good addition to Wikipedia!). I created it as a graduate student at the MIT Media Laboratory in 1998. Since then it has evolved into many other devices. It has an MIT filed patent, it gets almost 17,000 hits, it's been licensed by several companies, it's been shown all over the world, it's in TED talks, it's referenced in many books and articles. I'm trying to record history properly. I'm not sure why it got rejected. Can you answer that?

All the best, Jocelyn Scheirer

98.217.148.159 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn, I'm unable to view the content of the article you created, but the log indicates it was deleted because you failed to provide evidence of the invention's importance. Did you supply citations to independent, reliable sources discussing the invention? That's generally one of the main criterion that's used to judge whether something is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. A separate issue in this case is the possible Conflict of interest in your creating a page about your own invention. I suggest visiting Wikipedia:Articles for creation for advice on how to create a page where you have a possible conflict of interest. Best of luck! Keihatsu ^talk 18:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion nomination indicates that the reviewer did not see evidence of notability (in the precise Wikipedia sense) of the invention. (Two copies of the article are visible for review in user sandboxes, and Keihatsu is correct in inferring that the article does not contain references on the importance of the invention.) Perhaps it would help if you provided a review of the invention that was published in a reliable source such as a newspaper or trade journal. You say it is referenced in many books and journals. Please provide those references. Also, you have a conflict of interest because you are the inventor. After reworking the article, you should move it to Draft space and submit it for third-party review. Also, in posting this question, you either forgot or failed to log in, because you edited from an IP address rather than as User:Jocelynscheirer. There are advantages to logging in (including the ability to create a new page in Draft space). You probably know about them, because you do have an account. You probably forgot to log in. Please provide secondary sources as to the notability of the invention and resubmit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your response.

All the best, Jocelyn

Jocelynscheirer (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete ~500 redirects

I recently edited an article that had been created as an attack piece diff. That's fine; I'm happy it says what it should now.

I then when to look at the redirects, as the article's creator PPdd, now blocked, had spammed a lot of references.[1] I started adding db-g1 templates to them, but then realised he'd been far more prolific than I'd thought. Even if I could be bothered to do it, no one would thank me for 500 or so separate requests.

Is there a process for dealing with this sort of thing all in one go? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I misunderstood the display; it's more like 100. Still, same question. Bromley86 (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh - good thing you caught on to this. I'm not sure whether it's possible to deal with these all in one go, and I'm not really sure that any of the speedy deletion criteria fits, but this is clearly a malicious campaign to drive traffic toward an attack page by any means. I'm especially concerned that a number of fairly common names were redirected to that page. For now, I think it's worth taking these down manually. Keihatsu ^talk 17:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Keihatsu. I undid one of your deletion requests and repointed it as (however unlikely) Branch Vinedresser is actually a name. Bromley86 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

twin links in a navbox

I'm preparing a navigation proposal in my sandbox, trying to get consensus about the content on an external forum. It looks like I need a single article to explain the three bobbin lace categories that are still red, and perhaps a few redirects to that article. My question: is it allowed to have three category links to the same article? Jo Pol (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no any rule in Wiki for this situation. I think, you can do it. Ochilov (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Poljo, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes you can add more than two categories to an article. As long as they are related to the subject you can add many as you like. Same thing goes for redirection. It has to be related to the articles subject otherwise someone else can remove your addition/redirect. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability/appropriateness of multiple related articles

Hello~ I have a couple of related issues, both dealing with an explosion of articles on a topic that's currently trendy, is of non-English-language origin (and has virtually no independent English-language coverage), and which has a very young fanbase. Articles have been created for absurd details of fans' favorite topics, and even articles for subjects that reasonably pass notability requirements are extremely long and detailed, surpassing in quality/quantity articles for far, far, far more notable subjects. Many of these articles don't even have articles on the Wikipedia of the subjects' home country. I don't know how to address this. Problems I see with article-specific discussions: 1) Talk page discussion attempts are ignored so far; 2) Anyone who'd take part in a talk page discussion is one of the rabid fanatics who wrote the articles (the subjects are very niche-ish, with anyone outside fandom unlikely to ever visit) - how to get opinions of multiple unbiased editors?; 3) Working group to which articles belong seems dead (?); 4) Seems inefficient to have the same discussion multiple times on dozens of pages. Where/how is it appropriate to address this type of situation? Can experienced editors sweep in and fix things in bulk without a billion individual discussions? I feel at a loss, but seeing this all the time is making me beyond annoyed and I can't fathom donating to Wikipedia under these circumstances.

Second related problem: The way the government and media work in the home country leads to heavy (but "verifiable") over-exaggeration of these subjects' notability and accomplishments, and results in Wikipedia articles full of informatoin that has been "reliably" published but never fact-checked. Hence, Wikipedia has become, in effect, a PR tool for these subjects. I know information on Wikipedia need not be true, merely verifiable, but when an entire country's media is heavily biased and prints flattering, unverified "facts" for the express purpose of promoting the country abroad, what is to be done?

