Wikipedia:Teahouse

GreenMeansGo, 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

Grids and Brand Management

I am the community manager for "The Pete Holmes Show" and would like to add and expand the episode schedule on the pag showe (some information is wrong). What are the policies about a person with a vested interest in a property updating a schedule and is it overstepping if I create a grid like schedule like the other late night shows have to keep a detailed and accurate archive of the eps? Thank you for your help.Danielleevenson1 (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

istanity in Korea

Can someone please help me in creating my first portal "Christianity in Korea" on Wikipedia? Thanks. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Christianity_in_Korea#

Frogger48 (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This user is...

Although I am a host myself, there has always been one thing i have not known how to do. That is, put the boxes that reference to what the user is on my talk or user page. Such as..This user is part of the Wikiprojects. Or this user speaks french. Please help me, so I can later help others. Today's Xtra (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

@Today's Xtra: Welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, I hope you won't be offended, but I don't think you really have the experience to be a Teahouse host. Most of the hosts have months or years of experience and many hundreds or thousands of edits. But the boxes you're looking for are called Userboxes. You can find a list of userboxes here and here. Happy editing, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 18:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If you wanted a userbox, there will generally be a thing saying how to input them; which should look like this: {{User:UBX/Ducky}}, which is the pagename in the template brackets. Thanks, Matty.007 18:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Article not appearing in search results

I created a page named kalpitiya earlier redirected to another page Puttalam District. When I search for kalpitiya in google the newly created page is not appearing. Why is that? Plz help..Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rameshnta909. It can sometimes take a while for Google's spider programs to notice a new article. You can help by expanding the article, including information about the population, land area, government structure, agriculture and industries, education, transportation and so on. Add references to reliable sources as well. Google's algorithms place priority on highly informative articles as opposed to very brief ones. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

How do I add a tag that an article is seriously lacking in references?

Or where do I look up how to do that? Thank you! Taram (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Use {{more footnotes}} or {{refimprove}} at the top of the page. A good source for information on such things is Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Glad to see you looking at references. You can always add some yourself if the topic is one you know something about. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you talk

Taram (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

can i open a article about a 200 years temple

a temple in rural in about 200 years,very sacred in that parKalicharanshukla Kalicharanshukla 15:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The answer is yes. Wikipedia supports articles of all kind as long as it helps to further the knowledge of other people. Before attempting to create the article however, please check to make sure it does not already exist. Today's Xtra (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Just tagging onto Kalicharanshukla's question: Then why are so many removed. It seems as though some editors have such an extreme bias against someone or somethng that they work hard to remove information so systematically that the person or place is deemed no longer notable. Then we have pages obviously written as publicity for some people (and sans any citation) and they stay up for years. Why is some knowledge considered further-able and other knowledge is not? ThanksTaram (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Taram, Wikipedia has articles about notable topics, namely those that have significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources. Articles about topics that don't meet that standard ought to be deleted, and many are. With over 4.3 million articles, though, it is certain that we currently have many articles that should be deleted. And we lack many articles we ought to have. This encyclopedia is a work in progress, and we are constantly working to improve it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

News website of province

Help! Local News website of Pakistan province Khyber Pakhtunkhwa(KPK)www.kpknews.org need your guideline to list. Advance Thanks Kashifmuk (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

With few notabilities will my page be published

There is a 13 year old BPO company, Vee Technologies, which do not have a wikipedia page. So I tried to write a page about them. Without being promotional, in matter of fact tones I tried to create the page. Will anyone please help me in understanding what else should I do to get the page published. Krishbhatt (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved your draft from User:Krishbhatt to a user subpage at User:Krishbhatt/Vee Technologies, and included a link to allow you to submit it for AFC review. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Still trying to get my article published

User:JTKKavanagh/Royal Mail Choir#Request review at WP:AFC This is my article. It's about the Royal Mail Choir. We are a choir formed for a television programme and now raise money for Prostate Cancer UK. This is my very first article. And probably my only one. And it keeps being rejected. And I am quickly running out of hope. Can somebody PLEASE just fix it so it can go on. Or I will give up. JTKKavanagh (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, JTKKavanagh! We are glad you stopped by for a cuppa and some chat. (My bad impression of being British, which I am not. Hope I do not offend.) Well, there is a specific notability policy which apply here, that being WP:NMUSIC. My read of that is that you have satisfied the first criteria and therefore your article is notable. It appears you have toned down the promo tone, so that is no longer an issue. I will remove the bold print in the "Charity single" section before I move it, as that appears slightly promotional and also outside of the WP:MOS uses for bold print. But please do not quit, your article will be in the 'pedia shortly! Thanks for your work. What do you want to do next? John from Idegon (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

How do I start a new portal about "Danish Racing Drivers"?

My mother is from Denmark and I am proud of my heritage. I am a big formula One racing fan and would like to recognize Danish Racing Car drivers on Wikipedia. For example the son of a former Formula 1 driver, Jan Magnussen (son Kevin, and yes pages exist for both men) is now making a name for himself, but there is no Portal to link all of the danish racing car drivers together... Tom Kristensen, John Nielsen, etc. How can this be done? PgeraldiPgeraldi (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Pgeraldi and welcome to the teahouse. Portals are very complicated as seen here. It may be a better idea to make a navigational template (as seen below and fill it with those at Category:Danish racing drivers) that can be placed at the bottom of each page as see at Help:Template -- Moxy (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

looking for references for Knowledge-Based systems

Up until last night the article for Knowledge-based_systems was really in bad shape. No actual references and the content of the article didn't really make much sense or even describe the core ideas. This is something I know a lot about, expert level from work and school, but to my amazement (maybe I just suck at searching) I haven't been able to find any really strong references on the topic. Even my library system which is usually great, I'm in a major US city, had no good books on the topic. I've found several overview papers that look good but they are all behind pay firewalls and it's not just that I don't want to spend the money, I think there must be good public papers on the topic, for some reason I'm just having a hard time finding them. I always prefer using a paper that is accessible for free when possible so people can directly check the resource if they want. So far, I have one ref from a nice overview presentation from a guy at Schlumberger, a company that did a lot of the early ground breaking commercial work in AI. But if anyone has suggestions of where or how to look for refs on this topic I would appreciate it. RedDog (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe contact a research librarian back at your local library. I have been working on some NRHP sites back in NW Indiana where I am originally from, and the research librarian there was able to email me copies of newspaper articles and monographs, some that she accessed from one of the university's libraries in Indiana. Universities are much more likely to have stuff on highly technical subjects.John from Idegon (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Great idea, I will do that. thanks. RedDog (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Its wonderful to see someone want to get references into computer articles. Look for references on expert systems and take a look at the Expert system article. Many expert systems are knowledge-based systems. I'm not sure there needs to be a separate article. The expert system article has more references, but also needs work. There's a nice slide show about the history of knowledge based systems (with references) here . Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea StarryGrandma. I did check there actually but I thought the refs there weren't very good either, at least for what I needed. Thanks for that link though, I will definitely use that. I'm still going to try the reference librarian idea but in the mean time I also found some good articles online by expanding my search parameters using Google. Rather than search for "knowledge-based systems" I searched for that plus several other terms and found several good overview articles. BTW, I do think there is a good justification for having an article on KB systems and Expert Systems. The terms are sometimes used synonymously but they aren't the same. Expert system refers to the task the system is trying to solve. KB system refers to the software architecture of the system. Virtually all expert systems are KB systems but many KB systems are not expert systems. RedDog (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Danger of image deletion?

