Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

edit rejected Is that it?

I made an edit that was rejected. Should I summit an article to present the scientific case for no twin paradox? I would rather talk the issue out and resolve it with the Dr Greg or his people. What do you recommend? Article was "Proper Time" example on twin paradox. Donald Lem (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Donald Lem (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How best to deal with external links

I have written a series of pages about the National Open Art Competition. In terms of what it does, purely mechanically that is, it is similar to BAFTA. So there are judges and trustees etc and a series of awards that are given out each year, similar to the Best Actor. I have therefore modelled the Wikipedia pages on the BAFTA Wikipedia pages mechanically, with one page for the 'main' event and one page for each year's awards. I am working on adding one page for each award as well, listing the winners of that award over the years. So far so good.

The problem comes with the difference between the National Open Art Competition and the BAFTAs. Almost by definition, the winners of the BAFTAs are well known, public figures who have their own Wikipedia pages. The films/TV programmes are similarly well known and have their own Wikipedia pages and therefore internal Wikipedia links within the BAFTA pages. the links are in the most intuitive place and work really well. The artists and the artists' works in the Competition are, almost 100% unknown and have no Wikipedia entry.

So, if a Wikipedia reader is interested in one of the artists, or one of their works, if I provide a link in the Wikipedia page, then it won't be to a Wikipedia page, but to the artist's own website or to the Competition's website where there is an image of the work in question.

Here's the question. How best to include those links? In any 'normal' website I would include them in the body text because that's the logical and intuitive place to put them, but links in the body text is frowned upon in Wikipedia. If I put them in an External Links section, which I could of course do, that will make them much more difficult to find and effectively duplicate much of the body text on the page.

All pearls of wisdom would be most gratefully received! Sebh007 (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Sebh007 First, it is just possible that this link has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't meant to include the whole Internet. There aren't many policies on Wikipedia that are hard and fast but no external links except in the external links section is one of them. And if the page you want to link to doesn't meet the requirements for an wp:external link then you just can't include the link. However, there is one other option that might work here. If I'm understanding you, this page you want to link to helps to clarify the difference between two different awards. So IF you can work in that explanation into one of the articles and IF that page you want to link to meets the wikipedia standard for a good wp:reference then you could add a reference using the Web Citation template in the editor. Look at the "Cite" option on the tool bar and it gives you a bunch of templates, one of them is to cite a web page. With that tool you get a form and one of the fields in that form is a URL. Doing that you can essentially include the link in the right place as part of a reference. Just to pick a random example if you look here: Irish_Tour_'74_(film)#Background You will see the reference for this quote about a concert in Ireland during a period of IRA bombings goes to a news article on a web site. You could do something similar if the external page you want to link to can be used as a reference for some significant fact in the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How to change the title or correct it.

Hello! Thanks again for the patience and kindness to answer my question. May I ask if it is possible to edit the title of an article already published in Wikipedia? Appreciate so much your help and warm welcome.

Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. On your user talk page I gave you a link to WP:Moving. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC First, sorry I missed your follow up question to your initial query below. I just want to add to the good info that David Biddulph gave above. I assume this is about the article Sisters_of_Charity_of_St._Paul If it is before you attempt to move it I think you should discuss it on the article's wp:talk page which is here: Talk:Sisters_of_Charity_of_St._Paul Talk pages are where Wikipedia editors discuss issues that might be controversial. Since I think you are a fairly new editor and renaming an article might be something other editors have an opinion on I think its a good idea to ask for other opinions there before you attempt to rename the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC: One more idea, rather than do the move directly yourself I would suggest you try using the request a move process instead: Wikipedia:Requested_moves Moving pages can be tricky, you need to make sure things like existing links, redirects, etc. all continue to work properly. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Afd discussion and Stand-alone list

Hi all, I'm a quiet new in wiki her and i'm a bit overwhelmed with so many wiki rules. I've read the rules but there are still things I don't quite understand, so if possible I would like to ask experienced users like you guys here for your opinions.

1. afD Discussion Result
I've recently join this afD discussion about the proposed deletion of 6 members of vocal group Apink the proposer believed didn't have any notability outside their group so they don't deserve an individul page. It has since been closed abruptly with the deletion for all 6 members as a result even though the discussion still ongoing and I believe no clear consensus had been made. The reason why I think it was hard to reach a consensus even after it has been relisted twice was because those 6 members have different notability. Even the proposer have later requested for withdrawal and wanted to do it individually, but it was rejected so the discussion continued on the same page.

If I can summarized the discussion for those 6 members,:
1. Keep Son Naeun most of the comments believe she have notability outside the group.
2. Keep Park Chorong and Yoon Bomi - Even though not as many as Son Naeun, some also believe they have notability outside the group.
3. Delete/Redirect other 3 members -I think we have reached consensus to delete these 3 members

I have tried to contact closing admin first but I haven't receive any reply. I'm not sure what I should do now. Should I try to create a WP:DRV? I understand that consensus doesnt mean a voting, so what actually it means if there are so many different argument?

2. Stand-alone List
Because of the deletion of the individual page of some of the members, I would like to create List of Group members for the group. Can I create a stand-alone list like the one for One Direction and Exo?

I have made the draft on my sandbox here. I have only been editing page so far but never created an article before. If I want to create stand alone list like that, Is it the same like creating a new article? Thank you so much, really appreciate your help. I'm sorry I have so many question. Sonflower0210 (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a list of Draft pages?

If you create an article using the Article Wizard, when you have finished creating it, does it go automatically into 'Draft' status, awaiting approval? If it does, is it possible to see the list of all Draft Articles awaiting Approval and if so where and how? Sebh007 (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you look at the foot of your Draft:The National Open Art Competition, for example, you will see links to a number of categories, including Category:Pending AfC submissions as well as some by age. While you are waiting for the draft to be reviewed you may want to improve it, and bring it further into line with the Manual of Style, by such things as removing external links from the body text, and removing links from section headings, also expanding bare urls. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi David. Thanks for that. Really helpful. Happy (no, make that keen!) to improve. Will try to follow your suggestions. Thanks again.Sebh007 (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sebh007: It does not happen automatically. It relies on code like {{AFC submission|...}} with certain parameters in the source of the page . Not all drafts at Special:Contributions/Sebh007 have been submitted for review. For example, Draft:NOAC Prize for Best Work has a green submission button but nothing will probably happen if you don't use that button. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How to get editors to help write a wiki?

Hi - I've never written an article before (I'm just about finished with my first one). It's an article for an American multi-platinum songwriter and recording artist. I have read through the guidelines and have a pretty good idea of the content that needs to be included (and excluded) from the article to meet the guidelines.

As I said I'm just about finished with the content of article and so I was wondering if it's possible to call out for help and request editors to help in two ways:

1) feedback on the content to ensure it looks kosher for wiki guidelines and what might be missing or needs to be removed

and

2) to actually compose the article in the wiki editor to make the formatting be appropriate (i'm an extreme novice with that)

(Drick002 (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drick002, welcome to the Teahouse! If you're talking about User:Drick002/draft article on keith james the first thing that jumps out is that it has no citations to reliable sources. Each fact or assertion in a biography needs to be verifiable and so needs a citation to a published source independent of the subject. We also need these references to show the subject meets our notability requirements. If you need help adding these sources please see Help:Referencing for beginners. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How do you get more eyes on a discussion?