Any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you Shinyang-i (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Shinyang-i: - thanks for the heads-up. Could you give us some examples? That would help assess the problem, and maybe experienced, neutral editors can prune/merge the articles if required. LS1979 (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on notability of subject

Hi. I just got a note back that my submission was rejected on the grounds that the subject was not notable. I suspect that I had too many references to the artist's website, which may give the impression of partiality. I'm guilty of partiality - I'm a fan, but I really want help to properly establish her notoriety so that her biographical information is included on Wikipedia. Complicating this somewhat is that the peak of her career was at a point where web publishing wasn't as advanced as it is now, so many of the critical third-party references that I can find are dead links. I guess I'd like to have some insight as to how I can establish notoriety from an editor's perspective. I really don't have the constitution to wage a crusade about this, but in terms of notoriety I compare her to other acts she collaborated with (who are included on Wikipedia) and her music has been recognized with more notoriety than them. Here's my submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michelle_Anthony - I would appreciate any help to create this entry so that it is published and I can regain my sanity. Thank you. Jim Dougherty (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JimdoughertyonamissionYou just need to add reference, that proves your edit. Ochilov (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Jimdoughertyonamission welcome to the teahouse. To expand a bit on what Ochilov said: while your draft article has lots of references so far they aren't what wikipedia considers good references. Here are some things you should fix. BTW, keep in mind that it's just possible the artist just isn't notable in the Wikipedia sense. To start with web sites such as personal blogs, artist web sites, and fan web sites aren't considered good Wikipedia:References All those sites have an inherent bias for the subject of the article. Also, such sites have little or no oversight... no process to even attempt to validate the info presented there is true. Much better are articles in well known papers like the NY Times or Guardian or magazines like Rolling Stone or Time, etc. References in those kinds of sources are much better. Also, all your references right now are bare URLs References are much better if you format them and add (when available) things like date of the article, author, etc. I suggest you read this article Wikipedia:References for beginners Hope that helps. Reply back here or at my talk page if you have further questions. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimdoughertyonamission Here is an example of the difference between bare URLs and a properly formatted reference. Your draft had this as reference 12: <ref>http://174.123.25.3/music/articles/anthony04.html</ref> instead of formatting it like that it is better to do it like this: <ref>{{cite web|last1=Tanzilio|first1=Bobby|title=Anthony ready to "Stand Fall Repeat" on the national stage|url=http://174.123.25.3/music/articles/anthony04.html|website=OnMilwaukee.com|accessdate=6 December 2014}}</ref> I took the liberty of changing that Ref in your sandbox so you can see how it looks when used as a reference. BTW, using the ref tool (the widget that looks like the link in a chain) makes it easy to create refs like this. There are a bunch of templates where you fill in fields and it generates the Wiki code for you. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you give a link a name?

I've seen links be given certain names and I always fail to imitate it. For example: I've seen something like, http://www.nintendo.com but in the article, the link said Official Nintendo Website. How do I do that? –GoogleGlassHuman • 23:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GoogleGlassHuman, welcome to the Teahouse! You can create a link like the one that you described using the following syntax:

[http://www.nintendo.com/ Official Nintendo Website]

There is a lot more to discover about links, both internal to Wikipedia and pointing to external sites: you can find the most important link-related guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking and Wikipedia:External links. Happy editing! ► LowLevel ^(talk) 00:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoogleGlassHuman Also, fyi the link tool in the editor makes this really easy. Highlight the URL (or the word or phrase if you want to link within wikipedia) then click on the link icon. You get a window with two fields, one for the URL (for an external link) or the name of the article for an internal one and the other for the text to display. It then generates a little snippet of code that is properly formatted. Also, if you are linking to an article it does type ahead completion so you can see what possible articles match the phrase you've typed so far. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my article declined?

I wrote the article Shahmahmood Miakhel (which was/is a Draft till today). It got declinced and i dont know why. Pohyal98 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at the box at the top of Draft:Shahmahmood_Miakhel it explains why. RudolfRed (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need permission to overhaul an existing article?

An organization I'm in has an existing article:

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

We have a new version we would like to put in place:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EbenVisher/sandbox/FA

Do I need someone's permission to make the change?

Do I simply do a copy/paste on the existing page?

I've searched around, of course. However, I haven't seen the answer. I'm frustrated and feeling short of time (in life in general :-)). I thought it would be nice if someone could bootstrap me with simple answers or by pointing me to somewhere that I haven't found.

Thanks so much for your help.

--Eben Visher EbenVisher (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EbenVisher: - it's probably not a good idea to edit a page relating to an organisation you're involved with, per the conflict of interests issue. The version you are proposing is basically a mission statement - it's not an encyclopaedic article sourced to third-party, neutral sources. (The sources you're adding are mostly from your own organisation - which would only be helpful in a promotional context.) It's also rather poorly formatted and a Wikipedia article should not be used to present a lot of promotional external links - those would all soon be removed by other editors if they went live. (Addendum - they could possibly be converted into citations, but they would need to be WP:Reliable Sources to begin with, not just articles written directly from press releases from the local organisations represented in them.)