Greetings, this is my first question for Wikipedia experts. In teaching myself how to craft an article, using as an object lesson Westinghouse Park in Pittsburgh, I uploaded a picture of a house that was demolished in 1918. The picture stems, probably, from about 1890. It has floated around the neighborhood in brochures and newsletters for years. There is no way for me to figure out who "owns" it, if anyone.

The hideously complicated procedure for uploading images is bad enough, but the morass of licensing information is even more discouraging. (Why should I participate in something so abstruse?) WikimediaCommons threatens to delete the picture after 8 days if I don't supply a proper "tag". I can't even figure out how to open a "tag" or what a tag is in this context. As far as I'm concerned the picture is in the public domain. So... what should I do? 72.65.244.232 (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey person editing from 72.65.244.232. If it is a U.S. originating image and was published in the U.S. prior to 1923 it is in the public domain. If you can provide evidence of that, you can "tag" it at the Commons by clicking edit at the top of the file page (not here, at the Commons), and then place under the licensing header the template {{PD-old-auto-1923}} – you can simply highlight the code I just provided and paste it there (the current indication, if this is about File:Westinghouse Solitude.jpg, is that the person who uploaded the image owns the copyright). I would, in conjunction, provide the evidence and explanation in the page at the same time backing up the claim of public domain. For example, I would place next to date = something like "unknown but manifestly prior to 1918, because the house pictured was demolished that year" (unless you know the actual date of course). Note that the date currently displayed is the date of upload; that's not what the date parameter is for [see the documentation here]), Then, next to permissions, I would provide the information that it is a U.S. image and was published in X, Y an Z as of DATE. You're absolutely correct that dealing with copyright is hideously complex. Unfortunately, much of that is a result of the horrible complexities of copyright law, expanded so much in the modern age from its origins. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I upload photos I've taken to Wikimedia Commons fairly often, and find it quite easy, as I am willing to license them under Creative Commons. Once you understand the basic categories for determining which images are in the public domain, then uploading such images is also easy. Unfortunately, there are images where the copyright status is unclear or confusing. We have to err on the side of caution in such cases.

Here on Wikipedia, we can use copyrighted images in limited "fair use" circumstances. Common examples include book covers, movie posters, company logos and album covers. The rules for these are clear, and will cause no problems if followed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Auto User box update

Hi, Im trying to have a userbox:

AfD-21This user has had 21 pages put up for deletion. Most of the time, they were deleted.

auto update when My Twinkle CSD log adds a new entry. Is there any way to have some wiki code copy the last number on the list and add 4? Thanks Retartist (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Publishing my page

I don't quite understand the requirements for new editors. Do I have to edit my own page ten times or someone else's page ten times in addition to the four days I have to wait?Rotsol (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Rotsol and welcome to The Teahouse. If you are referring to becoming autoconfirmed, you can edit any page. Just be sure it contributes something. It can even be correcting spelling or grammar, or adding a comma where needed.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright for own work

Let's say I have written something and I want to post it in my user page, but I want it to remain being my creation, I mean, that no one can copy it and say that they wrote it. Is this possible? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Miss Bono: Wikipedia is licensed under the CC-BY-SA, so they have to credit you anyway. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 18:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

When you post anything on Wikipedia, be it in an article, your user page or anywhere else, "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." This in effect means that you retain the copyright, but that it can be used by others as long as they give attribution.--ukexpat (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest how does this work in practice? Is it required to attribute each editor who has ever edited an article, the user who added the parts being used, or Wikipedia as a whole? Samwalton9 (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That's covered at WP:REUSE and WP:CITEWIKI.--ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A statement that Wikipedia is the source along with a link to the applicable page is adequate attribution, as the page history can be found and reviewed there. In printed material, the article name should be mentioned. In a speech, a politician ought to say something like, "According to Wikipedia's synopsis of the plot of the movie Gattaca" for example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Very topical! His reaction has been priceless.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklist

Hi, I was trying to reference this with a PDF file, but the Google reference was either too long for the blacklist, or was actually blacklisted. The PDF is the first result on this search. Was my request here OK? Thanks, Matty.007 17:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Matty.007, I pointed to the PDF URL directly (check your page), is it okay now? –pjoef (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Matty.007 20:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Kinky

Would anyone here like to help this fellow? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You're referring to the request for a peer review? I'll look into this tomorrow. Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No, not the peer review. I thought you all were here for tea; that editor needs some. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Why use the same image?

Several of the profiles I just viewed in this teahouse had the same image, of the roof-tops of some houses in a city. Why did these various people all use the same image? Was it intentional? Nasusan (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nasusan: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing it's just because a lot of people liked the image (or couldn't think of a better one), although I can't see the one you're specifically talking about. Most people at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts seem to have different images, although a few seem to have the same image, like you said. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 02:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

After looking around I guess you meant Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests and not Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts. If people don't select an image then a random image is chosen each time the page is rendered, but due to limitations in the algorithm the same random image is chosen for each user. It's currently File:Glass Beach Fort Bragg 2.jpg when I view the page, but I guess it was File:Le Tréport.jpg for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

red links, disambiguation, stubs

Hi there - couple of questions about red links and disambiguation and stubs ... I had read somewhere that red links were due to deleted pages and getting rid of them was a way of cleaning up pages BUT i have just discovered there is another whole world to red links with WP:RED oooops! So, going back to try and fix my enthusiastic red link vendetta on Contact Improvisation - have discovered another problem/opportunity :-) One of my deleted red links restored OK and so now I am thinking I could create a stub and help WP to grow - just that I am nervous, can i just go ahead and do that?? will search for sources first to check notability, but also worried about the overall task - And the other one, Action Theatre is no longer a red link but links to another article which is not the Action Theatre meant in the dance context, so that seems even more daunting. Hints, advice, help? Thanks so much Depthdiver (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Depthdiver, to answer your first question, if you feel the sources are up to it, go ahead and create the article. Second, if the Wikilink to Action Theater doesn't fit the usage in the article, either remove the link or rename it if the same general concept is present in another article. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Howicus - soooo, problem is ... I can't rename the link Action Theatre on the page Contact Improvisation because it is a proper noun - in this case for an improvisation method (the potential new article) while the link takes you to an actually existing article, where it refers to an amusement park ride (- with, i realise, some notability issues itself - only two sources, at at least one is primary and clearly promotional ... but that's another issue entirely!) Hmmm - maybe I'm getting it - is the answer - remove the link until I or someone creates the improv page, and then create a disambiguation page to clarify between the two uses?? Depthdiver (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'd say is best. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks for your patience with the learning curve! Depthdiver (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

new to wikipedia :)