A discussion was started on a core policy page (since moved to a subpage), it’s got an RFC, we posted a link at WP:Village pump (policy), provisional changes have been made to some articles… yet there is very little involvement from more than a few editors. What else could be done to get more editors involved? Or do we just call it “no consensus” and forget it? Or push changes through and see whether there’s resistance? Or should I be asking this somewhere else? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor 174. When I look at the subpage you linked to, I see extensive debate and discussion. If there is no consensus for a change, then the status quo should remain. All you can get here are opinions by experienced editors, not a resolution. We discuss editing processes here at the Teahouse, in a friendly fashion, but we don't resolve outside disputes. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn’t looking for a resolution here, just for a way to get broader input. Any suggestions? Or is there a more appropriate place to ask that kind of advice? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You report that the issue has been discussed three places, and now the Teahouse is the fourth. I suggest that you read WP:FORUMSHOP, part of our consensus policy, which says "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as 'asking the other parent'.)" Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello 174.141.182.82. In your post you keep referring to "we". I also saw on your talk page that you prefer to edit under an anonymous IP rather than getting an account. You say: "And I have my reasons for continuing to edit anonymously, but I haven’t slept so I forget what they are." Might those reasons be that you in fact is/are a group of people editing under this single IP? w.carter-Talk 12:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Potential Violation of User Talk Page?

I don't know if a user using their talk page solely for social purposes would be a violation of the policy. Would it be? Thanks again, Teahouse! ~HackedBotato ^{Chat with me ♽ Contribs} 00:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi HackedBotato, welcome back! The relevant guideline is WP:OWNTALK: "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." While we can drop friendly, sociable notes to each other, the bulk of the conversation needs to be focused on Wikipedia matters. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! How would I deal with a user potentially using their userpage this way? Is there a specific template? Thanks! ~HackedBotato ^{Chat with me ♽ Contribs} 02:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello HackedBotato. I recommend dealing with the editor in a friendly way, assuming that they are unfamiliar with the guideline. Welcome them, encourage them, and explain things gently. Link to the guideline, including a quote as NeilN did above. A personalized approach is sometimes better than a template. I think this may be such a case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What is a primary source?

The essay, "What Wikipedia is Not" defines primary (original) research as "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion."

This seems contradictory to what other Wikipedia guidelines say about not to citing primary sources, for example, an original research article published in a peer reviewed journal. These guidelines state you should only cite secondary sources like review articles, book chapters, etc.

Which guideline is correct? J.R. Council (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi James Council, welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question is not straightforward. I'm sure other editors will have their own views but here's mine: We can cite papers published in reputable journals in most cases but we should attribute any conclusions reached to the author. For example, Black_hole#Golden_age cites papers and names the authors. An exception to this are medical articles where systematic reviews are strongly preferred. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, James Council. I don't think there is actually an inconsistency: WP:PRIMARY says "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". Have you found another policy which says something different?

Having said that, I think there is a bit of a problem with the essay you quote, because while such a primary source may be cited, it will not contribute to notability, and the author of the source needs to be very careful about citing their own work. --ColinFine (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@James Council: Hey J.R. Both are correct. I believe you are conflating original research, which can also be called "primary research" with matters regarding primary sources. The key is understanding how they differ. The most important distinction to draw is here versus there – original research can't be done here, but we can use original research published externally, if it otherwise meets our requirements for sourcing. Confusing matter is that original research can easily be engaged in through use of primary sources, rather than others, but they're quite different things.

When we talk about original (or primary) research we are referring to someone either: 1) writing material here of their own conception that there are no previously published sources to verify ("my own new theory!"), or 2) writing material here and citing reliable sources (of any stripe including primary or secondary or others), but making an argument by synthesizing the reliable sources to say something none say directly ("source A says X, and source B says Y, therefore, Z" (Z being something not in either external source used, or anywhere).

Primary sources are external – out in the world sources that are reporting directly, rather than in some way secondarily. A birth certificate is a primary source—it reports directly about the date of birth and other matters. An interview with a person who reports their own birthdate is another type of direct reporting, primary source. A newspaper article, or (non-autobiography) book on the other hand, in which the authors mention the person's date of birth (and are not quoting the person), is a secondary source for the birthdate.

So, what the What Wikipedia is not policy is talking about is that you can't engage in original research here, but if what you wanted to say gets published externally (and reliably), then that might be used here.

Separate and apart from these distinctions, we also have certain policies and guidelines on how sources may be used. But that covers different territory. For example, primary sources are generally useless to establish notability, because the basis of notability speaks to the world taking note of a topic, which primary sources don't establish. We also caution people to be careful in their use of primary sources because they can often be used to engage in original research by taking one fact and another and coming to an interpretation, analyses or synthesis that is not in the source, but this does not at all mean that using external primary sources is in any way equivalent to engaging in original research itself. I hope this helps. It can be a bit slippery until you become very familiar and see the policies/guidelines applied. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How to add a picture to a new article

Hi, I am WelshWonderWoman, and I'm trying to create an article which is awaiting review at the moment but I am unsure how to add a photograph to it as this is all very new to me. I also wonder if there was any experienced editors who might like to help guide me through the initial editing process as I could use a little advice sometimes. Thank you WelshWonderWoman (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WelshWonderWoman, hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I moved your question to the top of the page for better visibility.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

To answer one of your questions, you are looking for Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. It took me a while to find this because I was looking in the wrong place. I am going to look for the answer to your primary question now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I knew I had seen this. A similar question about photos was answered here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Checking translations

Hi, me again! Is it permitted to paste my article drafts into an external site (i.e. Lang-8) to have people proofread my translations? In the event that nothing is changed, then of course the text would be identical on both sites, so I wasn't sure how that is looked upon. Thanks in advance. Dionysius1990 (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Dionysius. On a quick look at at lang8, I see "© 2014 Lang-8, Inc. All rights reserved." at the bottom of every page. It seems to me therefore that once material has been posted on that site, Lang-8 have claimed copyright, so it may not then be used in Wikipedia. My interpretation may be wrong, but I would be wary of it. But why not just post it in a user sandbox in Wikipedia (in the target language Wikipedia, I presume)? --ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine, hi. I simply wondered because it's the site I generally use for proofreading my language work in other contexts, but asking fellow Wikipedians is a perfectly good alternative and the one I will use. Thank you. :) Dionysius1990 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources when translating articles

Hi, I'm working on translating an article from Polish into German. When I go to put in the sources from the Polish article, should I change the date that the reference was visited, as I'm double-checking they do indeed have that information before using it in my translation? The answer is possibly an obvious yes, but I wasn't sure and so wished to check! Thanks in advance. Dionysius1990 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dionysius1990: As long as you're checking them, sounds perfectly fine to me :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Dionysius1990. Strictly, we shouldn't be answering that here, unless we happen to be familiar with the policies of de.wikipedia. But I would suppose SuperHamster is right. --ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dionysius1990: It you are editing on the German Wikipedia you may want to ask at one of their versions of the Teahouse. They have both a de:Wikipedia:Teestube and a de:Wikipedia:Café for such matters. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: Ah, of course, I will ask over there. Thank you! Dionysius1990 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Whoops, did not catch that the target language was German. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Religion and Science

Hi. According to many educational orgs and Universities, science and religion do not oppose or contradict each other. What is Wikipedia have to say about religion and science? Frogger48 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi there, @Frogger48: I haven't read it myself, but Relationship between religion and science is an article on the subject. The article covers a variety of perspectives and religions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frogger48: It depends greatly on context as well as interpretation. For instance, YECs (Young Earth creationists) hold a strict interpretation of the new testament and believe the earth is about 6,000-10,000 years old, which is obviously in direct conflict with science. You can't even begin in the biological sciences without accepting evolution, its fundamental underpinning, and the pile of consistent scientific evidence for it so high you must shut out all your senses to deny it. Yet, last I heard, about 40% of Americans deny it for religious ideological reasons. Additional examples one could give are legion. On the other hand, those who cotton to a looser, metaphorical interpretation, may accept the age of the Earth, or evolution, while still being adherents of a new testament form of Christianity. Context is key as to Wikipedia articles on this as well. In the context of an article on a religion, we essentially report what the religion holds, or its believers believe, without taking a stance on the truth of the religion or the existence of God, and science doesn't even enter the picture. On the other hand, our article on Age of the Earth should and does report the scientific view as fact. The view from religion does not belong there, except possibly as a mere mention, though we do have a separate article on the religious view at Dating creation. See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

