Wikipedia:Teahouse

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
1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226

Clarification on BLP

If you look at my contributions you can see that I recently edited a biography on a living person which I created long ago. There is one editor who indiscriminately deletes my edits to the article and the talk page. The article is on an individual that was subject of controversy in Mexico. The editor has removed anything that remotely mentions that controversy. A Google search will yield plenty of news articles on the matter (in Spanish). Perhaps my edits in the past violated BLP, but his last edit makes me feel that the article is being deliberately censored.[1] Is there anywhere that I can go to get a clarification on this matter? I've tried to discuss the matter with the editor but he simply accused me of COI. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

making an article

Hello, i was tasked to make an article for the organization that I am apart of and it said I plagiarized from our own site. Is there a way i can enter an article with paragraphs from our site without showing up as plagiarism?

James Hishmeh Trash Mountain Project

Jameshishmeh (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Jameshishmeh Welcome to the Teahouse. The process for donating copyrighted material is described here: Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials However, in my experience as an editor I have never seen an example where material from a web site was deemed appropriate for a Wikipedia article regardless of copyright issues. The problem is that a web site and an encyclopedia almost always have very different requirements for the kind of prose. Most web sites tends to be wp:promotional, the whole idea is to say "look at this cool thing and here is why it is so cool and different" where as the tone for Wikipedia is supposed to be wp:objective BTW, you can quote directly from a copyrighted web site or other sources as long as you properly attribute the quote but those quotes should be a few sentences or a paragraph or two at most never a whole article or even a major part of an article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jameshishmeh. I'm afraid you have been tasked with a job which is very difficult for you (in particular) because you have a conflict of interest and so you are strongly discouraged from working on the article. Please also read WP:CORP, and be aware that if your organisation meets Wikipedia's criteria on notability and may therefore have an article about it, it will not be your article, and your organisation will have no control over it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox review

Hey guys could anyone give my sandbox a review a give me a few pointer on how to improve it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RDs123/sandbox Thank you! 86.45.170.58 (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP. Unfortunately, your sources are not supporting the society's notability: all the news sources point to general economic news (perhaps featuring the person they refer to in other contexts) rather than news specifically about the society. Sources need to directly refer to the subject of the article: the society gets a passing mention, but only as the venue for the comment made; the sources don't discuss the society itself as an organisation independent of its guest, which IMO would be necessary to establish that it was notable itself.

I'm not entirely sure the organisation qualifies as a notable organisation, and I don't think this is going to make it into the encyclopaedia: per the Student life section of the university notability guidelines, the society would require thorough coverage in mainstream (i.e. non-university, external) publications to qualify. (For instance, the Oxford Union is an example of a notable student society; the society here would require that sort of coverage to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.) If and only if you can find such sources, then the society would be notable. As it stands, the article doesn't prove that to me, at least. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 19:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

I remember coming across a wikipedia policy on verifiability that said that although claims need to be verifiable through inline citations, it isn't mandatory that the sources should be available online. I'm unable to find the same. Can someone point me to it? I would like to use a few video interviews given by celebrities but those that are available in YouTube are published against copyright infringement. I would also appreciate if someone could enlighten me on the suggested course of action under such circumstances. Thanks. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 15:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Sriram Vikram Welcome to the teahouse. First here is a general tip that I find very useful. When you are searching for something related to editing Wikipedia try typing "wp:" in the Wikipedia search box and then start typing the word or phrase you think might merit a Wikipedia article devoted to editing the encyclopedia (rather than actual encyclopedia content). The "wp:" tells the search engine to look in the Wikipedia wp:namespace rather than the normal default which is the article namespace. So in this case wp:Verifiability But to get to your specific question: yes you are correct you absolutely can reference something even if it's not available online and that includes videos. The specific template you want is: Template:Cite_AV_media I used that template a few months ago for this article if you want to see some specific examples: Margaret_Mead look at refs 41-44. In this case I was able to link to the actual video because it is in the public domain but it is fine to use a ref to any film even if you can't link to an online copy as long as the ref is relevant to the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MadScientistX11:Thanks for the tip. However, I'm familiar with both the tip and the aforementioned template. But, the question is, what am I supposed to do if the video isn't in public domain? A video of the interview exists in YouTube but it has been uploaded by a casual user therefore violating copyrights. With no official or public domain videos available, I have no other info such as its title, the date it was published, the publisher etc. How am I supposed to fill the av media template? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood. If the video is not in the public domain you just don't put a URL in the template when you cite the video. Just fill out the other info as best you can: timestamp where the event occurs, name of the film, etc. It's no different than referencing a book or news article that isn't available online. Having an online source is best but it is not a requirement. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can Wiki be kinder

How can the people on Wiki be made kinder? Frogger48 (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frogger48, when I first saw your question I thought maybe that you were a newcomer who had been bitten, but I see that you have been here since 2013, so that's obviously not the case. As you are probably aware, we already have several initiatives such as this very Teahouse that are built around the concept of friendliness, as well as welcome templates and the like. The people over in IRC:wikipedia-en-help, for example, are also usually very friendly. I think this goes a long way towards friendliness towards newcomers, and this is where much of the focus seems to have been. For more experienced users, they are expected to abide by WP:CIVILITY (well, everyone is). The problem, in my opinion, is that that's all there is, except for I'm sure a few essays on the subject. There are no welcome templates or friendly teahouses. Just the expectation that everyone gets along. What really needs to change is the mindset of some of the editors here, and I'm not sure any policy or essay alone will achieve this. I don't have a solution, but it's a worthy question. Discant X 10:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just my personal thoughts, but one of the greatest things about Wikipedia is that you can't "make" anyone do anything. That means that everyone does things they do because they want to - which allows us to have policies like assuming good faith. That's not to say I think people shouldn't be kinder on Wikipedia - as far as I've seen, the best way to do it is to lead by example. Make sure that you're kind, even in the face of adversity. That goes doubly so in high traffic areas. Worm^TT(talk) 11:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Last week I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Welcoming committee and thought to share in this discussion. I see that Teahouse is mentioned further down in the WC article. Just a suggestion--maybe Teahouse & WC could do cross-links to each other's articles at the top of the page? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I post to someone's "talk" page to ask them a question about changes they have made to my page?

I have had one person suggesting that I add pages for people (all of whom are published poets) mentioned on an original page but who do not already have their own pages - and another person has already deleted the names of all those people without their own pages from my original list. How do I explain this to both of them without causing offence when I re-place the removed names? I am happy, time permitting, to add stub pages for all these extra people; equally there may be other contributors who would like to do the same. I don't really understand why the person who removed those names without their own pages as it seems that the existence of such a non-link would serve to encourage other experts to post pages about these poets? How, precisely, do I post on their talk pages, I cannot see how to do it when I go to them? Thank you. Steve Millar (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To directly answer your question: Go to the talk page of the user in question (from what I understand you already know how to do this part). Then in the upper right hand of the page click "Edit source" the same as you would to edit an article. Scroll to the bottom of the edit box and start a new section with a title that briefly describes the issue. Below that, leave your message.