Ok, I work for a company called Active Digital Signage. We are fairly young company ( just a couple years old) I wanted to write a page for wikipedia for our company but am not sure how to go about it! 208.186.92.67 (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Before you write an article, make sure Active Digital Signage has sufficient notability for it. Please read WP:42 very carefully. If Active Digital Signage does not meet those criteria right now, thats OK. Just make the article once Active Digital Signage does meet the criteria. I hope this helps. Good luck! Ross Hill (talk) 00:13, 8 Nov 2013 (UTC) 00:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Also be sure to read WP:COI & WP:PSCOI. If you don't think you can write an unbiased article, please don't make it. Instead request an article. Ross Hill (talk) 00:17, 8 Nov 2013 (UTC) 00:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We're an odd community that's put together this encylopedia, and we're very happy you're keen to help us. The beginnings of being a 'Wikipedian' can be quite challenging, but you can always find someone to help. Unfortunately, the best thing I can say to help with this query is the following:

Do not try to create an article for the company you work for.

There are a few reasons for this:

1. Wikipedia has developed guidelines about what we have articles on. We call this "notability". For example, there is an article on Barack Obama, but not one on me. Similarly, we have an article on Microsoft, but one created about your company will probably be considered "non-notable" and deleted. The specific guidelines can be found here, but in short, until a company is significant enough to have repeated coverage, in depth, in reliable sources which are independent from it, it should not have an article.
2. Wikipedia tries to maintain a neutral-point-of-view on all subjects. It's one of our core principles. As an employee of your company, you are unlikely to be able to have a neutral perspective upon it. While your closeness to the subject may make you very informed about the company, it's this very closeness that means you shouldn't write the article.
3. You will know a lot more things about the company you work for than the average person. In fact, you would probably be one of the world experts on your company. However, since it's very inception, Wikipedia hasn't been about collecting essays from experts and relying on their authority, but rather collecting information that has already been published in reliable sources and citing those. This is the essence of two of our other core principles, no original research and verifiability. It's also the main way Wikipedia keeps articles limited to important information, rather than just an unlimited list of facts about a subject. It takes a while to get used to writing like this, especially on a topic (such as your employer) you know a great many details about, and I would strongly advise against making your first foray into Wikipedia one where you maximise the chances of these problems.

Sorry if this is a bit much! I'm afraid that if you create an article for your company, your first experience of Wikipedia will likely be an unpleasant one, as the article will probably be deleted. We'd much prefer your beginnings as a Wikipedian to be much nicer than that.

Please be aware that writing new articles is not the only way of helping Wikipedia. All 4 million+ articles that currently exist could be improved in some way, and you can edit and improve all of them. A good place to learn how to edit Wikipedia constructively is the tutorial and here at the Teahouse you can always ask for help.

Have a great day, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

LukeSurl, how dare you call 208 odd! Uhhmmm... oh. You meant, uh, me. Well then, fair enough!  :-)   208, is ActiveDigitalSignage the one in Phoenix? Doing a quick web search, it looks like your industry is getting pretty hot, but I'm not finding many newspaper articles or teevee shows that feature your particular firm. If that's true, then wikipedia is not yet the venue for documenting your company history, and as folks above mention, wikipedia is never the venue for *promoting* your company, or your products. Wikipedia just *reflects* what is already hot, by mirroring what reliable sources say.

   If you concentrate on making your customers delighted, sooner or later the journalists and the trade-rags will notice you. Make sure to keep track of the mentions that ActiveDigitalSignage gets in the independent press. Even just a few sources, and you become WP:NOTEWORTHY of being mentioned in the digital signage article. To have a dedicated article about your company, you need to have several independent reliable sources that give your company (or your products or your founders) in-depth coverage. See WP:RS and WP:N for the gory details.

   Feel free to do some editing elsewhere in wikipedia in the meanwhile, to get the hang of the various guidelines and the editing-technology we have around here; there are articles on computers, sports teams, movies/music/books, the city you live in, and all sorts of stuff. Note that, if you are editing for work, in an article close to the business-model of ActiveDigitalSignage, you should *not* make changes directly to the article, but instead, put your change-requests on the article talkpage, for another editor to check over, making sure it has neutral tone, and so on. Good luck with your new business, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Help! Acceptable sources for a school

Please help! I'm a new, inexperienced wikipedia user and I'm trying to submit an article for MediaTech Institute, which is a technical school in Texas and Calif. Each time I revise and re-submit, my sources are a problem. I can find tons of articles on google and google news archives, but they have been rejected because they find them self promoting or not directly applicable to what I'm trying to enter as article. As I was searching for articles today, I noticed MediaTech Institute is found on corporation wiki and wikimapia. Suggestions? Thank you, kikiwikizozo Kikiwikizozo (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are asking whether other wikis are acceptable as sources for a Wikipedia article, the answer is "No". If the subject has not received significant coverage in published reliable sources, then for the time being it doesn't get a Wikipedia article. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

David, I think they're just asking for help sorting the wheat from the chaff in their search-hits. Hello kikiwikizozo, the school seems to have some Noteworthy-ness, enough to get a mention at the film school article perhaps, but it is borderline for Notability-ness, which means significant coverage in Reliable Sources. You have to be careful with search engines, most of their results are not counted, see WP:GOOG for the details. Here are the results I found, some of which you can use, others which may lead you to additional results you can use.

   Short review, seems reliable.[3] Short review;[4] is source reliable?[5] Short blurb;[6] seems borderline-notable, according to the editorial-and-fact-checking librarians at the Irving Public Library anyhoo.[7] Notable charity event.[8] Some WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions in fact-checked publications.[9][10] This might be helpful, depending on whether the AES is important in the industry or not.[11][12][13]

   Accredited by ACCSC (Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges). Did this get covered in the news?[14] Seems like FOX would have mentioned this on teevee?[15] Not reliable, methinks, but specifies category.[16][17] Alleged graduate[18] is mentioned in wikipedia twice, List_of_Western_films_of_the_2000s and List_of_low-budget_zombie_films, but everything is redlinks, so prolly not useful. Prolly not noteworthy because self-published or promotional or otherwise not-fact-checked.[19] This *is* on the teevee... but it is *trivial* news and does not count.[20] This *is* from a newspaper... but it is *trivial* not-even-news and does not count.[21][22] Other links, might be reliable, might not.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29]

   Feel free to ask more questions here at the Teahouse, about getting your article in shape, or you can ask questions of the reviewers at Articles For Creation. There are probably some existing articles on film schools, try looking them over for ideas. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Confused about use of <ref name=>

Good morning dear Tea House host. Is there a way I can use '<ref name=' when the page number of the reference in the same work changes? Do I write a new reference instead? Many thanks once again, Myrtle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrtlegroggins (talk • contribs) 22:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi and glad to see you are working hard on references. Yes, there are several ways to keep from repeating a reference while referring to different pages. See Help:References and page numbers for an explanation. Ask again here if you need more help. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou so much, StarryGrandma! The rp with parentheses thingy is just the ticket for me! (I did look for this but my search terms were incorrect :-) Regards Myrtle, Myrtlegroggins (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Translation

Hi, New user of wikipedia, but not new to the site itself.