so Could the same idea, be applied to the Pro-Life Pro-Choice debate as well as religious conserns on vaccines, GMOs and stem cell research as well? Frogger48 (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Frogger48. I think this thread is straying from the purpose of the Teahouse, which is asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. That being said, my view is that religion and science operate in different spheres. Fundamentalist religions may often conflict with science while more tolerant religions may fully accept science. Poetry, beauty, parable, myth, justice, morality and tradition are not subjects of study by "hard science", but religion deals with such things. These are disputes (or nuances) pertaining to world views, which can, in some cases, be reconciled. The abortion debate is a matter of public policy, with two fundamentally irreconcilable views in conflict. The other three issues you mention may not be quite as irreconcilable, but also represent public policy debates between camps with very different views of specific issues. Recent public comments by Bill Nye on GMOs show that surprises are abundant in this life. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I just want to know the truth. about everything, and I think that Wiki already does a great job in doing this. Frogger48 (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Might I suggest you try Wikipedia’s Humanities or Science reference desks? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frogger48: Just one last thought. Wikipedia is a catalogue not really of 'truth' but of human understandings about the world. That encompasses things which are accepted as scientific 'facts' (for example all the articles on observable animal species are basically factual), but it also documents human opinion, experiences, history and other areas where it's much more difficult to determine which things are 'true' and which are 'false' except by way of reliable sources discussing the experiences. I am a social scientist and former legal scholar and so during my studies dealt more with trying to derive general rules from a mass of people's documented opinions and experiences, rather than measure how far it is to the nearest planet or carbon-date a human skeleton. 'Documented opinion' is as much Wikipedia's purview as 'truth'. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 11:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Can I merge the articles I made in Talk and Sandbox?

Hello! Can I merge the articles I made in Talk and Sandbox? How shall I do it? I already submitted for review the one I made at Sandbox, but I was urged to save and submit the same article I made at Talk. Appreciate you help and thanks so much.

Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC welcome to the teahouse. To answer your question the way to integrate a file is to copy the wp:wikicode from one file into the other. The problem is that you used your main user page: User:Sr._Ma._Lourdes_Casas,_SPC as a draft article. That isn't what your user page is for. Your user page is to introduce yourself and have relevant info for other Wikipedians about your editing intertests, skills, etc. Here is my user page for example: User:MadScientistX11 Mine is pretty vanilla, some people have a lot more detail about themselves, pages they've edited, projects they belong to, etc. But the point is that page is not a place to create draft articles. That is what your wp:sandbox is for. So you should delete or copy/paste what is currently in your user page into your sandbox or some other file. However, there is a much more significant issue I think you should be aware of. You seem to be trying to create an article for the Sisters of St. Paul. If you look at the details in response to your submission you can see that there already is such an article on Wikipedia: Sisters_of_Charity_of_St._Paul So your draft article will almost certainly be rejected. There is no need for two articles on the same topic and in fact having two such articles can be very confusing to users of the encyclopedia. My advise is first to clean up your user page and then take any information that isn't in the current article and that is appropriate for Wikipedia and add that to the current article. However, before you do that last step I encourage you to read up more on things like Wikipedia:Objective Sources and wp:neutral point of view Your current draft reads too much like a pamphlet praising the sisters rather than as an encyclopedia article. I'm sure the sisters do excellent work and are very praiseworthy but the goal of Wikipedia is to be neutral and objective on all topics not to take a wp:promotional tone. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your answer. I will do as what you have suggested. But is there a way for me to change the title Sisters of Charity of St. Paul to Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres which the correct name of the congregation.

I appreciate your very nicely put explanation.

Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Having trouble with sources.

I've made an edit over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Targett_%28footballer%29#International_career but the formatting in the references section isn't working as intended. Help appreciated. Dinotramp (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done It just needed an extra closing brace } at the end (it had one, but needed two to match the two at the start).--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As an one extra point, rather than giving a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Targett_%28footballer%29#International_career, we prefer to use a wikilink like Matt Targett (footballer)#International career (as these are rather more readable). --David Biddulph (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability issue & Advertisement

More than a year ago, company's page had a notability issue and an issue that it is written like an advertisment. Meanwhile, there have been many changes and I think that wiki page doesn't have any issue anymore. Should I ask from someone to review it again? If yes, how?

Thanks a lot in advance. 2.84.151.105 (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you provide a wikilink here, the chances are that someone will look at it for you. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's great. The wikipage I am talking about is SourceLair. 1xristos2(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@1xristos2.: Hi 1xristos2. It's not that the language is still so promotional, but that all it says is two positive sentences about the topic and then provides a lists of features ("look at all the features we have!"). An article does not need to be written with tons of buzz language to still come off as promotional. This is not what a truly neutral third party would have written for this topic. Regarding the sources there has been little change in result. Every citation is used to support the list of features. The article has almost no content in the body, and what's there is unsourced. Meanwhile, of the seven sources used, five are sourced to sourceLair's blog. The other three are not obviously reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of SourceLair (i.e., what is needed to establish notability) and again, they're just cited for existence of features. The Geeks3d source, for example, looks like some random post from some person and quotes what is obviously an advertisement for the site. It's hard to pin down what it is exactly, but nothing about it would ever give anyone the idea it was an independent, secondary, high quality source that exercises editorial discretion and has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. All this is to say, this article needs lots of work, if it should remain at all, and I think all of the maintenance tags are still applicable. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Protecting movie plots

When a new movie is released , I have seen every time the entire plot is written on Wikipedia . I think those who have not watched the movie should not read the entire story in case of new releases . I want Wikipedia to create rules where no movie or novel will have any plot section where the ending and spoilers are revealed. Wikipedia pages of movies contain this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_(media)

I don't know why Wikipedia don't have any policy about protecting the movie spoilers in plot or synopsis section . Can't editors wait for at least one year after the release of the movie or novel. What should i do to get attention of wiki administrators ? Frost The World (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frost The World: there is a Wikipedia guideline about spoilers - Wikipedia:Spoiler. You're welcome to raise the issue again on that talk page but please understand this has been debated many times before and the consensus is that film plots are permissible as long as they adhere to other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for example Wikipedia:verifiability. Nthep (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Spoiler? The talk page of that guideline would be the place to discuss any thoughts which you might have, once you have read the discussions which have previously taken place. Bear in mind that it is not a matter for administrators; such decisions in Wikipedia ae taken by consensus of the editors. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to create "episode table" for a TV show

I'm currently editing the "List of renegadepress.com episodes" page (from renegadepress.com). I just added the second season. However, when I try to do that, all the episodes from the 1st season drop under the second season title. I have no idea why this is happening and it's driving me nuts! Please help. Debola91 (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you were trying to do, but it looks as if you deleted the termination characters from the table for series 1. I've reinstated them; does that look better? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Interlanguage links for userpage

Hi, everyone. This may be a noob question, but I've made a userpage for my username on both the English and German sites and can't find how to link them up! I go onto Wikidata but of course this says do not create an item for userpages. I'm confused on how to add the language links on the left-hand side without this. Any help would be much appreciated! Dionysius1990 (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dionysius1990. Though this won't add your links to the left, you can always crosslink between the two user pages by using the URL in this fashion:

Here's my user page on English Wikipedia.

Someone else may have a more elegant solution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dionysius1990! Here's the extension to Cullen328's answer which will do what you want: You can add [[<language code>:User:Dionysius1990]] anywhere on your user page (where <language code> is the ISO 639-1 code for the language in question), and it won't appear in the normal page but it will appear in the Language sidebar. So adding [[de:User:Dionysius1990]] will add the link to the German Wikipedia in the Languages sidebar as you requested (and it will translate "User" to "Benutzer" for you as well). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Orange Suede Sofa. Your solution is much more elegant and responsive to the original question than mine. I never claimed to be a brilliant coder. I am just a plodder. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's simply the way we used to create interlanguage links before WikiData, glad to see it still works. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Orange Suede Sofa, that's exactly what I was looking for. Dionysius1990 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP Sources

Can Wikipedia pages/articles about living people verify some of it's content by using a source that does not explicitly mention the living person's name?