As to the issue you have with the user who removed the authors, I am not too sure what his rational is. I had a brief look, and if I understand correctly, those authors are indeed contributors to P.L.P., and as such should be included in the list of authors. Red links are okay on WP; it just means there is more work to be done. I would approach the user and say much what you said here – that is, that you intend to create pages for those authors. I would also remind him that not everyone who is mentioned in an article needs his own WP page. Discant X 10:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, that is very helpful. Steve Millar (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is WikiCup?

Hi, I only joined Wikipedia very recently and everyone seems to be talking about this Wikipedia tournament called the "WikiCup". I've tried researching it but I'm still quite confused. What is it exactly? Feather-Bucket (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feather-Bucket welcome to the Teahouse. Another editor asked this question on the Teahouse. I'm glad that lots of editors are interested in Wikicup. For your convenience I will provide my answer to the previous editor. Wikicup is a competition which you can win by showing off your skills in editing. Like other competitions Wikicup has a scoring system and some rules. Team of judges (Experienced Wikipedia editors) will announce the winner(s). You can score points by uploading good pictures, bringing articles, topics, portals and lists to Featured/Good article state. Improving Did you know?, In the news sections and doing Good article & peer reviews are some other ways of getting point. Give below is the scoring system. (snipped from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring)--Chamith (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

**2015 points**
Featured article	Good article	Featured list	Featured picture	Featured portal	Featured topic	Good topic	Did you know?	In the news	Good article & peer reviews
200	30	45	20	45	10 per article	3 per article	5 or 10	10	4

Fixing ignored chapter parameters

I figure I've got a few credits in the Teahouse bank, so my turn to ask for some assistance. Some recent change has caused the |chapter= parameter to be ignored in certain citation templates. I spent a million years on the prose and just don't feel like looking for a solution myself. Can someone please attempt a fix of the ignored chapter parameters at Przevalski's nuthatch (not removal, but a fix that will place the intended attribution in an appropriate place in the citations)? You can see them easily in the references list, as they have the red error text saying the parameter is being ignored.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit on Template:Cite journal it says that the parameter |chapter will not be displayed. I guess that's why it's being ignored. In order to fix that someone has to add |chapter parameter to Template:Cite journal.--Chamith (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChamithN. Yep, that's why I'm looking for an alternate parameter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Why don't you try including it in the "|page= |" parameter? Instead of writing "|page=p. 110|chapter=Przewalski's Journey in Tibet|" you write "|page=p. 110 (Przewalski's Journey in Tibet)|". Or even "|page=p. 110 (Chapter: Przewalski's Journey in Tibet)|". I did a quick check and it seems to work, the name of the chapter shows up and all. I haven't changed it in the article. Just a suggestion. w.carter-Talk 14:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking that out that suggestion now. As always, thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can use that but I'd really prefer it to display in the normal spot for a chapter name (after the date, before the title of the work). I suppose I could try to shoehorn them into cite book, though I;m not sure if there are some information in the journal parameters that wouldn't have a place there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joining a "course"

Hi. I am trying to join a "course" for my class that requires us to be on Wikipedia. The course is "BIOL 345", I do not understand how to join.

jocie (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jocebz. You have succeeded in creating a Wikipedia account, so "well done". As for signing up for a course, you haven't even given us the name of the school you attend. As this is a worldwide encyclopedia, there are thousands of possibilities. I suggest you take your questions to your professor. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jocebz: The course feature is only a small part of our website and some users don't know about it. At Special:Courses I only found one current course with "BIOL 345" in the name so I assume you refer to Education Program:University of British Columbia/BIOL 345 Human Ecology (Winter 2015). There is an "Enroll" tab at the top (and also an "Enroll" button in the top left box). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why are you erasing my inputs?

philipofJMJ is my name on Wikipedia. I am new, and nothing stays. Please advise. philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for an answer. philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilipofJMJ: Your edits to anti-paganism policy of Constantine I was reverted by Favonian due to WP:NPOV concerns, maybe he could explain more to you. In the meantime, I think you should read up on WP:NPOV. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, PhilipofJMJ. It seems that you tried to add unreferenced information, including the statement "See other Wiki articles by philipofJMJ on wikipedia."

We never use one Wikipedia article as a reference for another. No respected Wikipedia editor ever promotes their own article work in article space. I am proud to say which articles I have helped improve on my own user page. But it would be entirely inappropriate to do so in an encyclopedia article. Please take this as a lesson. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning a lot by these responses. Thanks. philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hello, Mr. Favonian, can you help me out, as the gardener spoke of above, please? philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the way people are using the lead section

I'm not sure if this is the right place to complain, but anyway: Editors, please stop using the lead section of articles as a newsfeed. All I see is dates everywhere (i.e on October 8 2014, NASA discovered ... ). Also, people are just dropping information there for visibility. The lead is by far the most important part of the article (it is what most of the visitors read) and unfortunately it is needing severe copyediting in many articles. I am getting kinda tired of having to shorten and copyedit stuff people simply drop there, so perhaps an administrator could enforce more severe rules regarding the addition of content there.

I just had to vent. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 02:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that is probably best brought up elsewhere (maybe the village pump?), but for what it's worth, I agree. I was just reading an article yesterday where someone had dropped in random miscellanea to the lede that wasn't even mentioned elsewhere. If it doesn't even fit in somewhere in the main body of the article, what on earth is it doing in a summary of it?! Discant X 10:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra quark, I just had a thought. Maybe the the best way to deal with this issue would be to create a Wikiproject that is focused on improving the lede sections of articles. I would be more than happy to be involved myself. I didn't see any that currently exist in the project directory, so if there is interest one of us could submit a proposal. Discant X 23:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I had in mind. I just didn't have enough time to create a whole wikiproject and also I'm already taking care of mine (Wikipedia:WikiProject Cosmology. But hey, if you create that project, be sure that I will do all I can to improve it! Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 00:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DiscantX: oh and by the way, I don't think that it is necessary to submit a proposal. It is for a good cause, so just create it and we start inviting people. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 00:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tetra quark, it's good to meet you! You are right, the lead of an article shouldn't be used that way - but I think you'll find that most people who do something like that are inexperienced in Wikipedia's in-house writing style. If a new editor presses the "edit" button to add information, the first block of text they see is the lead and so they will add it there. If you see it again, feel free to move the information to a more appropriate place in the article, but perhaps also have a snoop to find out who put the information there in the first place and perhaps have a pleasant chat with them? Thank them for their edit and help them see how their edits can be even better in future? Worm^TT(talk) 11:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of a recently submitted entry.