I was wondering, what if I wanted to translate an english article to Danish, can I just "copy" the text to the new article in Danish? And what about references and such?RingsbyKiel (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The guidance you need is at WP:Translate us. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks RingsbyKiel (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My question is how to translate an article in spanish wikipedia to english wikipedia. I'll do it recently but my new article in english was rejected. I don't know why. Because its a translation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copiacertificada (talk • contribs) 16:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Copiacertificada and welcome to The Teahouse. Different languages have different standards. It may be that the Spanish article meets the standards and the one you wrote did not. The Spanish article might not meet the standards; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

I know I bother too much with infobox things but, I am about to create the article for U2's new song "Ordinary Love", but I am not sure if it works as a single or as a song. In those infoboxes there are fileds like "album", "Previous Track", but "Ordinary Love" is a song only released as the song for a movie. I need help with that. Please. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You would want to use Template:Infobox single. If it wasn't released on an album, you should just leave that field blank. Ryan Vesey 17:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

changing the name of the article name

Hello. How do I change the name of an article I've authored? It's a biography and it contains a middle initial I want to remove.

Vinylhero (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vinylhero. At the top of the page, next to the star that lets you add pages to your watchlist, is a small down arrow. Click on this, and it will give you the option to move the article to a new title. I'm happy to do this for you if you wish, just ask. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That worked! Thank you so much!

And apologies for the redundancy of my question topic (changing the name of the name of the name....)

Vinylhero (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Vagharshapat

Why can't I link page Vagharshapat with articles on other languages? --Joe Kaniini (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Joe. What are you trying to do? The "Languages" entry on the left-hand toolbar gives you an "Edit links" entry, which links to the relevant page in Wikidata. What did you want to do, and what error message did you get? - David Biddulph (talk) 3:54 pm, Today (UTC+0) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

how can I search for deleted images (by keyword in the filename)?

There used to be some images in the Mark David Chapman article (the guy who killed musician John Lennon), which have been deleted in a wave of COPYVIO crackdowns and WP:TEMPLAR foolishness. But the latter is another story for another day.

When I click on search, and click on multimedia, and search for the keywords, I turn up the *current* photo in the article, which is a picture of Lennon signing a book with Chapman in the background. Browsing through the article's edit-history manually, I can see where previous pictures existed, and manually check their File: locations for the reason they were deleted, and who performed the deletion. But how can I speed this up? I don't want to browse thousands of unrelated edits to the article about Chapman, I want to search for multimedia -- deleted or as yet undeleted -- with 'chapman' in the name. How? Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, 74.192 and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, non-administrators cannot view deleted images. But if it really is a copyvio, couldn't you just go to the webpage the file was taken from? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, even admins can't view deleted images; only the file information (licensing, description and so forth). The actual picture isn't available at all once it's been deleted. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

PS. Is this search (all pages in the File namespace containing the word "chapman") any use to you? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, Yunshui and Jakob. The search that Yunshui mentioned is the search I did (without the tildes). Searching for ~chapman ~MARK gives us 113 hits.[30] The second one in the list is used in the article at the moment, and thus is a bluelink. I'm trying to search for *redlinks* with ~chapman ~mark keywords. Here is one, which I manually extracted by manually going through the edit-history.[31] It has both keywords, right in the filename, but is not one of the 113 hits. p.s. This search is not for my personal use; I was talking with one of the COPYVIO patrollers over on her talkpage, and noticed somebody else asking about how they could find all the deleted images with chapman in the filename, and figured I'd save Diannaa 30 seconds... but then, when I tried the same search as Yunshui later suggested, got nowhere. But I know I'll need something like this, at some point. If there's no way to search-for-redlinks-too, is there a way to get all image-links that a specified particular article has historically contained, with some wiki-tool? We could use WikiBlame to search for .JPG or something, but that seems pretty kludgey. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Painting removed

Why was my painting removed from the article on Kilmainham .... it was put up by a moderator and was there for several months ...... now it is gone Msriposte (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The editor who removed the link gave no explanation in an edit summary, so you can either ask him on his user talk page or revert his deletion and invite him to discuss. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. The image was removed by another editor who apparently deemed it unsuitable for the article. I would concur with that decision. Wikipedia's policy is that "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter." Images should also tend to be "the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." I don't believe that this fulfills the criteria and I don't believe that it improves the article. (Also, Wikipedia doesn't have "moderators" and the image was "put up" by you.) Of course, others may disagree with me, in which case a discussion at Talk:Kilmainham would be the way forward. BlackberrySorbet 13:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Blackberry Sorbet ........... I modified the article on Kilmainham ....... and my edit was deleted. After much discussion with the moderators I was assisted in putting up an Article on Saint Maighneann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maighneann. The Painting of Cill Mhaighneann was added to the article on Kilmainham with the assistance of somebody in there who changed the caption which I wanted to use. I was having great difficulty in inserting the painting in the first place. The painting was illustrative of the ancient period of Kilmainham .... prior to the existing article. I agree that the painting is no longer relevant to the article on Kilmainham but I would be very grateful if you could assist me in inserting the painting (image) on the page entitled Wiki page entitled Saint_Maighneann ........ many thanks Michael Msriposte (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Msriposte: Hi Michael. The image was removed by @I JethroBT: here with the edit summary "Removing the image for now-- there are issues with it anyway (e.g. black border and artist signature are not really appropriate). Should consider using a non-free image." These are similar to the issues that I have raised in the discussion at Talk:Kilmainham. (Are you perhaps nearby to Kilmainham? Photographs of the area, and indeed of subject material related to Saint Maighneann, released under a suitable free license, would almost certainly be very welcome.) BlackberrySorbet 14:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Blackberry Sorbet ...... thank you for your reply ...... yes I live in Kilmainham .... there very many famous and imposing buildings in Kilmainham ....... but they are not relevant to the era of Saint Maighneann who lived betweem the years 606 and 700 AD. Obviously there are no photos from that era. If you read the article on Saint Maighneann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maighneann you will see that the painting clearly illustrates the article in exactly the manner that Wikipedia requires. I would be very grateful if you could transpose the painting from the Kilmainham article and insert it in the saint Maighneann article......... many thanks Michael Msriposte (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the image I removed from Saint Maighneann is different than the one removed from Kilmainham, though similar concerns apply here. I recall we had a discussion on why the image was not appropriate for the article here on my talk page, which included another opinion from Prime Hunter. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Jet ..... thanks for your comment ........ I have dropped you a line......many thanks . Michael Msriposte (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Is www.PR.Com a verifiable source?