It might be best to leave the article to be improved/expanded by people without a specific connection using some of the content of your draft. Now you've posted here, it's probable that other editors will take some of the better material from that page to fill out the existing article, but please don't immediately replace anything with that draft. LS1979 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EbenVisher: Just FYI, there were also some errors in the references in the version in your sandbox. I fixed one of them (reference number 8) for you and I think the problems with the other refs are the same. The format for dates in references shouldn't use dashes as separators. I replaced the access date in reference 8 from something like "31-July-2014" to "31 July 2014" I think a similar change will fix the other refs. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues with Brian Finch photograph

I have been greatly expanding the Brian Finch article. I am concerned that the photograph [2] used in the article is copyrighted and marked as "Use limited to Wikipedia" would someone else care to look into this, as the uploader seems to have serious "issues" with all my edits. The photograph's source states "Copyright © 2014, Lightshaw Meadows" Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: The subject is deceased so a photograph can be used under a proper claim of fair use if there are no freely-licensed or public domain photos of him (if there were NFCC#1 would bar the use). You're correct that a statement like "for Wikipedia use only" is useless when such statement is offered for the purpose of saying in effect "we can use this here because it has been licensed by its copyright owner for our use even while we retain non-free copyright". We see that all the time and it's wholly invalid for that purpose. However, here, the statement "Use limited to Wikipedia" is part of the fair use rationale, targeted at WP:NFCC#2, and is offered for the purpose of saying it is not too high a burden on the commercial opportunity of the work – the field of {{Non-free use rationale 2}} it is under is for explaining why our use of the file will not unduly infringe on any commercial interests of its copyright holders, by competing with the work's original market role. I don't think the statement offered is typical or a good one for that field, but it does not raise the specter of "wikipedia use only" licensing that I think raised your alarm.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I'm still not clear how it can be used, if the copyright rests with "Lightshaw Meadows' and not the uploader? Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The very definition of fair use is taking someone's fully-copyrighted material, and claiming that it meets the law's exception to display such fully-copyrighted material for limited purposes such as educational aims. In other words, every single use of a file on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) where fair use is claimed is use of a work that us copyrighted to someone else and we're using it anyway. To put it yet another way, for every single fair use file, it would be true to say that the copyright "rests with [someone else] and not the uploader", because that's the very nature of a claim of fair use. I must go, but I'll change the field that prompted this thread to something else later, like the fact that it's a low resolution photograph.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the explanation, I understand now.Theroadislong (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrating of strict "independent, reliable" sources

I'm so frustrated, that my new article Draft:Wiki_on_a_Stick was the third time declined. Also my other changes on other wiki pages, like Personal wiki, List of wiki software, Comparison of wiki software, Comparison of notetaking software were removed because of "no article about woas". I know that there have to be some reliable and independent sources there for true information. I have a lot of links about Woas, but they are not good enough and many references are also bad. But then I suggest other articles about applications to delete because that there are no reliable and independent sources only link to project page. Go on Personal_wiki and look the first MoinMoin, Zim_(software), and other. I spent a lot of time editing my article to give precise and true information about woas. Now I know that was wasted time. Thank j⚛e decker for reviewing and for his advice. Tomaswoas (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tomaswoas. I'm sorry you're frustrated, but unfortunately it doesn't make any difference how much time you spend on a draft article if the subject isn't notable. The problem is that if the independent reliable sources don't exist, then it is impossible to write a satisfactory article, because there is no information which may be put in the article. If you think other articles are insufficiently referenced, by all means tag them with {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}}; and if you think the sources do not exist for them, nominate them for deletion by the procedure in WP:articles for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ColinFine for your quick replay. I think I have sufficient information from independent sources about Draft:Wiki_on_a_Stick and you can see Draft:Wiki_on_a_Stick (from 10:20, 2 December 2014) 24 references from other independent sources and no one good. I though that would be great to have much more wiki software for compare to others, but it's not. I have no more effort to change, delete or post some other article. Tomaswoas (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomaswoas: A Google books search finds this German book: [3] (yes you can cite foreign language sources, the kicker is knowing what it says), and a number of others that do not have any available text but the results indicate they do contain the exact phrase and thus may have cite-able content. A large library might have some of them. Unfortunately Google news being broken for the past few years has vastly cut down on the ease of finding good sources (or determining a lack thereof) for something of relatively recent origin like this. I tried Highbeam and Questia and found nothing. I can only suggest the library armed with the list from Google. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Fuhghettaboutit Tomaswoas (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tomaswoas. I'm afraid I have more bad news. I have now looked at Draft:Wiki on a Stick, and in my view in its present form it is completely unsuitable for a Wikipedia article, and would need to be written again from the start. It reads like a cross between advertising puff and a users' guide, neither of which is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. An article should be almost entirely based on what reliable sources have already written about a subject, it should not contain "How to" information or address the user directly, and it must not contain any kind of evaluation, good or bad (including comparison with other subjects) unless that evaluation is directly attributed to a cited reliable source.