How can I find out what happened to a draft entry I submitted recently -- on January 10? It was a completely rewritten text, based on interviews and e-mail exchanges with the subject, a previous version having been rejected because it was too close to a published profile of the subject held to be under copyright protection.108.24.49.137 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. All you have to tell us is the name of the user account you were using (or IP address you were assigned) when you posted the page, or the exact name of the draft, inclusive of the original capitalization. Either will allow us to look at the deleted content and then advise you further. Right now you are posting from an IP address whose only edit is your post here, and you have not provided any information to target what page it might have been. That having been said, unfortunately, it sounds like you posted a draft article based in whole or in part on original research, which is material we cannot use. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. Our articles must be based on published, reliable, secondary sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I post a wiki article here so I can work out the kinks?

My article has been denied three times for differing reasons. The first was for copyright - I fixed it. The second was for not meeting minimum inline citations and the third is that reads more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. I've changed many of the things that might be problematic but would like to check and see if I can work out more of the kinks before I re-submit again. How can I transpose my article from my sandbox to over here at the teahouse so I can specific feedback on the specific article?Blackmarionball5285 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Blackmarionball5285. There is no need to post a copy of your draft article here at the Teahouse, since any experienced editor can find it in a few seconds, by looking at your edit history. The draft article in question is Draft:Lindsay Shearer-Nelko. The reviewers have given you excellent advice. Read it carefully, and follow it.

In my opinion, (in addition to other improvements), the article needs a lead paragraph which summarizes the person's life. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do deal with editors violating WP:CON

Hi, how do I deal with two editors who are refusing to gain consensus before making controversial edits. I can't keep reverting them without violating 3RR. One of the editors said in response to a question on their talk page that they "do not care for your consensus because your consensus has no relation to fact". The requests for page protection says admins do not revert to specific versions of the page. Ho can I get the page protected at the version of the status quo until consensus is achieved, per wikipedia policy? The page is social conservatism. Colonial Overlord (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will request a page protection myself, don't worry. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 02:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue that resulted in speedy deletion - Angel Sessions Article

Hello, An article I was waiting for a review on was deleted. I took the exact wiki article and copied it and place it in another website called, "IMDB.com" The reviewer saw that and requested speedy deletion even though I am the person copied from my own article. So, I decided to remove the copied article from the IMDB website. I was told that I could have left the exact copy up on IMDB if I added the following statement as the end using the same ID?:

"This article is CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licensed"

My question is: Do I have to fill out some type of form and add the statement as well or will adding the above statement enough by itself?

If it is not too complicated I would rather reinstate the IMDB article and add the statement at the end and left it. My next question is after putting in the statement can I reinstall the code to my original article and then continue from there or do I have to have someone undelete my article first. Lastly, do you work for hire? I want this article and keep running into one thing or another. I am new to this and I am learning.

Demetrius Guidry (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrius Guidry hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know whether imdb will allow that text on their site, but I have reviewed a number of movies there, dating back to before I had ever heard of Wikipedia. They might let you do it. But I have read that once a review is on that site, it is considered copyrighted and can't be used here.

We are all volunteers here but there is Wikipedia:Mentorship. To get your article back would require that you intend to make major changes, but the procedure is Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have already uploaded and then had IMDB to delete it. The problem is that I put my Wiki article on that site. The wiki article was written first and then I placed the exact same article on IMDB. I deleted it thinking that would resolve my issue when in fact I deleting it did not satisfy the reviewer. I will put the article back exactly has I placed it before. However, I was told that I have to include a statement that "This article is CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licensed." My question was, do I have to fill out a form or is making that statement at the end of the article I only need to place the text at the end and then that satisfies the copyright issue? Thanks, 108.251.108.176 (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler solution is never to copy any draft or part of a draft from WP to any other site - only do so after the draft has been accepted and moved to mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Now that I have done that what is the best way to begin again. Rewrite the article using my same account and use different wording and then submit it for review? 108.251.108.176 (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning for soapboxing

Hi all. Could someone help me out with this please? Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Mufaddal Saifuddin. Summichum (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC) This editor goes in and revises pretty much everything I do but gives me no explanaition at all. I can't see what his issue is but he is intent on preventing anything that goes against his point of view. Perhaps I am going wrong somewhere and would love to know what steps I should take. Noughtnotout (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to top of page) Noughtnotout hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Follow the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and if things get really bad, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The first step is to discuss the problem calmly and politley on Summichum's talk page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - no sooner had I had this warning then out of nowhere an administrator banned me from this page and all pages related to the topic of dawoodi bohra. He has accused me of 'declaring one party as a winner', being used as a sock puppet and not posting on the talk page none of which I have or aimed to have done. It really was a surprise and I am at a loss because all I did was add detail and references for 2 sides of a claimant issue. I need some help on this big time, he has banned me from the page edit and the talk page so I'm effectively muzzled altogether. And it all came about almost straight after the other editor in the piece reverted all my additions and sent me the block warning.

So much for JeSuisCharlie :-( Noughtnotout (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I can do to help you in this case. I was hoping someone else would see this and respond. Try WIKIPEDIA:UNBAN. The fact that you can still post here indicates it is not a site ban.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does one prevent a list from being unduly reverted?

A group of anonymous users typically from the Philippines as shown by their ip addresses are out to insist that the list of the world's largest arenas ends at the Philippine Arena. Using the Merriam-Webster definition of arena, I truly believe the list should include those that I posted. Several links and websites were provided to back up the entries I provided and were retained so for a certain group to undo my revisions makes them appear to have an agenda.Vegas.Pete (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vegas.Pete, welcome to the Teahouse! In this case, I have to agree with the IPs. There's already a list covering stadiums - List of stadiums by capacity. In general, you should use the article's talk page if someone reverts a change you made. Please see WP:BRD for more info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN! Thanks for the info. I will take a look at the options you presented and hope you won't mind if I a ask a few more questions in the future. Cheers! Vegas.Pete (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Hello again NeilN. I see you reverted my list of indoor arenas stating that none of the seven I added were not arenas despite the Merriam-Webster reference? I look forward to your reply. Thank you! Vegas.Pete (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2015 (EST)

You cited a Merriam-Webster entry which is about arenas but makes no attempt to distingusih them from stadiums. There is no agreed definition on the precise distinction between arena and stadium but if the field is football-sized (as in American football or association football but not the smaller Arena football) then it's generally called a stadium and wouldn't belong on List of indoor arenas by capacity. The "largest arenas" may sound a bit like asking for the tallest men who aren't giants, but I think it's roughly about the most seats around fields (or other performance areas) significantly below football size. For an international encyclopedia we cannot go by whether the locals call it an arena, stadium or something else. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a article about my company on Wikipedia?