For example, a list of about 100 schools not considered accredited by CHEA is being used to verify the content in the article about the school that the living person attended being unaccredited. The source does not mention the living persons name.

I tried to see if there was a rule about using BLP sources that do not mention the living persons name, but I could not find anything. I have noticed that some editors removed sources that do not mention the living persons name. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tachyon1010101010. I see the example you mention as problematic. There are elements of original research and synthesis here, which are not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Here's a personal example: 40 years ago, I attended City College of San Francisco, which at the present time, sadly, is at risk of losing its accreditation. If that happens, and if someone wrote a Wikipedia biography of me (please don't), and said I attended an unaccredited college using such a source, then that would be a BLP violation. CCSF was fully accredited when I attended. The bottom line is that we must be exceptionally careful about the accuracy of such matters, as reported by reliable sources. In this case, it would be best to have several reliable sources saying that the person in question attended an unaccredited school. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question, Tachyon1010101010. Like Cullen328 I would see the use of such a CHEA list as original research and/or synthesis, but there is another problem: CHEA does not publish lists of unaccredited institutions; it does have a searchable database with details about accredited colleges and universities. Could the reference you question be about a diploma mill instead of a legitimate, albeit unaccredited, institution of higher learning? (There may be good reasons that bona fide colleges and universities are not accredited, as Cullen mentions above, and CHEA notes on its website.) CHEA used to refer inquiries about diploma mills to state offices in Oregon and Michigan that maintained lists of unaccredited institutions known to be diploma mills. Unfortunately, those lists were never complete because of the whack-a-mole problem-- listed diploma mills just took another name and continued the scam selling degrees. Both Michigan and Oregon have given up trying to maintain those lists, listing instead the diplomas, degrees, and institutions they do authorize. So in addition to the original research and synthesis issues, the reference you mention is probably outdated or a dead link, in which case it should be deleted, and you should use caution to verify the information with other reliable sources. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Contradictions between articles

I have come across more than one contradiction between facts (usually dates) in the daily Events, Births, Deaths pages and the main article they are presumably taken from. For instance, under January 22: "1521 – Emperor Charles V opens the Diet of Worms" When I open "Diet of Worms" I find: "Emperor Charles V commenced the Imperial Diet of Worms on 28 January 1521." It would be easy to change the daily page entry - January 22 - to reconcile with the main article, but can I be sure it is the main article which is correct? Burke (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to check the references given against the date. If there is no reference, and if you can't find a reliable source to be used as a reference, then the date probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You could reasonably add the {{fact}} tag against the date, and/or raise the question on the article's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

How do I image

I`m trying to learn how to image, and I cannot figure out how-and where-to "copy and paste". Can somebody tell me how? [In CLEAR language please!]Dale Stern (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dale Stern. I assume that you are asking about adding images to Wikipedia articles. You can go to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons, where you can search among tens of millions of freely-licensed images. If you find something useful, there is a menu bar that will generate the wikicode appropriate for using the image in a Wikipedia article. Copy the code, and paste it into the wikicode for the article. If you take a photo yourself, you can use the upload wizard at Wikimedia Commons to add it there, and then follow the same procedure to use it in an article. Photos you upload must be your own work, and not a photo of something which is in itself copyrighted, like a book or album cover, or a movie poster. This is a complex area, so I am just giving a brief overview. Please feel free to ask more detailed follow-up questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dale Stern There is a really good and easy-to-follow guide that another editor has made for this, you will find it at: User:Yunshui/Images for beginners. It will tell you how you use the images you find in the Wikimedia Commons, how you copy paste the code (on Wikipedia you copy paste the code and not the picture) for them and how you add different "commands" to the code to make them appear where you want them and in what size. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Can more Teahouses be made for different Language Wikipedias?

Hello, can this Teahouse be made for the multiple different language Wikipedias? In creating making these other\ Teahouses, I think that the various and numerous other language Wikipedias will be strengthened.Frogger48 (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Frogger48 to my knowledge it is up to the different Wikipedias to create something like the Teahouse. Many of them already have something similar, but they are called different things depending on what their culture defines as a friendly, relaxed place where Wikipedia editing can be discussed. So a number of them are also called something having to do with coffee, like Cafée or Coffee House or coffe/relaxation room (Swedish Wikipedia) or breakfast (Finnish Wikipedia). Here are some of them: de:Wikipedia:Teestube, da:Hjælp:Nybegynderforum, sv:Wikipedia:Fikarummet, fi:Wikipedia:Kahvihuone, de:Wikipedia:Café. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Under "Languages" at Wikipedia:Teahouse you can see some equivalent pages in other languages. They are registered at wikidata:Q11059110. Each language is free to set up their own pages and procedures. The English Wikipedia is the largest and has more help pages than other languages. Many small languages have a single Village Pump page to handle things we spread around five village pumps, the Teahouse, Wikipedia:Help desk, and other pages. There are probably also languages without a single general page for communication between editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frogger48: Editors at the Arabic Wikipedia have used some features of this Teahouse on their own project here, as has the Bengali Wikipedia here. Heatherawalls or Missvain may have worked with editors from these projects to get these spaces launched, but I'll ask them to comment here to clarify. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, most pages under the wikidata:Q11059110 are some sort of "Help for newcomers pages" while the cafée or forum are at some other non-linked location, like the de:Wikipedia:Café or linked to other numbers like the fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro. Glitch? w.carter-Talk 23:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, maybe editors on Wikidata might have thought Teahouse is a "Help for newcomers pages", like you mentioned. While it indeed help newcomers it is not just here to help out starters but for everyone who faces obstacles while editing. So it is up to Wikdata editors--Chamith (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. It's been ages since I advised another language Wikipedia on the Teahouse. Heather and User:Jtmorgan had more direct experience in advising on how to install or add components of the Teahouse. I'm more on the persuasive side, where I help get buy in. :) Missvain (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

City government document from 1976

I emailed the Boston Redevelopment Authority and asked for a copy of a document they published in 1976 (C.B.D. C395, "Boston's Adult Entertainment District"). A nice man sent me a PDF file. I wrote back asking if I should consider it a public-domain document, but I haven't heard back. There's a map in the document that I think would be a useful addition to the "Combat Zone, Boston" article. It's a zoning map, so it should be public information; and I've seen it reproduced in a book, if that means anything. Any thoughts on this? --Rosekelleher (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

p.s. Alternatively, there's another document that IS available online, and it also includes a map of the area (the image is just not quite as clear). So I'm thinking if it's a government document that's publicly available, I should be able to use the zoning map in the Wikipedia article about that neighborhood, right? --Rosekelleher (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While most such documents produced by the Federal government are public domain, state law varies as to the copyright status of works produced by state governments. I'll hope over to the media copyright questions page and ask one of the experts there to stop by and reply.--ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ukexpat, I appreciate that. (I forgot there was a special place for copyright questions, sorry.) After all that, I just got an email back from the guy at BRA, and he wrote, "The document is public, so it can be used as long as it is cited properly." I'd still like to hear from the expert, though, in case there's anything else I need to know. --Rosekelleher (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, public could just mean "available to the public", it may not mean "public domain" for copyright purposes. Anyway, let's wait for the MCQ expertise.--ukexpat (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• As it was published in 1976, it needs a copyright notice. If it was published with a copyright notice, then it is copyrighted. If it was published without a copyright notice, then it is in the public domain in the United States per {{PD-US-no notice}}. You therefore need to verify if it carried a copyright notice when it was published in 1976. A copyright notice consists of the sign © (or the word "copyright" or a common abbreviation thereof), the year of publication and the name of the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The full document is available here in various formats and I can't see any copyright notice anywhere, so Stefan appears to be correct, but I don't see anything that confirms it was published in 1976 which is necessary for use of that tag. The only date mentioned is receipt of the document in Novemebr 1974 but no publicaton date. I would like to know where did the date of 1976 came from? ww2censor (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, ww2censor. I mentioned two different documents, above:

• "Boston's Adult Entertainment District," published in 1976, and not available online as far as I can tell. That's the document I read about in a book, requested from the BRA, and received by e-mail in PDF form.
• "Text amendment no. 38," the 1974 document you're talking about, which is available online.