I'm afraid that in my view the only way to save the article is to find the independent reliable sources and start all over again, basing the article only on what the sources say. Sorry. Please have a look at your first article and What Wikipedia is not. --ColinFine (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

query on how to do a named cite with different page numbers

I'd like to cite as a reference the same book in several positions in a WP article, but with different page numbers. So to avoid repeating a lot of info, I'm trying to use the (lessthan)ref name="fred"(morethan)blabla(lessthan)/ref(morethan) format. How do I cite fred page 53 at the end of one sentence and fred page 87 at the end of another sentence? Apologies if this info appears elsewhere in the reference manual on references- I can't find it. The article in question is Rotogravure Gravuritas (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using named refs, you need {{rp}}. Works like this: <ref name="fred"/>{{rp|53}} (assuming you're citing page 53 of Fred's book). Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, in the specific example of Rotogravure, you're only citing three consecutive pages of Otto Lillien - you don't really need to specify which of those three pages is being referenced, since it's such a short run of pages (presumably a single passage on the subject). If you wanted to reference page 40 of Lillien's book as well, that's when page numbers would be useful. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gravuritas:And for other future articles where you want to cite pages from more books and different places in them, the Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples might be what you are looking for. See how it is used in this article. You simply add the books in a Bibliography and then use {{sfn|author of book|year|p=103}} in the text. Look in the coding of the article, it is often easier than reading the help-page. The books must have a full cite book template with a "|ref=harv" added. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Gravuritas, thanks for stopping by. Looking at the article I guess the source you want to make repeated reference to is Otto Lillien's book? So there are a variety of ways you can do this but all start from the same premise and that is at some point in the article (normally a sources section) you fully define the book and all it's general parameters like this Lilien, Otto M (1972). History of Industrial Gravure Printing up to 1920. Lund Humphries London.. Then various ways of refering to it include

Named references. So the first time you make reference to a page or range of pages you would define it as <ref name="Lillien p20">Lillien p. 20</ref> then on every subsequent use you just put <ref name="Lillien p20"/> make sure you don't miss out the /
Shortened footnotes. This makes use of Harvard referencing so each reference is like this {{sfn|Lillien|1972|p=20}}, {{sfn|Lillien|1972|pp=30–32}} This method requires you to use the |harv= parameter when you cite the book in the sources section of the article.
Use of {{rp}}. Here you name the whole source just once so <ref name=Lillien>details of book</ref> then follow each use you follow the ref immedaitely with {{rp|20}} where the number is the page or pages you are referring to.

Hope this helps. Nthep (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all this help- now absorbed and in use on the Rotogravure article. (I think I've possibly made the cites over-detailed, but knowing how to do this will be very useful in editing future pages). Thanks again.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help about my article being vandalised?

Hello, I have written an article Middlemores Saddles and now someone called 66.74.176.59 has started to vandalise it. The first time they changed some grammar so it made less sense, the second time they changed some factual wording. I am worried that it will escalate into more malicious vandalism. Can anyone help? Thanks. Middle MoreMiddle More (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Middle More. Please calm down, and assume good faith. I agree that those edits made by the IP are unhelpful: I see no evidence that they are intended to be disruptive (which is what vandalism is). My guess is that they are being misled by your putting the reference after William's name to thinking the James is not a son - but I don't know. I do know that what you are doing is edit warring, and both of you should be discussing the matter on the talk page rather than simply reverting each other. The earlier change you reverted: I too feel that "goes back to" is a little informal for an encyclopaedia, and would prefer "dates from" even if a date is not mentioned. I'm not about to change it back, but that is what makes me think that these edits are intended to be constructive. Please remember that it is not your article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am sorry if I was out of line in anyway. I felt this way after googling this person's ID and seeing that they have had a lot of conflict with other Wikipedia users and so having put so many hours into the article I was worried. Middle More Middle More (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middle More. Another thing to be aware of: from your user id I think you have a conflict of interest regarding the article Middlemores Saddles. There are significant restrictions on the kind of edits you can make and also about declaring your relation to the subject of the article. Please review this article: wikipedia:COI --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! As do many people around the internet on forums etc. being an enthusiast/fan I have used a screen name to reflect that. I have no connection in any way with the former company or family or any aspect. My interest came from being into cycling and an Ebay purchaser of saddles from private individuals who had listed them for sale. Middle More (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Middle More: - No harm, no foul. It might, however, help to request a change of name so people won't associate you with a particular brand. LS1979 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could alter it, I don't mind. Although since the very start no-one ever said there was a need before. Middle More (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Middle More: - writing an article on the company has brought you close to being misidentified as having a COI - which might hurt you if you edit extensively in a connected area: as demonstrated by this thread, people can't tell whether you are an official Middlemores representative or not, and writing their article raised eyebrows here. LS1979 (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Middle More: It isn't a good idea to refer to "my article" in Wikipedia. Even if you do not intend to be claiming ownership of the article, other editors may read that phrase that way and may become defensive. Also, it is a good idea to refrain from referring to edits with which you disagree as vandalism unless it is clear that they are malicious or disruptive. Read the guideline on what is not vandalism. In particular, if you aren't sure that an edit is vandalism, don't use that expression in an edit summary, because edit summaries are part of the permanent record. (They can be redacted by an administrator, but only under certain circumstances.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, point taken, in my second comment above I referred to it as "the article". Over time plenty of people have made edits and I was absolutely fine with them, but in this situation it was after finding out the person had caused a lot of conflict around Wikipedia that it seemed to be the case of vandalism here. Middle More (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirming my profile