Hi, I would like to create a page for my company with the company background information etc. How do I go about doing this? Please help, thanks Kotwica 15 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kotwica 15, welcome to the Teahouse! Short answer: You don't, per our conflict of interest guidelines. If your company should have an article on Wikipedia someone else will eventually write it. If you absolutely must create one, and your company meets our notability guidelines (independent sources have in-depth coverage of it) then you can use our articles for creation process to create a draft and get feedback from neutral editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering information

Trying to write about a slang term and staying objective. Haven't been able to find a lot of references and questioning the term. For lack of a better word hearsay keeps clipping my article. For instance my Grandmother made it with a,b,c but sure other Grandmothers may have made it with a,b,c and d. The best source found was Goggle Books but then finding author and publisher originals didn't turn up scanned documents or data. Is this Wikipedia worthy? Does anyone know of better sources? If your feeling researchy the term is "Texas butter".Spmicknerd (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spmicknerd. A Wikipedia article must be based almost entirely on information published in reliable sources. If you cannot find any such sources which discuss the subject then there cannot be an article on the subject. (The sources do not have to be online, as long as a reader can in principle get hold of them, eg. by ordering them from a public library). --ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spmicknerd: Hi Spmicknerd. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a dictionary of slang or otherwise. This does not mean we cannot have an article on a food item like this, if that item has been sufficiently written about in reliable sources to sustain the topic's notability and verification of the content, but generally we do not have articles on words qua words, but on the topic the word refers to. Here I imagine, if warranted, the title would be at some variations of Texas butter or Texas style gravy (in either case mentioning in its text other names the dish is know by) but would be predominantly about the dish, and not the word for the dish. There are rare exceptions, but only where the word, as a word, can be a topic in its own right beyond what would belong in a dictionary. See e.g., Category:English words. It may be that such content simply belongs as a sourced section in a larger article, such as in Texas cuisine--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has suggested that my article sounded promotional

and deleted it post-haste. After inquiry, she said that it was not a question of notability, but of the writing style. I thought I had kept the writing neutral but apparently she didn't read it that way. She suggested that I come here and/or use the AfC. The thing is, I want to know what it is that I am doing wrong before trying to submit it again. How can I have it read by someone for feedback without actually submitting it, so I know that I am within the guidelines? Thanks, Thomas Cesanth (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cesanth, welcome to the Teahouse! AfC is exactly what you want. Creating a draft there will get you feedback from other editors and it won't be deleted because of the writing style. You'll be asked to fix various issues and when the draft is good to go, it'll be moved to article space. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

precis of literature

My father has asked me if I would post an article about the Holy Grail literature. In particular he says there is no information about the content of these books on Wikipedia and he has written a precis of them. I said I didn't think literature (or a precis of any literatire) would be allowed on Wikipedia. Was I correct?

John Grubb82.11.127.210 (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, welcome to the Teahouse! Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia and that would include any analysis your father has done. We do have Holy_Grail#Beginnings_in_literature which is woefully undersourced. You could add material to that if you have proper sources or expand it into its own article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an exception to the above. If your father can persuade a reputable journal or other respected publisher to print his work, that may be used as a source. But probably not the only source. And you would still have a conflict of interest with any of his work that you used.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet points in an infobox

In the article Egyptian Revolution of 1919, the first bullet point at result parameter of the infobox in the lead section is shown as an asterisk as if the it is written with? <nowiki> somehow. How should this problem be solved? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Average Wikipedian: After a bit of experimentation, I managed to fix it by adding <nowiki>...</nowiki> before the first bullet. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the {{bulleted list}} template.--ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would also have worked. I'm not a Lua coder but have asked for a general fix at Module talk:Infobox military conflict#Result starting with bulleted list. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does one edit the introductory paragraph?

Hello - I see that the top paragraph, the summary of the page is not accessible to edit in the way the rest of a page is. How can I edit that?Noughtnotout (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two ways - first, use the Edit tab at the top of the page to open the entire article (including the lead) for editing). Second, go to Special:Preferences, open the Gadgets tab, and check the box under Appearance marked "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" - this will change your settings so that the lead has an edit link next to it. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - and how does one edit the actual page title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noughtnotout (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page title is the "location" of the page on Wikipedia. To edit it, you'll have to "move" the page to a different location. (That's on a drop down link at the top of the page) Remember, the title is case sensitive. Finally, if it's an established article, you may want to consider suggesting the move at Requested Moves Worm^TT(talk) 15:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

editing semi protected

hello - I was editing a page which then became semi-protected. How do I become eligible to edit those pages?Noughtnotout (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noughtnotout, welcome to the Teahouse. You can edit semi-protected pages when your account becomes autoconfirmed (at least ten edits and four days). Special:Log/Noughtnotout shows it happens 36 minutes from now. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Welcome to the Teahouse, Noughtnotout. In order to edit a semi-protected page, your account must have been open for at least four days, with at least ten edits. Your account looks pretty close. This is our modicum of protection against quickie "vandalism only" accounts. When editing using a Tor network, the requirements will be somewhat tougher. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that's great. thanks for the reply. Any pointers in avoiding changes being reverted consistently? Even when I leave previous material intact my balancing viewpoints are just taken out. Tried the discussion page. I feel the editing is being done deliberately one sidedly but not sure if there is some arbitration process for it.

Which article is this about, Noughtnotout? Make sure anything you're trying to argue has a good reliable source to back it up - trying to add content without it is going to be frustrating because any 'balancing' of an article should depend both on good sourcing and giving the opinion due weight as it's addressed in the literature. If you're not sure about the reliability of a source, maybe you could ask on the Reliable sources noticeboard for assistance. (Or here at the Teahouse: the source which seems to be under discussion is here.) The subject area you're editing in is a contentious one, and maybe you could edit elsewhere if you find yourself unable to get anything to stick. I know that's frustrating, but the area in which you're editing has stricter oversight than others, so it could be a little dangerous to ignore the talk-page discussion and the consensus of other editors. Tread carefully with this. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 06:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing Louise. I think my edits bring balance to the article without removing the other side yet they are quickly removed. Meanwhile a totally one sided angle as referenced above stays. I have sent that other editor a message asking for clarification. Should I be putting that on the talkpage of the article as well? I have initiated the sajda not worship section on the talkpage.Noughtnotout (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia runs on consensus, so you need to continue to discuss this with other editors, and possibly consider asking for a third opinion if it can't be reached. Balance doesn't come from representation of every opinion; it comes from accurately reflecting what the literature on the subject says. Discuss things with the other editors, and make sure you have good sources to back your arguments up, but if it's just your opinion, then there's going to be a problem. If you think the article is unbalanced, try to put together a coherent, well-sourced argument. Take a look at what makes a good source and try to analyse whether your position can be supported by literature before you wade in, as there could be a problem if you get into an edit war to insert your opinion, particularly on an article with discretionary sanctions involved. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 08:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how to change my username

i want to change my user name for some urgent reasons ,so please tell me the process of changing username (Manish asb (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please visit Wikipedia:Changing username for more information on having your account renamed. Since you do only have a few edits to your name at the moment, your easiest option may be to simply ditch this account and edit from a new account with a more desirable username. If this is not an option for you however, you can request a rename at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple; be sure to check if your desired username is taken or not at Special:ListUsers. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

markup for "footnotes: page numbers"