In light of Stefan2's comment, and your observation that there's no copyright notice on the document, I'm going to screen-capture and upload the zoning map from the 1974 document. It's not as crisp and clear as the map in the other document, but come to think of it, it is more historically significant, because 1974 was the year that the BRA officially created an "adult entertainment district" in Boston, and the document you looked at is where they defined it. Thanks very much, all, for your help! I'm always amazed at how helpful WP volunteers are. --Rosekelleher (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Patrol

I've been creating a few articles recently by translation from the German wikipedia. Each time, I get a notification that the article has been patrolled by someone. It's been a long time since I was last active on Wikipedia but this looks like a new procedure to me. What does it mean? Cricketgirl (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cricketgirl: Hey, welcome to the Teahouse. Patrolling is basically a way for an editor (who is not the article creator) to say, "I've done a basic check of this article." Sometimes, this indicates the article is appropriate. Other times, they can also patrol an article by adding a tag to it noting a need for citations, that it is relatively short, or nominate it for deletion. You can check out New Page Patrol for more info, if you're interested. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @I JethroBT: - thanks so much for the quick and informative answer!

Displaying 1/2

Hi guys. Is there a way of rendering 1/2 as a single character? Specifically, I'm citing an old paper where the title is "$5 1/2 million . . .". Obviously there are ways around it, like adding a space like I just did, or converting to "$5.5 million", but a single 1/2 character would be preferable.

Thanks! Bromley86 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bromley86 and welcome to the Teahouse. Most keyboards has that as a single character, usually top left corner in shift position (To the left of the 1). If you don't have it, you can copypaste mine here: ½ ½ ½ ½ . There is also a part of the editing window with all of these things. Top bar: click on "Special characters" and them "Symbols". You will get them all: ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ ∞ etc. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers W.carter! My old keyboard doesn't seem to have it, but that "Special characters" option is just what I was looking for (clearly not hard enough, as it was right in front of me). Bromley86 (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bromley86. I have to disagree with my colleague W.carter on this matter. According to the section of the Manual of style dealing with fractions, we should avoid the use of special characters to represent fractions. Instead, use a template which can be found at Template:Frac. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Cullen328. In this particular case, I think W.Carter might be correct, in that it's a faithful reproduction of the title of an article in a newspaper (WP:MOSQUOTE). My fault - I should have been clearer in the OP, as "paper" can be misread. Bromley86 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328:@Bromley86:Let me just clarify that I have in no way recommended which style of number to use!!! I was simply answering the question ("Is there a way of rendering 1/2 as a single character?") about where such a character could be located should need for it arise. That was what I interpreted the question to be about. Please do not involve me in a discussion about its use. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The recommended template yields: $5+1⁄2 million. Is that OK? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry W.carter, not trying to drag you in. You indeed interpreted my question as I intended it to be & thanks again for such a helpful answer.

Thanks for looking at this Cullen328. Assuming you want to look further, the source is here and the headline ($XX Million New Name Tract Started Here) is in the bottom right quadrant. Both in terms of accurately reproducing that headline, and in terms of style, $5½ Million looks like a better fit to me than $5+1⁄2 million. In this particular case. I won't mind if you tell me that's not the case though. BTW, I assume the "Anthonyhcole"(diff) was a paste error :) . Bromley86 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, sorry for the paste error, Bromley86. That's an editor I was conversing with just before. I don't know how I did that. I agree that the special character looks better typographically than the template output. On the other hand, I like to stick with the Manual of Style in almost all cases. Do whatever you decide is best for the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirects and Anchor Links

I wanted to make Dingo Pictures redirect to the part in the article Mockbuster that talks about it, but it isn't a section itself. How can I do this correctly? I attempted to use an anchor link, but it didn't work and created a section instead. Could someone explain please? Thanks a lot! ~HackedBotato ^{Chat with me ♽ Contribs} 17:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Did this change help? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've created the redirect for you too. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Just what I needed! ~HackedBotato ^{Chat with me ♽ Contribs} 21:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Would like to do an article on a notable organization.

I would like to create a page for notable organizations related the nonprofit Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratories, Inc in Panacea Florida. I think it is a notable company because it is the main source of marine specimens for most North American scientists. They have directly contributed to the discovery of cancer medicines from marine specimens. Founders Jack Rudloe and Anne Rudloe have published, together and separately, numerous books as naturalists and many articles in magazines such as the National Geographic. Plus the company is well known for its educational work. The founders got the 2014 ELI National Wetlands Award for their work in education . Feedback on the feasibility of this idea before I begin please. Do they qualify as a notable organization? If so what is the best way to begin? Bjorklund21 (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bjorklund21. The best way to determine notability is coverage in reliable sources. To be notable, the organisation needs to be being discussed; notability will not rest solely on the founders' own publications. Discussion around the Wetlands Award would probably be the best place to start to see whether e.g. national newspapers or prominent academic journals have picked up on the non-profit and have significantly covered them. Have a look at WP:ORG, which is the notability guidelines for organisations, to see whether the subject fits those criteria.

Also note that issues around conflict of interest and promotionally-worded articles apply to non-profits as much as they do to commercial enterprises. Please make sure any article is written to neutral point of view specifications, and avoid 'peacock' terms when describing the organisation's work. You will also need to declare any conflict of interest you have, and maybe submit a draft to Articles for Creation if you are unsure that what you have on the organisation makes them notable. There is a long backlog there, but it's better to wait a while than to have your article fail to make it through the WP:New Pages Patrol because of a lack of suitability for the encyclopaedia.

What I suggest is to do a lot of reading up on policy and criteria before or while you are writing your article. This will help things go smoother when it is submitted for the consideration of others. I've left a welcome template on your talk page with some pointers to read first, since you've had previous difficulties at AFC.

Good luck, though. New articles that fit our criteria are always welcome. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 18:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Just what I need! Bjorklund21 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Multipule Pictures

How do I make more than one picture appear in a thumbnail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjbernardiscool (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jjbernardiscool: You have to use a template to achieve that; the most common one I've seen used is Template:Multiple_image. Example usage:

{{multiple image

| align = right

| direction = vertical

| header = Two example pictures.

| width = 100

| image1 = PNG transparency demonstration 1.png

| alt1 = Colored dice with white background

| caption1 = Here's the first image...

| image2 = PNG transparency demonstration 2.png

| alt2 = Colored dice with checkered background

| caption2 = ...and the second!

}}

Two example pictures.

Here's the first image...

...and the second!

...will produce the images on the right. Hope this helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

how to resize table

hello! may I ask how to resize table and put image on it? thanks. Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC: Welcome to the Teahouse. Is this about the article draft you have on your userpage? I've read over your draft and there are a few more important issues I need to bring to your attention:

• You appear to be an employee of the institution writing an article about it. This is considered to be a conflict of interest, and is generally discouraged because it is difficult to write about your own institution in a neutral manner appropriate for an encyclopedia. That said, you can continue working on the article, but understand that it will receive more scrutiny because of your affiliation.
• The use of tables in the draft to separate sections is not appropriate; we generally use headers followed by plain text like so:

===Origins===

The Congregation of the Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres(SPC) was...

• You should not copy material from the institution's website and paste it into Wikipedia because 1) the owner of the text need to provide permission, and 2) the language is very promotional and not appropriate for the encyclopedia. It might be best to start writing from scratch using another article, like Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul as an example.