Its been three days and i have done more than 20 edits but still i am not being able to edit semiprotected pages. How to know if my profile is got activated please help me out. Thanks in advance .Sjain raipur (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjain raipur, welcome to the Teahouse. Actually to get autoconfirmed your account needs to exist for four days and you must make more than ten edits. If you have already have made 20 edits then your account might get autoconfirmed tomorrow. If not, you should visit WP:PERM/C to manually request user rights. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Log/Sjain raipur shows your account is only two days old so there are still two days to go. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding banners to problem articles.

I've edited numerous Wikipedia articles over the years. All of my edits, however, have been to pages where I could either add or correct information. In addition, whenever I find an error in an article, I always fix it if I'm able.

I'd like to know how to handle articles with "problems". We've all come across these articles, with banners at the top describing the problems with the articles. I'm unable to find help on how to do that. (Mostly, I don't really know what to search for!)

Example: I was just reading an article where the second half is totally lacking any references. I'm unable to add the references myself, as I don't know where to find the information. (Otherwise I'd just do that!) I'd like to mark the article, so that someone who's more knowledgeable than I can fix it.

How would I do that?!? Can anyone add these banners if they find an article such as the one I described? If so, how would I set it up, and where would I find the information I need to mark the article with a "Needs References" banner?

Thanks so much! Ge0nk (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thanks for doing 'maintenance'. There are templates for lots of different maintenance messages; see WP:TM. I find Twinkle to be a useful tool; see WP:TW. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To mark an article as needing references, the standard template is {{refimprove}} (just add that code, with the curly brackets, to the top of the article). As Ariconte points out though, there are others... If you want to find references, I've got some suggestions and links here that might be useful. Another link you might find useful is WP:GBD, which lists 'problem' pages in need of attention. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your recommendations! I'll check out these suggestions and see which one works best for the article I'm trying to fix. Ge0nk (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with editing on Wikipedia

Hello friends, I was invited to the Teahouse about a year ago, but I am new to this. I am in need of help on how to edit on Wikipedia as there are specific guidelines to follow on Wikipedia. What are some tips and guidelines that experienced editors follow that new editors should know about? Angel Light17 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Angel Light17: Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! Some of the main guidelines that are policies on Wikipedia are the following:

Don't get overwhelmed by all of these policies, you can just skim through a specific one of them that's on the subject that you may need clarification on. If you have any other questions, just feel free to ask me! -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Wikipedia

Please take this conversation to the article or user talk page

How is it possible for an article such as List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming to claim notability simply because it says its contributors have articles named for them. This is a disingenuous and circular argument which anyone can use to further their political claims by using Wikipedia to promote their own political ideas. It is just not good enough to say someone is notable because they have an article about them on Wikipedia; this would mean that Wikipedia itself was self-referencing. There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia which have no notability but they don't make any claims about it. This is why they are allowed to stick around. One of the supporters of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is user:NewsAndEventsGuy who seems to have a blantant disregard for anyone who dissents. Are bullies allowed now? Whoever "Guy" is uses lots of Machievellian arguments against anyone who dare contradict this self-proclaimed guardian of the world. I have had a bellyful of such drivel. The Teahouse is probably not the place for this but if I put a message on "Guy"s page it would very likely be quickly removed so where else can I make my point? A second point is that I suspect many admins may agree with "Guy" (maybe "Guy" is a (sock) admin) so it would be difficult to do anything about it. Jodosma (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jodosma. You already know that the Teahouse is not the place to complain about some aspect of Wikipedia that you dislike and it is most certainly not the place to speculate about whether someone is a sockpuppet. This is a place to ask and answer questions about how to edit the encyclopedia. Sorry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting Jodosma, welcome to the teahouse. First, regarding the specific issue I noticed you added a "needs citation" tag to that article which NewsAndEventsGuy reverted. I think that reversion was reasonable. Essentially the claim you were saying needed a citation was that "Each scientist listed here is notable enough to have his or her own Wikipedia article" It seems to me that a claim like that doesn't need a citation since every scientist is listed and their names are links. So they clearly do have Wikipedia articles. But stepping back from that specific issue keep in mind one important concept of editing is that we wp:assume good faith It's not a good idea to use words like "drivel" when talking about arguments made by other editors nor to speculate without evidence that they are sock puppets. If someone is bullying you that's a different matter but I didn't see any evidence of that in what you described above. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly removed the sentence "Each scientist listed here is notable enough to have his or her own Wikipedia article" because I didn't think it was required, but I've been reverted, I started a discussion on the talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