I am trying to write an article for a client and am having trouble coming up with verifiable sources. Many of the one I chose are "Black listed" on Wikipedia. Please advise.

Thank you! Susan Shuman (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Susan. Trying to write an article for a client is the start of your problem. An editor with a conflict of interest is unlikely to be able to write with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not here for the promotion of your client's commercial interests; there are plenty of PR websites where they can put their press releases, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Susan, thanks for improving wikipedia. As you may have gathered by now, many wikipedians are *very* prickly about Spam! That does not mean, as David implies, that all is lost. But there are some specific rules you should be strongly aware of. First, although you cannot edit under a corporate-name per WP:CORPNAME, it might help you if you disclose your paid relationship right on your userpage. You don't have to, of course, but honesty is the best policy. Second, there is a thing called the Bright Line Rule, which says that you, as a paid professional, are *inherently* not able to *directly* edit the article of your employer-slash-client, and thus should only *suggest* edits and changes on the talkpage of the article. Even then, you should be careful to specifically use verifiable reliable sources. There are some (rare) cases where you can use the client's homepage for info, per WP:ABOUTSELF, but any kind of awards, deals, product info, et cetera simply Does Not Belong in wikipedia unless independent reliable third party sources have covered the award/deal/product/etc. That is how we WP:PROVEIT is in fact a Notable award/deal/product/etc. As to your specific questions: PR.com is no good, it is paid advertising, not a reliable journalistic/academic source. Which 'blacklist' are you referring to? If you are talking about xLinkBot, it is actually just a greylist, to *warn* that your link *might* not be suitable, but the language used by the xLinkBot messages is somewhat misleading at the moment. Anyhoo, welcome to wikipedia, sorry about all the rules, but they really are for a good reason: if your client *is* Notable enough to deserve their own wikipedia article, that's a gold star in their cap. If not, perhaps they are WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to deserve a mention (without violating WP:UNDUE) in some existing article. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Citing sources,

Below is an example of my citing a source on the entry for the book "A Million Little Pieces":

Drury was the big winner in this suit, "Although Random House set aside $2.35 million in a fund to cover costs related to the lawsuits, advertisements in 962 newspapers and elsewhere drew only the 1,729 claims for reimbursement by the deadline, costing just $27,348. Another $783,000 will be paid out in legal fees along with $432,000 in costs associated with publicizing and carrying out the settlement." [21]

As you can see I am quoting the source and citing it correctly.

When I used sources in the exact same manner on Jon Krakauer's page, I keep getting repeated warnings I am violating copywriting by citing one sentence, a direct quote from an AP story, the quote is the judge's decision. I do not feel contributors should paraphrase legal decisions.

So why is Jon Krakauer's page automatically monitored so? He has a reputation for filing lawsuits over copyright infringement of his own works, but he has zero copyright on anything anyone says about him. Why does it appear that Wikipedia has double standards in the citation department?

Mr. Krakauer does not want the world to know his allegations against Greg Mortenson have been found "flimsy at best" and "untrue." These are the judge's exact words, and again, should not be paraphrased.

Please advise, I am on "final warning" but only with anything to do with Krakuer. I updated other pages, no problem except for bracket mistakes.Kathryn O'Hehir (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kathryn O'Hehir and welcome to the Teahouse. You added a section that consisted of cutting and pasting lengthy text, not just a sentence, from an AP article into Jon Krakauer. That is a clearcut violation of AP's copyright, and simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia. You also seem determined to add negative material to this biography. Please be aware that you must be very careful to edit biographies of living people in a neutral, even-handed fashion. This is policy, and is not negotiable. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Article rejected don't know where to begin

My article was rejected, and I don't know how to fix it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SecureState

I followed the model of other similar companies wiki pages, but I did something wrong. Please help.98.103.44.3 (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This happened because someone changed the article. Do it again, and you will surely have your information on the article. Mine did get rejected today anyways.22:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolineabbot (talk • contribs)

Hi, 98 and welcome to The Teahouse. One improvement would be to follow the format for references used below (or above when this gets archived) under the heading "Editing references". If you just use the URL, that could go away. Providing full details makes it easier to find the information if that happens. Also, there are some references independent of the company, but at this stage there are too many references to the company's own web site. And there is quite a bit of "marketing speak", like using the word "solutions". You need to clearly define "develops, adapts and imagines methodologies and capabilities".

Explaining what the company does should be part of the article, but it still seems like promotion at this point. Some company history might be useful.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think maybe "reads more like a solicitation" might have been a better way to put it. Putting the issue of the promotional tone aside for a second, your article does not meet the basic requirement of inclusion for Wikipedia, that being notability. The specific requirement for a company can be found at WP:NCORP. Wikipedia only publishes articles on subjects which independent, reliable, seconday sources are discussing in detail (or making "note" of). You have no sourcing on your article to show notability. Without that, it will never get approved. John from Idegon (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How to find people working in certain topics ?

Hi, I am interested to work on pages related to certain topics, which I hope I would be more useful. For example - topics about my geographic region, local language, my educational specialization. How can I find open topics that need improvement in these fields ? Also how can I contact others working on pages related to these areas ?

GreenOrca (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rakeshwarier (GreenOrca), and welcome to the Teahouse. One good way is through WikiProjects, which are groups of editors who collaborate on related articles. Read WP:WIKIPROJECT for more information on that, plus a link to a directory.

You can also look at any article's edit history, and look for the most active editors adding new content. Those would be good people to contact about that topic area. There are many other ways but that should get you started. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks ..

GreenOrca (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing References

Hello, I used the cite web template to create the References list on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Klein_(writer). Originally, I believe I inserted both an access date and a publication date into the template, but on the page, I'm seeing only the access, or retrieved, date in the References list.

I'd like to go back in and figure out how to re-enter the publication date and make it appear in the References list (along with the retrieved date). But I'm not sure how to edit citations that have already been created and how to make this info appear. Any help is greatly appreciated! Lauren1970 (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Lauren and welcome to The Teahouse. For any references in which you used an access date, just insert "|date=Date of publication", replacing "Date of publication" with the date you want. For example, <ref name="DOA interview">{{cite web|last=Marsh|first=Jeff|title=Interview with Adam Klein|url=http://www.adequacy.net/2006/01/interview-with-adam-klein/|work=DOA|accessdate=23 September 2013}}</ref> becomes <ref name="DOA interview">{{cite web|last=Marsh|first=Jeff|title=Interview with Adam Klein|url=http://www.adequacy.net/2006/01/interview-with-adam-klein/|work=DOA|date=Date of publication|accessdate=23 September 2013}}</ref> Most people do that immediately before the access date.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll try it. Thank you!76.218.121.212 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How do I find articles that need editing in a category of interest?