Please let me know if I can help you navigate through any of these matters. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your answer and advice. I am in charge of the institutions website. There is an existing article in wikipedia written about our congregation whose title and information are not correct, that is why, I tried to write a new one. But if I can just edit this old existing article so much the better. Thanks again for your reply.

Sr. Ma. Lourdes Casas, SPC (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How to add Simplified Chinese article?

I want to add a Simplified Chinese translation of an article (The Lord's Prayer) but it defaults to Traditional Chinese.

Can somebody help?

Goldlionpal (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Goldlionpal. Not sure what you mean - could you explain what exactly you are trying to do because the way it reads at the moment is that you are trying to upload a Chinese article to English Wikipedia, which won't get through as we only accept articles in English (any article would be sent for translation, but content which is already there in English would be deleted as a duplicate). Do you mean you are trying to link The Lord's Prayer to the Chinese wikipedia, but they use traditional characters rather than simplified characters? LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 16:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that is what you're trying to do. This is the English Wikipedia, and all articles submitted here should be in English. We cannot accept articles in any other language - apologies for that, but other languages have their own version of Wikipedia, so articles in other languages should be uploaded to those Wikipedias rather than this one here. I'll see if I can find a link to the Chinese Wikipedia using simplified characters so you can add it there, and leave it on your talk page. Bear in mind, depending how large or how diverse that version of Wikipedia is, that they might already have the article you want to add. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 16:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese Wikipedia is here: 汉语.--ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The simplified Chinese article on The Lord's Prayer is here: 主禱文. When browsing a Wikipedia you can find links to the corresponding articles in other languages in the left sidebar. --LukeSurl ^{t c}

Guide to Wikipedia editing guides

It would be nice if there were a well-publicized way of simply looking for editing policies. For example, a minor edit I made, based on the Chicago Manual of Style, was reverted with the reason being that it isn't Wikipedia's manual of style. I have no idea where to find what the other editor is referring to. Couldn't we have some-thing like a search function for these things? Kdammers (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kdammers. It sounds as if you are looking for WP:manual of style. In general pages like that are in the Wikipedia: space (or the Help: space), so if you start your search with WP: you may find what you are looking for. --ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank You. In my years of editing here, no one has ever told me this. It is not obvious. Let's put the notification of using 'W:"' some-where where it is very easily seen. Kdammers (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe you meant "WP:" GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Am writing about my genealogy

Hi Team, I am writing a Wikipedia page article for the first time and it is very likely to have some mistakes. I would like to tell that I am writing about my own genealogy. What are the possible pros and cons for this may arise in future. There is no intention to hurt any one . It just for my own and my siblings knowledge. Kunja Bihari Bandopadhaya (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kunja. I'm afraid that if it is "just for my own and my siblings knowledge", then it is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and will not be accepted. Wikipedia articles are about subjects that are notable, which means that reliable indepedent published sources have written extensively about them. Unless your family (and specifically your genealogy) have been extensively written about in major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers, they do not belong in Wikipedia. There are thousands of Wikis on the internet apart from Wikipedia, and while there may not be one appropriate to what you want to do (or there may be: I haven't researched it), sites like Wikia allow you to create your own Wiki, which you can put whatever you like in. --ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Included/excluded groups

It appears that my previous question doesn't exist anymore... But I'll just ask it again here. On the Polychaeta page, the taxobox contains 2 parameters I have never heard of before, included and excluded groups. I can understand what they are meant to do based on their apparent meanings, but I just can't figure out why it is necessary to add them (or not). Can't I just add a list if child taxa and leave out the excluded groups part? It doesn't have a description on the taxobox page either. - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi PotatoNinja123. If you scroll down on your screen or check the table of contents for this page, you'll find that your original question is still here. Unfortunately, nobody has answered it yet. Sometimes you just have to be a little patient and wait until somebody comes along who can help you. Remember all Wikipedia editors are volunteers. You could try also asking at WT:ANIMALS and WT:WikiProject Marine life since those are the two WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PotatoNinja123. Please allow me to venture a guess, even though I am unfamiliar with the taxobox. To me, the situation looks similar to an infobox or a citation template. Lots of fields are provided. Some are universally applicable, but others are specialised and not universal. So, fill out all the fields that apply to the specific article, and simply disregard the others. Blank fields do not display. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It also appears that the excluded and included boxes contain inaccurate information, so I think I will just change it to a list of child taxa. Thanks for the help anyways. - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Northern Hemispheric- Systematic bias

Hey, how do I deal with Wikipedia's systematic bias?Frogger48 (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frogger48. There are lots of answers one might give, some more practical than others; but it depends what you mean by "deal with". The ideal answer would be "enrol a lot more editors from other cultures to work on it", but that might not be very practical. My main question about your question is whether you are asking about improving Wikipedia, or about some work of your own where you want to use Wikipedia but perceive that it has a bias that you want to compensate for. If the former, that is a huge question that many people have discussed: I think you'll find plenty of discussion at WP:The Village pump. If the latter, you'll want to consult other sources (which might include other language versions of Wikipedia). --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Frogger48. We can all work in a number of ways on systemic bias. I've spent a lot of time working on WP:New pages patrol and WP:Articles for creation copy-editing articles that show promise from non-western countries. Problematic articles come from all corners of the globe, but in the last few days I've worked on Indian film articles, filmographies and articles about Nigerian storytellers. Dealing with systemic bias ultimately means being prepared to roll up your sleeves and muck in trying to help things survive their first few minutes on Wikipedia. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 16:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends what you have in mind but Wikipedia:Systemic bias and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias may be helpful. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

How long does it take for your article to appear in the Wikipedia search engine?

Hello. Just wanted to know how long it takes once you have written an article before it begins showing up in the search engine? Thank you Ridervos (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Riverdos, welcome to the Teahouse. This has been answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#Help? PrimeHunter (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is User:Cunard so popular?

I know this might not be the place to ask this, but that unexisting user page is 19th most accessed page on wikipedia [1]. What is going on Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 22:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tetra quark: I would guess a bot is viewing the page thousands of times a day. Don't ask me why they would do that, but it happens sometimes. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A possibility is that some hacker/troll is rehearsing a Denial-of-service attack. Just a hunch. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't shed a great deal of light but somewhat related discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 January 18#Curious enigma.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk page question

Hi, newbie here on Wikipedia, so sorry if this seems like a dumb question. I recently usurped an account and for whatever reason I have two talk pages, one of them that is named "User talk: KatnissEverdeen (usurped)" [2] and another one that is just named "User talk: KatnissEverdeen" [3]. The latter one redirects to the usurped version, but I would prefer to have the name be just "User talk: KatnissEverdeen." Is it against Wikipedia policy and/or frowned upon to redirect my talk page to the "User talk: KatnissEverdeen" page? Thanks! KatnissEverdeen (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey there @KatnissEverdeen: Welcome to the Teahouse! Not a dumb question at all. What happened was, the original "KatnissEverdeen" was renamed to "KatnissEverdeen (usurped)", and their user talk page was moved with it. By default, when a page is moved, the previous title redirects to the new one - which is why your talk page redirected to User_talk:KatnissEverdeen_(usurped). I have gone ahead and removed the redirect, so your talk page is now properly working at User talk:KatnissEverdeen. Hope this makes sense :) And Gale is so much better than Peeta ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the super quick response and for fixing that! I didn't want anyone to be confused and accidently post a comment on the wrong talk page. KatnissEverdeen (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Could use some help editing controversial political article