e/c

Gee, Jodosma, thanks for the kind words. They're especially curious since

(A) You have not addressed a single comment directly to me, much less attempted to use WP:Dispute resolution to resolve any differences we might have; and

(B) Since I invited criticism that proposes an implementable solution.

My guess is you're in a bad mood after spending all that time in line on Black Friday hordes, but geez.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standard output for reflist using citation template, format options

I'm very glad the Teahouse is here! I have a question about citation formatting and templates. When using the citation template within the visual editor -- using the "cite" button to get the form that creates a nicely formatted citation -- it seems like the default reflist output is a modified APA style. In other words, the template enters info in a generic format (i.e., "cite book|last1=Lastname|first1=Firstname|title=Book|date=YYYY|etc."), but the reflist at the bottom of the article outputs those in APA-ish style: Lastname, Firstname. (YYYY.) Title-in-italics. etc. Is that correct? And if so, is there a code or way to change that so that the default output looks more like MLA or other styles? And please let me know if I'm not describing my question well. Thanks! AmandaRR123 (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AmandaRR123, welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, what you describe is an APA-ish format called Citation Style 1. Contributors are free to use other citation formats (including MLA) without using those templates, but I don't believe there is currently a way to convert the templates to MLA automatically. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is disqualified for enlistment into the United States Army because of a juvenile drug charge, can they get that charge expunged and be eligible to enlist?

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink to a Section of an Artical

I'm currently editing Circassian cuisine to make it more adequate for the encyclopedia. I want to link to this section on the list of cuisines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cuisines#Ethnic_and_religious_cuisines

Is there any way to do this using the wikilink system?

Crossark (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the teahouse Crossark I think what you want is this: [[List_of_cuisines#Ethnic_and_religious_cuisines]] which looks like this: List_of_cuisines#Ethnic_and_religious_cuisines What I do is navigate to the section; click on the article then click on the section heading from the TOC. The end of the URL in your browser at that point is the wikicode you need; just copy that; paste it and then use the link tool to make sure everything worked properly and to edit the text of the link as needed. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that really helped! Crossark (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to MadScientistX11's reply, Crossark: in a URL, the spaces need to be replaced by underscores, but in a wikilink, they don't have to be. So. [[List of cuisines#Ethnic and religious cuisines]] has the same effect as Madscientist's link, but appears as List of cuisines#Ethnic and religious cuisines. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I typed it that way, put a vertical bar after it, and added "Ethnic cuisines", but it wouldn't link properly, which was why I asked the question in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossark (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossark: You were nearly right in [4] but you wrote Cuisines instead of cuisines. Page names are case sensitive except for the fist letter. This also applies to page links so List of Cuisines has the same problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's good to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossark (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

submitting draft

I'm ready to submit a draft, how do I do this?Secahill (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Secahill: Just place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft and you should be good to go! Note that it could take anywhere from a day to several weeks for an editor to come by and review your submission, since there's a pretty large backlog of 2,000+ draft submissions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for unwanted Deletion

My draft has been marked for speedy deletion and it's saying I marked it for that but I haven't. I'm making this article for a class project of mine and need to turn in it today. How can I remove this notice? Thanks Secahill (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Secahill, welcome to the Teahouse! I've removed the notice for you. [5] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Secahill (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When will the notice be gone? because it still appears under mine when I look at it......Secahill (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Secahill:, the problem is that you have your draft existing in three separate places - Draft:SandForests, Draft:Sand Forests and User:Secahill/sandbox. Which one do you want to keep and which two would you like to be deleted? Nthep (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes rejected

Hello, I have been trying to edit the profile for my Organization ABC Bank (Kenya) and somehow the changes reflected. However, the changes are no longer visible and am wondering what could be the issue. I added a column for Awards and listed some of the awards we have gotten as a Bank. I also changed the History sub title to About and added a few things to it. In addition, I added tow more links for our subsidiary companies to external links but all this is no longer reflecting.