Hi all - I'm trying to find articles that could do with a little "fixing up" e.g. copy editing and the like, but feel a little more comfortable functioning in my main area of expertise (science/nature) rather than just editing all the random articles that are selected. I've tried using the "incategory" search in the search bar, but this doesn't seem to be returning the results I would expect. Is there a way to search through subcategories using the search bar as well? I didn't have any luck getting CatScan to work with me... basically I want to find "all" the articles that need work in someway for all the pages found in a given category e.g. science. Apologies if this is a dumb question, but I've looked through most of the "search" pages and haven't found a solution... Alexalaxela (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I too would like to know answer of this question ..

GreenOrca (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's great that you want to clean up articles, especially in science. CatScan here can help you. Something that needs copy edit shows up in Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, but that is not really a category. It just looks like one. As it says near the top of the page, "This category is for articles tagged with {{Copy edit}}." The pages have the Copy edit template at the top of them; they aren't in a real category. To search with CatScan, choose the "pages by template" option and put in the template name, in this case "Copy edit". Put the category you are interested in the "search in category" field. I suggest you pick a small subcategory for the search. As I found out, searching in a large category can take a looooong time. Happy searching. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much StarryGrandma - this looks like the silver bullet I was looking for! I'll make sure I'm patient with Catscan when doing these large searches instead of giving up thinking I've broken it! Alexalaxela (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Alexalaxela, one other way you can get suggestions for pages you might like to edit is to use User:SuggestBot SuggestBot is a program that looks at your edit history and then recommends new pages that need work based on your history. I find it quite good at finding pages that need work and that might match my interests. The more you use it the better it gets at predicting what might interest you. To invoke SuggestBot add the following code to your User page: {{User:SuggestBot/suggest}} If you do that in a few minutes SuggestBot will add a bunch of links to articles that need work (e.g., have tags that say they require better refs) and that are similar to the kinds of pages you have edited in the past. RedDog (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks RedDog - that sounds like a good solution too! 128.193.171.79 (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Create Article

How do I begin creating a new Wikipedia article? ShelbyMenczer (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! You could start a draft in a sandbox in your userspace; e.g. User:Miss Bono/My_New_Article, and work on it there until it is ready and you can move it to the main space. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The instructions at Wikipedia:Your first article will be useful to you. If you have further questions please do ask here.

The page I linked to there introduces the subject of notability which is important to know if you are planning on creating a new article.

Please note, creating new articles is not the only way to write Wikipedia. You can edit and improve any existing article, we have over 4 million of them now, all under constant development. This is also a good way to get started with the coding and other practices. I would recommend starting with this, as creating a new article is technically quite a challenging task. I have left a collection of links on your talk page to help you get started. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, Shelby. The advice given by MissBono needs one small correction. If you choose to go ahead despite LukeSurl's advice, start with User:ShelbyMenczer/My_New_Article.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How to rename an Article as 'A List of...'

I am developing presently named as: Khalifa of Ahmed Ullah Maizbhanderi. But I would like to rename it as a list. It can be entitled as: A list of Khalifa of Ghaus-e-Azam Ahmed Ullah Maizbhanderi or A list of Ahmed Ullah Maizbhanderi.

Please, let me know how to rename an article.

Thanks Sufidisciple (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse! To move (rename) an article, see the help at Wikipedia:MOVE.

Probably a better title for the list would be List of Khalifa of Ghaus-e-Azam Ahmed Ullah Maizbhanderi, assuming "Khalifa" is plural. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Arthur goes shopping, Thanks for your quick reply and the suggested name. Yes, your assumption is right, Khalifa is a plural word. Let me read the suggested article, if I have any more quarry, will be back here. Best wishes. Sufidisciple (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC) (Please, let me konw how can I indicate a user's ID as a hyper link to instantly notice to someone user)

The article as it stands is obviously much more than a list, so wouldn't be suitable for a simple move to a List ... title. What you may wish to do is to split the list part out into a separate article, with a {{main}} link from the original article. To answer your supplementary question, I guess that you're talking about {{ping}}? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! @David Biddulph and Arthur goes shopping:- I am thankful indeed to you 2 for ur fruitful quick response and following the suggested articles. Best regards. Sufidisciple (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! @David Biddulph and Arthur goes shopping:- Regarding the name of the article and your previous note, I would like to rename the article as: Khelafath & Khalifa of Ghaus-e-Azam Ahmed Ullah Maizbhanderi, in fact, there have a brief discussion about His Khelafath and Khalifa-s. Do you think, there will have any problem? - Sufidisciple (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Automatic update of a page

Dear Sir or Madam, I have created this page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Nepal/List of Nepalese Wikipedians by number of edits. Whenever I get free time, I update the contents of this page. But, actually what I wanted to ask is, Is there any type of bot that can automatically update the contents of this page. It is very difficult and time consuming to update manually as the list grows. So, please show me a way so that I can get it updated automatically. Thanks in advanceMkg just4u (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Mkg just4u. Based on the name of the page you created, I am guessing you are already familiar with Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. That page is automatically updated by User:BernsteinBot, a bot account operated by User:MZMcBride (who will now be notified of this message). I have no idea if it bot could be repurposed to also update the list you created--I don't think it would be quite the same because I suppose it would have to first select for users in Category:User ne or some similar one, and then sort by their edit count. Anyway, you could always ask. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It'd be pretty easy to write a script to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Nepal/List of Nepalese Wikipedians by number of edits updated. Given the small number of users, you could even have more detailed and accurate statistics. This probably isn't a project I personally have any interest in working on, but if anyone is interested, it's probably only about an hour's worth of work. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Help a new member

Could someone go over to help User:Over the Orwell. He seems to want to make quite a few edits on the Ben Gummer page. This is his local MP and he feels that the page is not critical enough. This is fine, but current politician pages can be quite hard for new members - particularly if they want to be critical - as NPOV and BLP are very likely to be infringed. Could someone put a supportive arm around this guy to help him think through his edits rather than say the MP's closing the local hospital (only a slight exaggeration I'm afraid).

JASpencer (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I have some views feedback on my article?

I would love it if i could get some feedback, and have people check it out.Eye Love Wiki (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It's in the queue for review so you will have to be patient. It may take a couple of weeks for it to be reviewed.--ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@Eye Love Wiki: Welcome to the teahouse. Your submission has been declined - there's already Spanish colonization of the Americas. But feel free to improve Spanish colonization of the Americas, as it's currently badly in need of citations and expansion. Happy editing. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 21:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What name should we use in a BLP article?