A few days ago a new editor: @Passenger68: requested help editing the article Muhammadu Buhari There was an IP user who was edit warring and was reverting changes made with good references and always in order to make Buhari look as good as possible. The last few days Passenger68 and I have been working on the Buhari article. I took his changes and looked at them one by one; made sure they were validated by references, documented what we were doing and why on the Buhari talk page. Now two other IP users (of course no way to tell if they are the same person) have made a bunch of changes they are @2.29.122.38: and @196.216.200.4: These two editors have completely ignored the voluminous discussions on the talk page. A few of their changes (correcting typos adding some balanced facts to support Buhari) were reasonable but most were not and were clearly designed again to put Buhari in as good a light as possible. One of the most egregious is this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammadu_Buhari&diff=prev&oldid=643372835 where 196.216.200.4 changed the text that said Buhari was one of the leaders of a coup to saying that Buhari was not involved in the coup. If you look at the reference that follows this change, it is page 121 of this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=hTs6GpM4zDMC&q=121#v=snippet&q=121&f=false (Note: you have to click on the page number 121 to see the text) and as you can see from Google books it clearly says right on that page (second paragraph) "the leader of the coup was Buhari". It seems clear to me that this IP editor has an agenda and is not editing in good faith on this topic. I should make it clear prior to the question from Passenger68 I had never heard of Buhari and frankly I don't care about him one way or the other. My question is: is there anything one can do in these situations to get an admin involved when someone demonstrates a pattern of irresponsible editing with a clear bias? Also, if there are any other hosts who have some spare cycles and have more patience than I do for this kind of contentious editing I would more than welcome some help here. MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi MadScientistX11. You can request that the article be semi-protected from ip users, if you feel that they are being unconstructive. You can do that easily if you have twinkle, from the pull down menu (RPP), if not, go to WP:RFP and you can do it following those instructions. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody please review the article written by me. Thanks, Rohit

Use link :https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rohitkapoor001/Mebelkart.com&oldid=643354762 rohit kapoor 12:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitkapoor001 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Rohitkapoor001. I think your company is just about notable, although some of the sources are promotional rather than informative and you should focus on objectively describing the company rather than trying to create an advert or a 'profile'. You're doing the right thing by drafting it rather than adding it directly to the main article space, but if you have a conflict of interest (say, you've been asked to write an article by your boss) then you need to disclose this and make sure it's clear to your client that they cannot have an advertisement on Wikipedia; if they qualify for an article then it is going to be objective and neutrally-worded.

The problem is that it is posted in the wrong place - on your talk page rather than on a sub-page of your user-page, or a sandbox. You don't need to sign articles, since anyone can edit Wikipedia and once your article is in the encyclopaedia anyone else can edit it. You also need to clean up some of the reference formatting, although I can help you with that when the article is removed from your talk-page and posted into a sandbox for submission as a draft.

I wonder if anyone reading this can help me get Rohit's article into the position where it can be submitted to AFC for review, or give us a second opinion on notability etc. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to move the user's draft to Draft:Mebelkart, but couldn't do so because the latter already exists. The thing for @Rohitkapoor001: to do, therefore, is to try to improve the existing draft which is awaiting review, or to wait for that review to take place and then improve the article when/ if it is published. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hello, I recently created this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Kalfayan but I'm having problems with citations, references. I'm not sure I'm doing it right. Can I get some help in editing and improving the page? Thanks.

Nirozoss (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Nirozoss. You need to read referencing for beginners. The thing to bear in mind, especially for an article about a living person, is that every single separate piece of information in the article needs to be individually referenced to a reliable published source; and most of it needs to be referenced to a source independent of the subject. Furthermore the article needs to be written in a neutral, non-promotional way. So, starting from the beginning, "with a highly individualized style" should never appear in any Wikipedia article unless it is directly quoting a reliable source unconnected with the artist; similarly referring to his "trademark". The claims about his influences could come from a non-independent source such as an interview with him, but it must still be cited to a published source. --ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

article not appering and adding information

Hi

I am lindani and would like to add some current information to an article: Skhiming Village .I created Simon Ramafalo article but is not yet in Wikipedia. How do I create another article

Help Lindani Makwela (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lindani, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can just edit the article Skhiming; but please add only information from a reliable published source. (The existing article, like many, is almost unreferenced, but editors tend to be less forgiving of this than in the past, and if you add further unreferenced material, somebody may remove it again).

Your draft is at Draft:SIMON RAMAFALO, and when you think it is ready, you can request a review by inserting {{subst:submit}} at the top of it. But I'm afraid that it is nowhere near ready at present. You have included a load of references, which is good (and it looks to me that they do establish that Ramafalo is notable in Wikipedia's special sense); but they are not formatted properly, and they are not attached to the particular pieces of information which they are used to support. Please look at referencing for beginners. The article as a whole is not formatted properly: to make a heading you put it between paired '=' signs, the more signs the deeper the level of heading, so for example ===Early life=== will appear as a third-level heading. We do not write heading in capitals, or number them, and the table of contents is generated automatically. I think it would be helpful if you read your first article.

You can begin another article: I would advise using the article wizard. But it's probably a good idea to spend time learning how to format an article and improving the Ramafalo one first. --ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Long time not quite vandalism suspected

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Long story short, I found a new page that looked real, but couldn't find anything on Google. I asked the page creator and he insisted it was real, but could not provide any references. I check the users history and there are hundreds of edits to similar articles, over the past few years, and I didn't see not a single ref. I'm not saying the information is wrong, it looks legit, but still.... I don't know where to go from here. Help? Deunanknute (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Deunanknute. If an article contains any information which is not referenced, any editor is entitled to remove that information from the article. (It is preferable to try and improve the article, rather than just deleting, eg by looking for references, or discussing it with the editor who added that information; but removing it is consistent with Wikipedia's principles.)

If none of the information in an article is referenced, then the article does not establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria on notability (which depend on being written about in published reliable sources), and should possibly be deleted - but again, it is better to try and find the sources than to delete out of hand. If the article does not provide references, and you have looked for sources and failed to find them, then the article should almost certainly be deleted. The general procedure for nominating an article for deletion is articles for deletion - it's a bit fiddly to carry out, but if you follow all the steps you can do it, and then there will be a discussion open usually for seven days where people can argue for or against deleting. If you tell us the page, somebody else can take a look at it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, User:Deunanknute is complaining not about a single article but about another user who seems to be adding misinformation or no information to many articles over the years. If that is the case, Deunanknute, you should go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and present the problem over there. Good luck! GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to Add/Change picture of an Article.

How to Add/Change picture of an Article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devippandey.dpp (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Devippandey.dpp, welcome to the Teahouse! Adding a picture to a Wikipedia page is a two-step process. First, you have to upload it, then add a bit of code to the page to make it show up.

Before uploading a new picture, you should look for one that is already available by going here. If you find one you like, add the code [[Name of picture|thumb]] on the page where you want to use it. All pictures have names starting with File:, so be sure to include that in the code.

If you can't find one and want to upload a new picture, you need to be aware of our copyright policies. Under these policies, most pictures on the Internet can't be uploaded here. But if you made it yourself (example: you took a photograph), it should be okay. You can upload those at Wikimedia Commons and then come back here and use the same code to add it to an article.

Sorry if this is a bit long; please leave a reply if anything is unclear.

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If a unique technology regarding mobile phone charging is suitable for uploading?

I represent OPPO, a smartphone manufacturer which has recently developed the world's fastest smartphone charging technology and was wondering whether this topic is acceptable as a Wikipedia article? Or is it perhaps a tad too commercial? Any feedback regarding this would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks kindly, Azeri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakarrik Azeri (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bakarrik Azeri. You have done the right thing by declaring your conflict of interest. The topic is acceptable only if independent, reliable sources have devoted significant coverage to discussing it. If the technology is brand new and has not yet received much attention, then trying to add it will be seen as promotional, and you will run into opposition. Wikipedia is not for promotional or advertising purposes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Clear notifications

Hi,

How can I clear my notifications. It is not really necessary and I do not want them to be shown at all. - Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@EurovisionNim: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're talking about these notifications, I'm afraid it's impossible to remove them. --Jakob (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you suggest I should do to not look at the notifications

Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The notifications page only shows the last 20 notifications unless you click on the "more" button at the bottom of the page. --Jakob (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You can prevent most of the messages showing by unticking the boxes at Preferences / Notifications - the only exception is "Talk page message" which cannot be unticked - I think this is to try and stop people claiming they "didn't notice" warnings and other messages left on their talkpage. - Arjayay (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocking

How do you block someone who is disrupting Wikipedia? Jatremitiedi (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jatremitiedi: Welcome to the Teahouse! Blocks are made by administrators, who are experienced editors that have been granted the ability to block and unblock editors, among other things.