Unsuccessful using help page for references and page numbers. Below is the model on help page, followed by my effort to imitate. First reference worked in both cases, but not my second reference. What am I doing wrong?

help page: first reference:^[1]^: 8;

    second reference to another page:^[1]^: 18

my effort to imitate: first reference:^[2]^: 4–5;

    second reference to another page:Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).^: 62–3

Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TBR-qed welcome to the Teahouse. You are getting that error because you made a slight mistake when invoking the named footnote. When invoking the footnote you used <ref name=''Pop 65''/> instead of <ref name="Pop 65" />. The quote marks must be the standard straight keyboard marks (") not (''). Final result should look like this,--Chamith (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First reference:^[2]^: 4–5;
Second reference to another page: ^[2]^: 62–3

Thanks. I corrected that error and still get error messages. Could the problem be that I put a new section heading between first and second reference? This leads me to a new generic question: I am trying to replace an existing lede section with a new lede and second section. I started by opening "edit" for existing lede. Would that automatically result in a new lede and section 2, with existing section 2 becoming section 3 (and all references in both appearing in existing reference section)? Or do I need to open "edit" for existing section 2 AND reference section in order to replace existing references? My thanks continue.TBR-qed (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, TBR-qed: there is no interaction whatever between section headings and references. I can't make out what page you are working on, so I can't investigate the actual problem. --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm clear on section heading, but still stuck on referencing multiple pages from one source. I was unable to use the help page short form, but found the full {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) form worked. But when editing another section, neither the short nor long form works: the pages come up but linked to sequential sources numbered 1, 2, 3... Since I cut-and-pasted the form from where it worked to where it didn't, I don't see how I could have written it wrong. Thanks for your patience.TBR-qed (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TBR-qed. You have probably copy-pasted them from another file such as Word or something like it, that uses typographical quotation marks, like the one in this example: <ref name=“Pop 65”/> . In order for it to work here in the Wiki markup, the quotation marks have to be straight, like this: <ref name="Pop 65"/>. The quotation marks will turn out "straight" if you type them directly in the editing window. Just substitute them there, along with all other "left" or "right" quotation marks, it is the easiest way of doing it. Once it is done, the references will appear as usual. May I also ask, the reason that your article (which is in the editor's sandbox) was declined, was that an article with the same name already exists in the Wikipedia. I presume you knew that all along, so why did you write a new one instead of just adding to and improving the existing one? Best, w.carter-Talk 21:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

References

^ ^a ^b {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

Username Creation Question

Sorry, pretty new to Wikipedia so this might be a dumb question, I'm not even sure if this is the right place for this or not. I would like to create an account on Wikipedia, but someone has already taken the username that I really want. I checked on it, and this person has never made any edits to Wikipedia, and hasn't even been on Wikipedia since 2009. The person has also deleted their user and talk page, probably because they decided they wanted to retire from editing. Is it possible to delete this person's account and/or send them an email asking if they still want their account since they never even use it anymore/ or have ever used it in the past? Here's the user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Katniss_Everdeen

Thanks, and I would be very grateful if you could help me. Also if this is the wrong place can you please direct me to the right place? 97.88.5.67 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@97.88.5.67: Welcome to the Teahouse. Since the account never edited (or did anything but create an account), it's possible for you to take over ("usurp") it. Just create an account with any name and then request a usurpation of the User:Katniss_Everdeen at this page. --Jakob (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user and talk page have never existed. Such pages are not created automatically when an account is registered. The user has never made any edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help! 97.88.5.67 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

translations link trouble

i tried to link

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland_Pop_Festival and

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

(these re descriptions of the same festival in english and dutch) mut somehow it doesn't allow me to do so,

Can anybody help?

WillemienH (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Hello WillemienH and welcome to the Teahouse. When clicking on the "Languages" by the little cog wheel and "Add links" I noticed that two other languages (Spanish and Portuguese) where also linked but at two different "Q"-numbers at the Wikidata, so one of the numbers had to be cleared before they all could be added to the same data page. This is now done. When you try to edit a link-page on Wikidata and something is wrong, a small pink box appears with a Q-number, click on that and you will find out if there are other Q-numbers (yes, I call them that since I don't know the proper name for them) connected to the page you want to link. Go to all the pages on the different Wikis and find out if it's a good idea to collect them all or if some page/page group should be left where it is. Best, w.carter-Talk 15:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I discuss "Random in category" issues?

I've been using the "Random draft in this category" button at Category:AfC_pending_submissions_by_age/4_weeks_ago, but my experience has been that it may not be random. Looking at the source, I went to Template:AfC pending submissions by age (category header) and then to Template:Clickable button 2. Can someone explain how the "Random draft in this category" button works? and is there a talk page to discuss it? Thanks. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It works by using the information provided in Special:RandomInCategory. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it also applies to categories but WP:TFAQ#random has some technical information about Special:Random. mw:Extension:Random In Category is not installed here but says: "The core version gives much more biased results than this extension". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

geocoordinates aren't showing up

While referencing an archived link in Monte Ahuja College of Business, I noticed

{{coord missing|Ohio}}

at the bottom of the page. I got the coordinates from Google Maps and replaced the "coord missing" template use with

{{Coord|41.5022|-81.6794|display=Monte Ahuja College of Business}}

But nothing's showing up there. Did I put them in wrong, or is that how it's supposed to work? If so, what good are the coordinates?

If you answer or comment, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu:, easily solved, you've got the syntax slightly wrong. The |display= needs to be |display=title or |display=inline for the co-ordinates to show. |name= will support the name of the college. I've changed the article to {{Coord|41.5022|-81.6794|display=title|name=Monte Ahuja College of Business}} Nthep (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: you can also display the coordinates both inline and in the title by typing |display=inline,title. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep and G S Palmer: Thanks, both o' yez! Clearly, I mistook a constant ("title") for a variable in the documentation.

how much is too much?

Hello, everyone, I need some advice on what to put into a movie plot. I tried to re-edit the plot for "Snakes On A Plane" but it was rejected because it had too much unnecessary information. How will I know if it is too long or insignificant?Jaredliew (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jaredliew. I recommend an essay called How to write a plot summary, for help in finding the proper balance. As a general principle, it important that other encyclopedic information about the film (or other fictional work) be developed and expanded, along with the plot summary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor matching

Hello! I was wondering if there's any Wikiproject or page that connects editors who need a hand with editors who are looking for something to do. In essence, I'm looking for editors that can help me use all the references at Talk:Dishwashing_liquid#Help_me_use_these_references.21. Thank you, Bananasoldier (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to the specified Wikipedia page

When I write Whiskey Trail, it automatically goes to a page called "American Whiskey Trail". But the page I want it to go to is a page called "Whiskey Trail", but it's in Italian (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_Trail?setlang=it). What do I write so it can go to that page?