We're having a discussion on the Talk Page about how to name this person: Kyary Pamyu Pamyu it is not her real name, it's her stage name. It sounds funny referring to her as Pamyu. Many mainstream articles refer to her as "Kyary." Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Raquel Baranow! Whichever is the most commonly used term in the published sources should be used as the article title, and then alternate names mentioned in the article. Remember that you can always make a redirect page with the other name, pointing to your article. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC) m

Thanks Anne, I'll copy what you said over to the Talk page. I think the article name should remain the same but any mention in the article should be "Kyary." I'm thinking maybe soon she will become another of those famous singers referred to with only one name, her first name. We could also mention in the article that mainstream journals refer to her as "Kyary".Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Raquel Baranow, the convention in Wikipedia is to use surnames to refer to the person after the first instance. This is so that the article will be formal, unlike a fan site. Of course, this only works if the person's name includes a surname. I am unfamiliar with the naming conventions here, but perhaps you will know if there is a sensible surname to use. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Raquel (and quick hi-ya-there to Anne), some articles exist that use the stage-name as the title, see for instance K.Michelle -- but the key is, as Anne said, that you should reflect the sources. How many sources refer to her as Kyary? How many refer to her by her legal-name? You don't have to count every single source, but you should do a statistical sample (by hand ... but see also WP:GOOG counts), and see what the most *reputable* sources use (high-brow newspaper journalists and serious television interviews and similar). Wikipedia should mirror the best-practices-convention found in the bulk of the serious sources, and document (but not mimic) the other naming-conventions used in reliable sources of all stripes.

  One last point, which is a corollary to the previous stuff, but is tricksy and deserves special mention: she *might* someday become famous enough to only need one name, like Cher, but wikipedia editors cannot predict the future, and must only mirror what sources *now* and in the past do. If you have a reliable source that predicts she will be famous, that is WP:NOTEWORTHY and should be a sentence in the article; there may even be a reliable source that discusses whether she is famous enough to only use a single name, and again, the article can cite that source. But that's different than *rewriting* the article to *assume* the prediction of future fame & future single-name-only-status will come true. See WP:CRYSTAL. In the meantime, mirror what the sources say. Thanks for improving wikipedia, we appreciate it. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

African - American Rock Musicians

Hello there... I'd like to know why certain names were omitted/left off/edited out/etc. of the African-American Rock Musicians section, and others are printed..? Names such as: Norwood Fisher, Jesse Johnson, Garry Shider, Michael Hampton, Terrell Winn, Andre Fisher, to name a few artists left off, while NON-ROCKERS are included (and these artists may have 1 or 2 rock songs in their entire catalog): Pharrell Williams, Andre 3000, Chubby Checker(..really??!), Randy Jackson(Amer. Idol/Journey p/t bassist..??!)..??!! Wow, maybe someone should look into this ..?!2602:306:CDB6:E440:E99B:6DFB:5266:B99E (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. This is the Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit, so it's a little tricky to tell you why certain artists are not on the list while others are. We'd have to contact all the people who edited the list in the past in order to find that out . Having said that, this does mean that you are just as free to add (or remove) artists as well, providing you follow Wikipedia's guidelines. The notability guideline for musicians comes to mind, for a start. Also, it's usually a good idea to discuss major changes to an article or list on the associated Talk page first. Cheers, Yintan  14:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding this list. Can someone add a link to it? Or is it the category that's being discussed? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There is one list that includes Dre and Chubby, here -- List_of_stage_names -- since they both used stage names. But yes, the one which includes all three is Category:African-American_rock_musicians. Which lists every single one of the African-American rock musicians, of all time. Every single one. All 109 of them! No less! No more! .... Uhmm, yeah. Seriously, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, 2602, but your intuition that the folks selected/unselected for the section (which is officially a "Category" in wikiJargon) are totally nuts... is 100% totally correct.

explanation of why categories and lists on wikipedia are totally broken

There are tons of great examples that are left out. There are tons of not-very-relevant examples that get stuck in. The category-stuff is *supposed* to be the ontology of wikipedia, but in practice it is just about useless, except when a *very* dedicated editor (or more usually large team of editors) works hard maintaining the category. As was pointed out by Yintan, you are very much welcome to help. To add Fisher/Shider/Hampton/Winn into the category, just visit their respective articles, click 'edit' at the top, and then look for the existing Category-stuff down near the end of the page. You should be able to figure out how to add Garry Shider into the Category:African-American_rock_musicians, by looking at the categories they are already in, and putting them in the new category using the same syntax.    The problem is, *adding* somebody to a category is easy... but *keeping* them in the category, means you have to keep other editors from *deleting* that category-line you put into Shider's article. Unfortunately, this is a particularly complex category (for wikipedia's goofy wikiPolitics -- not for human readers!). This is an 'intersecting' category, similar to "female nascar drivers from the state of georgia with at least one top-ten season finish". By adding Shider to the African-American_rock_musicians category, you are asserting *four* things: that his music a member of the Rock Genre. That his nationality slash citizenship is American. That his cultural identification is African-American. That he is a musician. Now, to a reasonable person like me, that would be a no-brainer. But look at the Garry Shider page, maintained by a bunch of editors who believe Shider is *not* a rock musician. How dare you diss the P-Funkalicious nature of Shider! Rock musician???? Funk musician!!!! Which might sound like I'm exaggerating slightly, but I swear, just because he's in the rock and roll hall of fame in cleveland, you are gonna be fighting an uphill battle to get any category with 'rock' in the catname added to the Shider article. You can certainly try, of course: see WP:BRD for what to do, if somebody deletes the category 6.3 seconds after you add it. Ask new questions here at the Teahouse, if you get stuck, and remember to always be WP:NICE when you are stepping on somebody's funkadelic toes. (Btw, George Clinton is awesome.)    There are some other problems, with some of your other suggestions: Norwood Fisher, Jesse Johnson, Garry Shider, Michael Hampton, Terrell Winn, Andre Fisher ... the ones that have redlinks are not listed in Wikipedia with their own article yet. (Or maybe they have an article, but under a different spelling or stage name or something.) Before you can add somebody to a category, you have to be able to add them to wikipedia, in a dedicated article, which means WP:N and WP:RS and going through the AfC queue, which Anne can explain to you, if you would like to see Winn and the Fisher clan get their due.    If getting a dedicated article is impossible, another option exists. There are also "Lists" found on wikipedia, and being in a List is easier than being in a Category. Unfortunately, the lists are usually just as broken as the categories, if not more so. List_of_rock_and_roll_performers is pretty typical (ooh! Beach Boys! Beatles! ... Outkast? ummm, Chubby Checker?), see also List_of_musicians for the several-hundred options. See the Category:Lists_of_American_musicians if you want to laugh at how badly-maintained *categories* which are lists-of-lists are maintained. Somebody must love the Irish, because *they* have an intersecting-list, but they're the only ones (and their intersecting-list will probably be deleted soon enough for various policy-reasons concerning intersecting-categories).

   So, although I don't want to discourage you from helping improve wikipedia, I do want to be up front with you: partly for social reasons, but most especially for technical bugs having to do with the difficulty of searching for and maintaining and organizing group-slash-demographic-data, the way wikipedia handles intersecting-datasets is Very Damn Broken at the moment, and fixing that will not be easy and simple. There *is* a technology upgrade in the works, called WikiData, which will allow wikipedia to *finally* have a decent shot at creating intersecting-categories. That started rolling out last year, and during 2014 you should start seeing big improvements, and maybe the the end of 2014 the musical-genre and cultural-slash-national-identication features of WikiData will be visibly helping fix this group-stuff.