Please let me understand why this was not captured. I will appreciate your kind response. Thank you.Joy Avia (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy Avia:. Hi Joy Avia. Every article has a tab at the top labeled "History" at which you can view what was done at every revision and the edit summaries people have left when they made changes. If you visit the page history of ABC Bank (Kenya), you will see that your edits were reverted by User:Mean as custard with the comments "Revert to less blatantly promotional version". For some context about that edit summary, please see WP:PROMOTION, WP:PEACOCK and our policy on neutral point of view. I agree with this revert. The content you added was highly promotional material, essentially corporate ad-speak ("It facilitates its business clients through innovative tailor-made financial solutions, emphasizing on its main strengths in asset finance..."), that I expect to see on some organization's homepages puffing themselves, but never in an encyclopedia article. Please also note our conflict of interest guidelines. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster says that she was trying to edit the "profile" for her organization. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, she may not understand that Wikipedia does not have "profiles". It has articles because it is an encyclopedia, and they are written from a neutral point of view, and it should in general not be edited by editors with conflicts of interests. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit an article?

I'm a new comer and i dont know to edit yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMLigad (talk • contribs) 08:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMLigad, welcome to the Teahouse. Editing Wikipedia is easy, or at least it's easy to learn. To edit an unprotected article just click edit button at the top of the article. Help:Editing has everything you need to know. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest

Where is the location of Mount Everest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biswaranjan1994 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biswaranjan1994, it will be better for you to look at the page Everest. And, in teahouse, you should ask questions about editing. Ochilov (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird encoding failure?

Hello. I noticed something is wrong at the Town of Salem article. Do you guys see a long patch of blue, red, and other colours before actually seeing the article all the way down? If you guys don't see it, I'll take it as my computer has a problem. If there is, I think it is an encoding failure or something else, but the colour patches are really irritating to begin with. Ping me. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 09:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay now, I fixed it. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 09:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can I put the album cover to my editing album article?

Hi, I'm writing an article about music album. And like other album articles, I want to put the album cover to my article. But I warned from wikipedia friend that I can't put the picture because of the copyright. I couldn't find that image in Wikimedia Commons. Do you have any ideas or suggestions about putting album cover? Here is my sandbox link about editing my new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myeonghanyu/sandbox Myeonghanyu (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Myeonghanyu: Hi Myeonghanyu. The vast majority of album covers used here are non-free copyrighted, and so you can click on the album covers you find in such articles to see the manner in which others have licensed them. We allow fair use uploads of for display in articles about the album (it is an exclusive relationship – the image is fair for use there and not elsewhere). When you visit a properly situated one you will typically see two issues dealt with: 1) a fair use rationale, usually placed by {{album cover fur}}, and ii) details on the license, usually placed by {{Non-free album cover}}. Take a look at File:Metallica - ...And Justice for All cover.jpg for an example. What you must understand is that you should only do the upload, and you can only display the image in the page, once it's in the article mainspace, i.e., you cannot use it while the article is a draft in your sandbox. By the way, above you used the URL of your sandbox. You never need to do this for a page here. Just take its title and enclose it in double brackets → [[User:Myeonghanyu/sandbox]] Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Myeonghanyu: I've added a first sentence to the draft with a citation to a reliable source and added a references section.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how to format an author's bibliography or list of works?

Hello everyone! For poets/writers/etc how should we format their list of works on their wikipedia pages? I've seen Chicago, MLA, APA--you name it. For example, compare: Alice Munro's works section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Munro#Works) to Lorrie Moore's bibliography section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorrie_Moore#Bibliography). What is the standard? Is it listed somewhere already?

Thank you! Internatwave (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no standard at all, but it will be good, if you write year and ISBN there. Ochilov (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Internatwave welcome to the teahouse. Have you taken a look here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Literature? I haven't looked at the literature project page but perhaps they have some guidelines or a place to ask specific questions pertaining to the format. A couple other suggestions: if you are looking to edit an existing article about a poet it's probably a good idea to stick with whatever format is there... unless there is a really compelling reason to change. And of course if the article exists already post a comment on the talk page before making any serious changes to the structure of the article. Also, one thing I do when I'm wondering about how to format things and there is no standard is to find a similar topic that is very well known and see how that article is structured. So in this case I might try looking at some very famous poet like Robert Frost or Emily Dickinson; or other articles on very famous poets that are highly rated articles; and use those as a model. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a Multiple Header Sandbox

Hi there! My question is: How to create a Multiple Header Sandbox? I want to create a multiple header Sandbox at My Bengali Wikipeida User Page: [6]