JaguarXJ8 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JaguarXJ8, what you are looking for is called an Interlanguage link. For your page that is it:Whisky Trail or Whisky Trail if you don't want the language code to show. (Look in the editing window) Best, w.carter-Talk 22:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify w.carter's reply, you make it appear with an initial colon: [[:it:Whisky Trail]]. But it is unusual to include a Wikilink to a foreign-language article, because the reader may not be able to read Italian. At the very least, you should mark it to tell the reader that it is in Italian. (Normally when linking to a foreign-language article I would use the template {{ill}}, but that won't work here, because it is designed to link to the foreign article only if there isn't an English one). --ColinFine (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine:Well in this case the {{ill}} may work since the English page is spelled "Whiskey Trail" and the Italian is spelled "Whisky Trail", without the "e". (Tricky this is!) w.carter-Talk 01:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article created for self-promotion; sources offline

I've reviewed and edited a number of articles created by someone to promote themselves via WP. The main one was Eric Diesel. So far, so good. But there's an article one of his many socks created, Louis Lesser, that I'm having trouble with.

With an article like Eric Diesel or Pearlasia Gamboa, the sources were all relatively modern. This was a good thing, as there were major issues with source clustering, weird Tumblr sources and sources not actually saying what the articles did. But the Lesser sources are old and, where available, are paywalled. So we have a situation where an article has been created by someone with a record of self promotion about someone that he had formed a business partnership with. Although reliable sources have been cited, there's no easy way to verify them, and they were added by someone who's repeatedly not accurately cited before. Any ideas what I should do? Bromley86 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Louis Lesser has died at a very advanced age, there are no major concerns about promotionalism, and the visible snippets of paywalled articles make it clear that he was notable. I agree that there are strange, excessive aspects to this article. The only thing to do, if you are serious about improving the article, is to obtain some of the sources, search for other sources online, and begin a careful pruning of the article, keeping the truly important points. Mentioning every bowling alley he developed seems excessive to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Cullen; I was afraid that was the situation. I suppose the solution is to assume the sources are solid (an unsafe assumption, but I've looked for the sources and they're not reproduced except on the paywalled archive site) and prune. Bromley86 (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bromley86: Hey Bromley86. You can request access to paywalled articles at WP:RX (Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request). Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I'll have a look at that. Bromley86 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source for dishwashing liquid?

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/85181/New_device_could_cut_costs_on_household_products_pharmaceuticals.html

Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bananasoldier, I can't say if that url is a reliable source, it sounds a bit iffy like an ad. Why don't you use this source instead. It covers the same subject and I'd trust the University of Washington over any random soap-site. It also have an author an all. I found it by simply Google the names of the top three researchers ("Joshua Cardiel" "Ya Zhao" "Alice Dohnalkova") in one search. If their discovery was notable, it was bound to come up someplace else and I got lots of hits. When you find a source that you are not 100% sure of, skip giving yourself a headache and find another one instead. Also, when you post urls like that, it is best to put them inside brackets + a word like I did. It will not disrupt the rest of the text then. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, @W.carter:! Bananasoldier (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK reviewing

I have nominated Mouna Ragam for DYK, even though User:Thamizhan1994 nominated it for GA, which it passed. The DYK page is here. Is there anything incomplete in it, or any error to be fixed? When will anyone formally review it? Kailash29792 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images on my main page

Hi! I am wondering how to get the images on the top-right of your username ^†2†ťəäçħ ^†4†ӛṿəř 18:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite clear what you mean by "top right of your username", but if you are trying to include images in your signature, you cannot. WP:SIGIMAGE states "Images of any kind must not be used in signatures" and then gives a list of reasons. If this is not what you meant, please explain what you mean. - Arjayay (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading your question, I wonder if you are referring to the "Topicons" that users can add to their User-page (Dragons, Gnomes, Elves etc) , I don't know of a specific list of these, but they can be found with a search for WP:Topicon as here - Arjayay (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Are you referring to images on the top-right corner of your user page? If so, then a template such as Template:Topicon should work. --Jakob (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2teach4ever and welcome to the Teahouse. Having read the above I can only add that for signatures, the Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial is a good place to learn and if you want a small animal or something like it from the Wikipedia fauna, the place to start is Wikipedia:WikiFauna. and last but not least there is of course The Supreme Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout. Best, w.carter-Talk 18:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone and thanks for answering! @W.carter: On your main user page there is an image of a sloth and trout on yours. How do you get them? ^†2†ťəäçħ ^†4†ӛṿəř 19:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the links I mentioned above: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout and Wikipedia:WikiSloth, before you put anything on your page it is good to read what the image means and/or symbolizes. They are not just 'cute animals'. w.carter-Talk 19:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Yes, I understand that they are not just "cute" animals. I just have one more question, do the animals mean the personality of the user (me)? ^†2†ťəäçħ ^†4†ӛṿəř 19:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiFauna describes the meaning of such animals. The sloth, for instance, symbolizes someone who "makes contributions based solely on hedonistic intellectual enjoyment". The trout actually isn't WikiFauna, but rather the template {{Troutme}}, which indicates that someone is willing to be slapped with a wet trout (a gentle reprimand for someone who makes a silly mistake). --Jakob (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As said above (thanks!) they do not describe you or your personality in any deeper meaning, just what kind of editor you are on the Wikipedia and how you choose to edit articles here. w.carter-Talk 19:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses everyone! ^†2†ťəäçħ ^†4†ӛṿəř 19:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rejection for article about Parviz Kambin. Please review and tell me how I can correct this article.

I've submitted and article for review for Dr.Parviz Kambin. The article continues to be rejected. The reason given for the rejection is "lack of notability" of the subject. I have included links to various external and internal articles that credit Dr. Kambin with everything stated in the article. He is even noted in an article on Wikipedia,which I provided a link to in my submission. Dr. Kambin is an internationally recognized Pioneer in the field of spinal surgery. He hold patents in both the US and Europe. His work is documented in numerous medical books and journals. He is mention in over 40 articles in the medical library at the University of Pennsylvania. Most of his work is documented in medical books that are very expensive and on websites that are behind pay walls. I don't have a solution to this problem. How have other editors worked around this issue? This man is worthy of having his life's work included on Wikipedia. Jds319 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jds319. I recommend that you read and study our notability guideline for academics and edit your draft with compliance with that guideline in mind. In addition, study our Manual of style. We refer to article subjects by surname after first mention, so eliminate the numerous occurrences of "Dr". You may benefit from reading some Good articles about physicians and professors, to see how other editors have handled such issues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jds319. Notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia: his own publications do not contribute to it, though if somebody else has written substantially about them (not just cited them), that would. The Mutter Museum reference certainly helps to establish notability; but it is very short, so it is not enough on its own. The Stryker award might help, but you haven't given any bibliographic information so I haven't found it: if it contains an essay about his life and work then it will certainly contribute to notability, but if it is merely a brief citation it won't.