The answer to your question depends on the situation; there are a variety of places to report editors or hold discussions, depending on the type of disruption you're referring to:

• The most common form of disruption is obvious vandalism. Editors who are vandalizing pages can be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, after being sufficiently warned.
• Editors with blatantly inappropriate usernames may be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
• Editors that are engaged in edit wars can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
• Other cases of general disruption or issues that don't exactly fit in the above forums can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you'd like assistance regarding a particular situation, feel free to elaborate. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe Jatremitiedi may be asking for help because of this. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

New editor here: Need help w/citations

If anyone can look over my page and lmk if the citations need help I would greatly appreciate it! The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lyn-Genet_Recitas. The submission was declined because this person wasn't "notable" but she has 11 citations so I am thinking I did the citations incorrectly?? Thanks! Molly.C.Burke (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Molly.C.Burke Welcome to the teahouse. I took a quick look. I noticed the rejection message but then more messages at the bottom indicating it had been resumbitted. I might be reading that wrong though but if you resubmitted it after that initial rejection then it is in the queue now. The backlog is huge so it may take time to hear back. From my quick look your references looked to be properly formatted. Many new editors don't get how to do that so well done. The thing is it is possible to have perfectly formatted references and still not establish wp:notability in the special sense that Wikipedia means that. So for example if you are trying to establish notability for a rock band and you have a perfectly formatted reference to that bands blog that says how awesome they are that reference won't count toward establishing notability. That was an obvious example but I think there were more subtle issues with some of your references. Many of them seemed to be sites that are linked in some commercial way with your subject which makes them poor refs for establishing notability. Make sure you review this article especially: Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Good luck. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Molly.C.Burke. As MadScientistX11 says, there is a review waiting. I have not done a full review; but in my opinion the first two references do establish notability. However, there is still a lot to be done to the article to bring it up to an acceptable standard. At the moment it is not an article, but a collection of links and citations (which makes it appear that the intention in writing it was promotional, which is forbidden. Most of the article should be prose about her life and her work, entirely based from published reliable sources (but rewritten so as not to infringe their copyright) which must cited inline. The bibliography can stay, but should be a small part of the article. All the external links should go, apart from the one to her official website. --ColinFine (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A silly question

What is someone who is not a teahouse host, but has come in as a guest and refuses to go away because not everyone has enough milk or sugar? Because I think I’m one of whatever that is. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello "82". I think that such an editor would learn a lot by listening to the rest of the conversations at the other tables. That user can do small menial tasks (like I do here) that are equally important in a working Teahouse, besides contemplating and discussing important matters. And can I please have some lemon with my tea? Two slices please, w.carter-Talk 23:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we establish a wine tasting room as well as a teahouse? (And not one of those snooty yuppie wine tastings where you spit the wine out) Problem is my answers would drone on and on even longer than they already do so probably not a great idea. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

When not editing Wikipedia, I like to visit Napa Valley winery tasting rooms with my wife, especially if art is on display. Almost nobody spits out wine around here, MadScientistX11, except judges at competitions who have to taste hundreds in a day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall where I read it, but those who visit the Teahouse were divided into hosts, guests and parasites. I come here and read and if a question didn't get an answer, or sometimes if it hasn't been answered yet and I feel I can, I attempt to give an answer or tell where the answer might be found. I would say I fall in the third group.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Included/excluded groups (taxobox)

When trying to make a few tweaks regarding the taxonomy in a taxobox on the Polychaeta page, I noticed that there were two parameters I had never come across before, included and excluded groups. Judging by the apparent meaning, I can conclude what their purposes were, but I just can't figure out why it is necessary to add them (or not). Can't I just add a list of child taxa and leave out the "excluded groups" part? It doesn't seem to have an explanation on the taxobox template page either. Help would be greatly appreciated. - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I had not seen this question but this is one of those I would not have known the answer to (see above section, or below when it is archived). But it looked familiar because it was answered here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Add list from 'Tip of the day, August 25' to Teahouse?

Greetings, at Wikipedia:Tip of the day/August 25 I added Teahouse to the list of Help resources (it was missing). Could this list somehow be incorporated at Teahouse? I've noticed various off topic postings here & thought this tip's shortlist might be helpful. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

JoeHebda hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Since no one has answered I would suggest Wikipedia talk:Teahouse.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Steve Gold - building a entry in WIkipedia for this noted hacker/journalist

The journalist Steve Gold died last week two days short of what would have been his 59th birthday. I was his barrister in the case that made him famous, the hacking of the Duke of Edinburgh's PRESTEL account in 1985. I later, along with the police who arrested him, became his friend. He took over writing The Hackers Handbook in the late 1980s from Professor Peter Sommer. We have quickly built a small website in his memory at http://www.silentmodems.com

I would like to build a proper and accurate series of pages regarding Steve Gold in Wikipedia. How should I best go about this task?

Alistair Kelman Barrister and Technologist AlistairKelman (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Alistair, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia, and for coming and asking here: as his friend, you may have a conflict of interest, which does not preclude you from writing an article about him, but requires you to be very circumspect. I suggest you use the Article wizard, which will let you develop it in a Draft space, and then submit it for review.

We require that the subject of articles be Notable (in Wikipedia's special sense): that they have been the subject of substantial writing in published reliable sources, independent of the subject: I haven't checked, but from your description I think it is likely that he meets those criteria. The issue that is likely to give you most difficulty from your conflict of issue is that Wikipedia articles are required to be written from a neutral encyclopaedic point of view. If you bear in mind that every single piece of information in the article should come from a published reliable source (not from your personal knowledge or unpublished papers); that most of it should come from sources unconnected with the subject (especially any material that is in any way evaluative); and that the article should summarise all prominent published views of the subject; then you shouldn't have too much difficulty. As well as the links I've already given, I suggest reading your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear about the death of your friend and client. ColinFine has given some good advice, but in regard to the fact that Steve Gold is obviously WP:Notable, I have already started an article for you titled Stephen Gold. All you have to do now is to work on it by adding information that you get from WP:Reliable sources. (I also had to redirect references to Steve Gold away from the Computer_Misuse_Act_1990 to the new stand-alone article about Steve.) Be assured that the Wikipedia community is ready to help turn what is now essentially a WP:Stub into a full-fledged WP:Article about your friend. If you have questions or need further help on the article, I suggest you ask them directly at Talk:Stephen Gold, and an editor will help you. Production of this encyclopedia is a shared endeavor, and no one editor has WP:Ownership of any given page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Plastiglomerate

Hi! I've been working on Draft:Plastiglomerate and I noticed that there's a tag at the bottom talking about a need for categories (that tag's been there before I started editing). I'm wondering how to remove the tag (I don't see where it is in the code) or what other categories I should add. Thank you, Bananasoldier (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Bananasoldier. The proper time to add categories is when the draft is moved to main space. Just ignore the message for now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have also improved an article that claimed improvement due to additional citations. I have added a number of citations. So I have left a message on the article's talk page that the claim be removed. Is that the correct approach?

Pixarh (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Be a host

Welcome, All hosts. I really get annoyed because I couldn't be a host everytime I tryna make a profile told me page fully protected so I can't edit and make my profile to teahouse host page I know they do so Cruz of the vandalism to important page like this although they told me thanks to be a host but the question.. When can I be a host? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagemaru2022 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kagemaru2022. Hosts are experienced editors who have a good knowledge about most matters on the Wikipedia. When you have gained such knowledge you may apply for becoming a host. It usually takes at least 1000 edits and several months or a year, but most hosts are well beyond that. Keep editing, reading about the Wikipedia policy and add to the encyclopedia. In time you may become a host. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)