Would you please, let me to know how? Or just create at my Bengali Wikipedia User page and oblige thereby. --- Sufidisciple (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sufidisciple. What do you mean by a Multiple Header Sandbox? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, Thanks for your response. Actually I have one Multiple header Sandbox in my English Wiki User likewise this: [7]] - - - Sufidisciple (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sufidisciple: User:Sufidisciple/sandbox transcludes User:Technical 13/SandBox/DraftHeader. If you want all the current functionality then you would have to copy and adapt several pages to the Bengali Wikipedia. The part creating links to your subpages is {{:Special:PrefixIndex/User:{{{1|{{#titleparts:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}}|1}}}}}}}. Is that enough? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter Obliged for your kind reply and for the given syntax but there is difference. After applying the syntax using --- BASEPAGENAMEE}}|1 / BASEPAGENAMEE}}|2 / BASEPAGENAMEE}}|3 --- it is showing 3 links of my sandbox. All those 3 are going to same page. I need 3 different links of sandbox 1, sandbox 2, sandbox3. Those should go to 3 different sandbox of an individual user. It will help me to develop 3 articles simultenusly in three different different sandbox as of my own. Sample: My Eng.Wikipedia sendbox [8] is the sample and I need same at My Bengali Wikipedia User Sandbox [9] I would like to send you a sample snapshot. Please, try to provide me and oblige thereby. --- Sufidisciple (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sufidisciple: Do not post email addresses. It violates our privacy policy. The code should only be there once and not repeated with |2 and |3. It automatically creates links to all the pages which have been created. It doesn't create red links to non-existing pages. Neither does User:Sufidisciple/sandbox. I don't need a sample snapshot. I need to know what you want. I now get the impression that you mainly want to know how to create a page. User:Sufidisciple/sandbox has a box which can help with that but you don't need it. You can for example enter the full pagename including User:Sufidisciple/ in the search box. The resulting page should include a link to create or edit the pagename you entered. You can also first create a link like User:Sufidisciple/sandbox2 or bn:User:Sufidisciple/sandbox2 and then click that. As mentioned, once the page exists it will be listed by the code I posted. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I copied my template to bnwp and it seems to mostly work. I can't read the characters there, so feel free to modify the template for translation. Also, none of the preloads will work as I don't know what is over there for sandbox style templates or userboxes or whatnot. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunterWaoooo!!! I am really happy! This is the result that I have been demanding. O! It’s quite enjoying. Thanks for your kind attention and cooperation. Earlier I could not understand the process, it’s done following your instruction. Obliged indeed. --- Sufidisciple (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} Obliged to you too for the reply. Thanks Bro. the problem has solved following the code {{:Special:PrefixIndex/User:{{{1|{{#titleparts:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}}|1}}}}}}}. --- Sufidisciple (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tone of an article

Hi teahouse, I recently contributed to wikipedia by posting an article called "Biodegradability of Athletic Footwear," and a post came up stating that I need to use a better tone. I was wondering if you could explain to me where in my article I could better it and use a better "tone."Knixon4 (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Knixon4. The reason for that tag being added is probably because the article reads a little like an essay. Examples of essay-like sentences include "This article discusses...", "According to Katarzyna,...", and that the article has a Conclusion section. The link in the tag should be helpful to you, as would looking at other wikipedia articles, in particular those marked as Good Articles. Hope that helps, Sam Walton (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure that "According to Katarzyna,..." is an inappropriately essay-like tone. It's a bit of a grey area though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But with no context as to who Katarzyna is it's not a very useful thing to write, and is something more commonly seen in essays/papers. Sam Walton (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I am doing this as a class project for an environmental chemistry course, so I am very new to this. Thank you for the help! Knixon4 (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Knixon4. It did read a little bit like a journal article or essay (a good one, if I might add). The main difference is that a magazine article will often lead in by describing the background or interesting facts, whereas at Wikipedia we jump right in to the topic, e.g. "Biodegradable shoes are shoes that are biodegradable." It's very blunt. That's what this article is about. So I took the liberty of adding a new lead, which is just a short summary of the main points of each section. That took care of the tone, so I removed the tone tag. Another point is that the key paragraph about "initiatives to produce environmentally friendly athletic footwear" didn't have a source. Could you find a source for that, perhaps from one of the papers cited? Also, my lead assumes that such shoes already exist, which may not be true. Please fix that if necessary. In any case, we want the article to be about one topic. After reading this, I'm interested in when such biodegradable materials might become widely used, so maybe you could cover that. Anyway it's quite a good article, thanks for the contribution. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Margin1522. Thank you for reading my article and giving me feedback. I will source the line you suggested to source. In addition, there are a pair of shoes out there that are considered "more biodegradable," but no one hundred percent. My goal was to simply describe possible biodegradable materials that could replace the non-degradable ones that are polluting the landfills and releasing toxins to the environment. How would you suggest I state when these degradable materials may be used? I felt that I stated that within the entire article. Thank you so much for all the help. Knixon4 (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Knixon4. That would be good, to mention that "more biodegradable" pair of shoes, perhaps as a mid-term solution. Usually the problem with the long-term solution and the way these articles end is cost, namely that the biodegradable materials are just as good but cost twice as much, so that more research and innovation is needed to lower the cost. Whether that will be possible, and when. Although actually this is not your responsibility. The articles does a good job of covering its topic. Now if someone else wants to explore different aspects of it they can research those aspects and add them to article. Which is what I expect to happen as people stop by to add categories and links from related articles. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Margin1522. That is a great idea. Where would you suggest I mention the mid-term solution? Should I add a new section, and if so where would you suggest I place it so that the article flows. P.S. sorry for such the late responses, finals are coming up! Knixon4 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]