Looking at the text, In the first paragraph after the two citations I've mentioned, there is not a single fact which is referenced to a published source. Not one. That means that there is not one sentence in that paragraph (after the first one) which currently belongs in the encyclopaedia.

Continuing to the second paragraph, there are several references, but every one is to a primary source, and so do nothing to establish notability. And so on.

In order to make the article acceptable, you need to follow what Fiddle Faddle said in a comment in July "Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. A link to an online version is preferred because the ordinary reader will wish to read them with ease, but this is a preference, not a compulsion." That is, every substantive fact. His date and place of birth, and his education, may be cited from primary or non-independent sources (but must still be cited), but for the bulk of the article, every fact needs to be cited to a reliable published independent source; i.e. to books and articles written about him. Not his own books and papers. (Substantive books or articles about his techniques might ground an article about the techniques rather than about him). Their being behind paywalls is not necessarily a problem, provided they are independent writing about him or his work, not material by him - see WP:PAYWALL.

Links to appropriate articles in Wikipedia - wikilinks - are encouraged, but Wikipedia may not be cited as a source, because it is inherently unreliable. --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Annual WikiCup

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and still learning how everything works. I've noticed that there is a competition called the WikiCup, and I would love to join. However, I am confused by what I do in the competition; the main page doesn't tell me clearly. I am also confused by the points system. Can anyone help me? Thank you!

Kaob1 (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaob1 welcome to the Teahouse. Wikicup is a competition which you can win by showing your skills in editing. Like other competitions Wikicup has a scoring system and some rules. Team of judges (Experienced Wikipedia editors) will announce the winner(s). You can score points by uploading good pictures, bringing articles, topics, portals and lists to Featured/Good article state. Improving Did you know?, In the news sections and doing Good article & peer reviews are some other ways of getting point. Give below is the scoring system. (snipped from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring)--Chamith (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

**2015 points**
Featured article	Good article	Featured list	Featured picture	Featured portal	Featured topic	Good topic	Did you know?	In the news	Good article & peer reviews
200	30	45	20	45	10 per article	3 per article	5 or 10	10	4

Banning for AfD nominations

Is it appropriate to propose a topic ban for a user based on failed AfD nominations? if for example they had 13 nominations in the last month that all ended in keep, 5 of which were speedy keep and 33 nominations total, none of which resulted in delete? and if their AfDstats were around 60%? ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a ban on AFD may work then. 13/13 is really bad. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Becky Sayles: If that is true, I agree with Bladesmulti, and starting a proposal at WP:AN would be the place to do it. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 10:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@I JethroBT: I've followed up here. Can you tell me if this looks right? ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aligning Error

Hello. I added a character colspan summary for the artical entitled ""Aladdin (Disney franchise)"" to better explain the series characters, as I was editing I noticed that the the text links for the character actors were not lining up correctly with the film titles. They appear to NOT be in the center of the rows just like any other colspans. its been like this for 2 weeks now and I don't know how to fix this. Is this normal?. If I can fix it, how can I do so? (Zucat)

@Zucat:, table formatting isn't the easiest thing on Wikipedia. I've fixed it by adding a style command to the table making all the text centre-aligned. Nthep (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I'm learning Wiki for the first time. I'll be working on this draft much more before posting officially and will be mindful of your feedbackDeschain0192837465 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding photos

Creating my first page. Completed the adventure tutorial, but need a push toward finding the photo gallery so I can add photos to my first article.Deschain0192837465 (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deschain0192837465: Hi Deschain. I'm afraid it's not terribly likely that any images (or a photo gallery) will be possible for the topic of the draft article you started. This is because it's probable that all relevant images are non-free copyrighted. While we do allow display of fair use images for some purposes, this would not be possible for a non-free image of a living person like Joseph Freed (there are some rare exceptions but I see none that would be applicable here).

Meanwhile, the fair use images that are already on display for the series he's been involved with would not meet our strict fair use criteria for display in an article on him. Usually an image is fair use only in an article directly about the topic it is most closely attached to. Thus, for example, the fair use logo for Jim Henson Creature Shop Challenge which Freed co-created and is executive producer of would only be fair use in the article on the show itself. Please note that a fair use image may never be displayed in a draft, but only once the topic is in the article mainspace. You could try searching for a compatibly freely-licensed image though. I wrote a post a while back about ways to search for one. Please see here.

On another issue, your draft is written in a somewhat promotional manner; some parts appear not to be written from the neutral point of view that articles need to maintain. It has some glowing language as if to convince the reader of the virtue of what's being discussed. That needs to be reformed. On the flip side, I commend you for citing multiple reliable sources; something new users rarely do. In that regard, it would be great if you formatted those citations for transparent attribution, instead of citing raw URLs. I'm going to go format one as an example for you. See also WP:CITEHOW.

One more thing. Much of the article is concerned with the projects he's been involved with, and is not really about him. While in a long and mature article on him I would expect to see some detail about his shows, even there I probably would not expect to see quite so much, but certainly I would expect much more about him directly, rather than the projects he's been involved with. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I'm learning Wiki for the first time. I'll be working on this draft much more before posting officially and will be mindful of your feedbackDeschain0192837465 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

adding content to a page about films/movies

I would like to suggest an addition to

List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees

The section "List of films" give the names of movies that have all (or most) of the "Big Five" Oscars -- Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and either Best Adapted Screenplay or Best Original Screenplay.

The film "Kramer vs. Kramer" is not listed, and it should be listed because it has four of the five "Big Five Oscars." The exception is that it didn't win for Best Actress. Meryl Streep did win an Oscar for that film, but it was for Best Supporting Actress.

I don't know how to contact the watcher(s) of that page, but if you could pass this along to him/her/them, I would appreciate it. Thank you!

Recycler1973 (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Recycler1973: The place to raise your question is on the article talk page - Talk:List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees - a look at that page tells me that Kramer vs Kramer has been discussed there before. It looks like the criteria for entry on the list is having been nominated for all of the Big Five and K vs K wasn't nominated for Best Actress. Nthep (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Recycler1973. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anybody may edit. In general, if you have information which will improve an article in the encyclopaedia you are encouraged to edit the article to add it; or if you are not confident in doing so, every article has a talk page where you may make suggestions for improving it. (You do not need to get your contribution authorised by a "watcher": the worst that can happen is that somebody may disagree that it is appropriate, and remove it again. Then if you disagree with them you can have a discussion on the talk page, and reach consensus).

However, in this case I would advise against it, for two reasons. The first is that the page clearly says "This is a list of films that have been nominated for the so-called Big Five Academy Award categories". You're wanting to broaden this from all to most of the categories. This might be reasonable - but you should certainly get agreement on the talk page before changing the definition of the page in this way.

The other problem (which is nothing to do with your suggestion) is that I do not believe that this is an appropriate article for Wikipedia at all, because it is entirely a synthesis from published sources, which is not allowed. I have not (yet) nominated it for deletion, but I have asked on the talk page why people think that the page is valid. --ColinFine (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: "The place to raise your question is on the article talk page - Talk:List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees"

I cannot find the specific URL for that article's talk page. What is it, and/or how do I find it?

@Nthep: "...a look at that page tells me that Kramer vs Kramer has been discussed there before. It looks like the criteria for entry on the list is having been nominated for all of the Big Five and K vs K wasn't nominated for Best Actress."

@ColinFine: "...the page clearly says 'This is a list of films that have been nominated for the so-called Big Five Academy Award categories'. You're wanting to broaden this from ALL to MOST of the categories."

I am not trying to broaden it from ALL to MOST... because that has already been done. I believe that the chart found in the "List of films" section of that page lists all films that were nominated for multiple Big Five awards. Only three films have won all five: "It Happened One Night", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", and "The Silence of the Lambs." However, four films are listed that won four of the Big Five: "Gone with the Wind", "Mrs. Miniver", "Annie Hall", and "American Beauty." I maintain that "Kramer vs. Kramer" should be listed with these other four, because it won four of the Big Five. It did not win an Oscar for Best Actress... I don't know if any role from that film was nominated for that category.

The reason I am hesitant to simply make the edit -- which I have done on dozens of other pages over the years -- is that I don't know who won for Best Actress that year. I imagine the watcher(s) of this page are more knowledgeable of the Oscars than I am, and so I wanted to bring this to their attention.

If this is the wrong forum or method for notifying others on Wikipedia, please accept my apology. I'd consider myself to be an intermediate Wikipedia user and editor, but I think both of you are experts. If needed, we can take this conversation to electronic mail; I can be reached at smargon -- at -- udel -- dot -- edu. Thanks again!

Recycler1973 (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Recycler1973. In that case the talk page is definitely the place. You'll find it at Talk:List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees, or you can pick "Talk" (I think it might appear as "Discussion" on some skins) from the article itself. Discussing on Wikipedia is strongly preferable to doing so in email.

Your point about whether you are broadening it from some to all is exactly why I think this page should be deleted. If there is not a reliable source out there which not only defines what "Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees" means, and reliable sources which say whether this or that film meets the criterion, then the entire page is original research and doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

By the way, 52nd Academy Awards says the Best Actress for 1979 was Sally Field, for Norma Rae. --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Thank you. You have my permission to delete this discussion. Recycler1973 (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of certain object in London

(This question moved here from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse by w.carter-Talk 09:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Happy New Year Wikipedians, i want to extend the list of Armenian Genocide memorials. According to [2] there is also a memorial in London not for from Hyde Park. It is located on the yard of Saint Sarkis Armenian church, exactly here [3]. Is there any photograph willing to help me with making a photo of it? If so, i kindly ask to make some overview and detailed photos (often at the back or side there is a plaque or inscription) of it and upload it to Commons. I need this detailed photos to add the transcriptions afterwards. Thanks advance, --Aschroet (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this query does not yield any result you might take a look at editors who have a "This user lives in London" userbox (they are listed here and here) and see if any of these have a userbox stating that they are interested in photography, and simply ask at their talk page. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aschroet, Not a bit of London I often visit, but I have posted your request on the talkpage of this Sunday's London meetup. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a nice picture, it may be worth contacting the org to see if it can be released under CC-BY-SA-3.0. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

Thank you. Hope that someone makes some good quality photo which would be best solution. --Aschroet (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to get a photo of this, either this weekend or next week. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thrydulf, much appreciated. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real Projective Line Page

Hello. I was a little confused about why ∞+∞ is not defined but ∞*∞ = ∞. This doesn’t make sense. I believe both should be left undefined (for now) and i think 0*∞ , ∞/∞ , and 0/0 should be defined as C where C is a constant. Idk if this constant could be infinity but I certainly think these should be defined. if a/0 = ∞*b then that implies a/b = ∞*0. A similar proof could be done with the others. Am i allowed to change the page or add a note because this is more of an idea but idk if this is 100% correct (maybe a note to the right of the equation?)

From, Michael Orwin

75.129.112.17 (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Michael, I hate to pass you off to another locale, but you might get better responses at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics which is where all the math experts hang out around here. Maybe someone there can help... --Jayron32 04:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Hopefully someone responds tomorrow or Saturday morning. Don't know how quick wikipedia is. Never used wikipedia beforeJetstream5500 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, every article in Wikipedia has an associated Talk page (pick the 'Talk' tab at the top) and that's the best place to start a discussion about the article. If nobody responds there, then this is one of the places to try, but the talk page is your first port of call. The answer to your question is emphaticaly, Yes, you are allowed to change the page: the worst that can happen (as long as you are not being obviously disruptive) is that omebody disagrees and reverts your change: then you can have a discussion with them on the talk page to try and reach consensus. But here, it doesn't sound like correcting an obvious error, but a difference in approach, so I would recommend the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was a very informative answer.Jetstream5500 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New article regarding NEW art genre

Hello Teahouse members, I am an artist and I believe I'm the first to try a new art form. I repaint or add new art to soda pop cans. Currently I have been adding superheroes to coke cans, I've now included energy drink cans and also added sports figures to the cans. Most people believe the can was made that way, as I incorporate my art with the original manufacturers art work. I use inks so as not to leave any type texture on the surface. I am certain I have started something totally new and feel it might be part pop-art's history. (Sorry about how that sounds) I am really interested in writing an article depicting my art as I am very certain I am the first. My art on cans is near picture perfect. I would love to show you my work and maybe you'll agree its one of a kind. I await your opinion. Thank you. Instagram : @_ins0mniart_ to see my can art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomniart (talk • contribs) 20:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Insomniart. I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to promote your art, however novel it may be. Once independent reliable sources (such as major newspapers or magazines) have written at length about you and your art, such an article could be acceptable, but not until then. Once it has been written about, an article can be written, in a neutral, non-promotional, tone, and entirely based on what reliable published sources have said about you and your work. Since you are likely to find it difficult to write in a suitable tone, you are discouraged from writing it: see our guidelines on conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a page for my locksmith business. is this allowed

Is it a Good idea? Any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:2702:18A0:88BB:EFA9:B7CD:84 (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It´s very likely a bad idea, please take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My article was reviewed

Hi,

I recently submitted a article about a public figure in Nepal and it was reviewed by a editor of Wikipedia and was green signaled by 1 editor and other reviewing editor declined . So kindly if some can get my article approved by rewriting my article so that it gets accepted then I would really appreciate it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Faithful_loyal/sandbox

Best Regards, Sunny 977-9841366353 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faithful loyal (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Schudson-1] {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

[Pop_65-2] {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

[1]

[2]