   In the meantime, I frankly suggest you ignore categories, and ignore lists, unless you have a lot of patience for very-politely arguing about music, and a lot of time. Instead, I suggest you concentrate on improving particular articles, about particular musicians. Shider could always use some love, and of course, Fischer & Fisher need some wikiLove, bad. If you really want to start getting a *good* dataset together, which lists all the Top 1000 Notable African-American Rock Musicians, then your best bet -- it saddens me to say since I love wikipedia -- is to sign up for Weebly or Wordpress.com or Blogspot or something freemium like that, and start maintaining your own list-of-links, which although they are off-wiki can of course point right back into the individual wikipedia articles about the bands/artists/performers/etc. Next year, when WikiData is more fully deployed, with luck you can import your offWiki list back to wikipedia. Hope this helps, sorry about the verbosity, and thanks again for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

named references

Hi there - my question is about the referencing templates and using named references - i love this feature, but I can't figure out how to use it AND add additional specific page references when I use it subsequently. Is that possible? Am I missing something? I'm resorting to manually entering the reference and using 'op cit' instead but I wonder if there is a better way. Thanks! Depthdiver (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello yourself, Depthdiver. One way to add page numbers of sources used frequently in an article is to use the template {{rp}}. Note, however, the "Warning" section at the bottom of the template's documentation; if a source is used only a couple of times in an article, it may be preferable to just repeat the ref (with different page numbers, of course) rather than to use a named reference. Deor (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Caution, Depthdiver! It's often unwise to use ibid or op cit or such non-specific pointers in Wikipedia articles, because another editor will inevitably come along and add more intervening citations, or refer to another work by the same author, leaving yours referring to the wrong document. This doesn't happen with a printed article, but Wikipedia articles are subject to frequent change. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I should have mentioned that, Anne. If you have a reference that reads, for instance, "Clown, Bozo the, All About Seltzer. ... p. 46" and you want to refer to a different page of that source in a later ref, it's better to use "Clown, All About Seltzer, p. 151" (omitting the publication details) than to use "Ibid" or "Op. cit.", since the later ref will still be clear if someone adds an intervening one. Still another alternative is to use a "References" or "Works cited" section to give the complete details of all the works cited in the article and just use author-page—or author-work-page if there's more than one work by an author listed—references (such as "Clown, p. 3") in the body of the article, placing the {{reflist}} or <references /> tag in a section headed "Notes". All this and much more is discussed or linked at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Deor (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much Deor and Anne Delong - that clarifies and helps and makes total sense! good thing, I always hated op cit :-) Depthdiver (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you guys check out my article?

Hi, I'm hoping to get some opinions on my new article, "Queer migration." I'd really appreciate any comments whatsoever. Also, how do I found out how many views the article has received? Thanks. (Cebrown721 (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cebrown721. I think that the topic of your article is very notable, and I commend you for starting this article. Please take my praise for the overall effort as my most important point, and my criticisms and suggestions for improvement as secondary to that. I am not sure that "Queer" is the best term for the title. I know that this word, once an insult, has been transformed into a term of pride by many LGTB activists, but Wikipedia strives for the neutral point of view. Is this the term most commonly used by reliable sources discussing this topic? Is it the generally accepted English language term worldwide for the phenomenon? Another point is that much of the material seems to be about discrimination against LGBT people, rather than the migration that results. I noticed that your description of the Middle East does not mention migration of LGBT people to Israel, a well documented phenomenon. In conclusion, I recommend tightening the focus of the article to migration itself rather than the discrimination that causes the migration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add my support for Cullen's suggestion. With all due respect, but both "Global stance" sections have got nothing to do with migration. They make up the bulk of the article but they just list discrimination against gay people across the world, a subject already extensively coverd in the "LGBT rights in [fill in the country]" articles. Kind regards, Yintan  14:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

To get the page view stats, you can go to the "History" tab at the top of the article and click the "Page view statistics" link. Here is the link to the stats for this article: stats.grok.se. πr² (t • c) 16:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I chose the title "Queer migration" because it was used by Lionel Cantu in his book "Queer Migrations: Sexuality, U.S. Citizenship, and Border Crossings." His work has been part of the curriculum in two of my LGBT and Women and Gender classes at Rice University. I personally consider his work a respectable source. Perhaps this is arguable. As for the suggestion on tightening the focus of the article, I agree. This will take me some time, but I will work on it. Thanks for the input and your in-depth critiques! (Cebrown721 (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC))

subject, the existence of 'nothing' in my article 'absolute nothing'

I need help in creating an article on a definition of a subject; 'absolute nothing' in which I explain that 'nothing does exist' which would contradict already present comments in the Wikipedia article on 'nothing'. All references to nothing (videos, articles, comments) I have found so far define 'nothing' as non existent, yet It is obvious to me that nothing does exist. As you may know, the meaning of 'nothing' has not yet been accurately defined, and the subject has been rarely debated over the centuries. English as my third language, and my lack of schooling limits me from presenting a Wikipedia quality article. I do not want credit, only that the truth be known, for it will have a substantial impact on how we view and understand the universe.

If someone would look at my article, and just help me out what to do, and time to time give me suggestions and I will search it out and do all the work.

Like, can I post articles that say something very different than my understanding of this subject? For instance from a world famous philosopher saying 'nothing doesn't exist', yet I see that he is trying to describe nothing from within nothing, as nonexistence, and not looking at it from the outside. This erroneous view makes his comments nonsensical. There must be a way, has to be a way to present this article for it effects the definition of many other words, like 'everything' for instance. Or how we understand quantum mechanics/physics and its theory.

Thank you so much Odon Sabo (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Odon Sabo. Your article Absolute nothing is entirely unreferenced, and seems to reflect your own thoughts and observations on the topic. Wikipedia articles must summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about a topic, and must not express the personal opinions, observations or theories of the Wikipedia editor who writes them. We call that original research, and it is not permitted on Wikipedia. So, I am sorry to say that it is almost certain that your article will be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Besides that, we already have an article Nothing. Since the word nothing is already an absolute (in the same way as "perfection" or "infinity"), adding the word "absolute" to it is redundant. However, if you find published sources in which an established expert (either a philosopher or a physicist) hs written about nothingness, and they are not already mentioned in the article "Nothing", you could add a short summary and a reference to that article. If other editors who watch that article don't think it's relevant or notable, someone may remove or change it, and then you can discuss it on the article's talk page. I seem to remember that John Lennon once weighed in on this subject... —Anne Delong (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your kind and helpful responses. I will do as you suggest. Yikes! I didn't think my article would actually be a legitimate article on Wikipedia, I was just experimenting. I will definitely be more careful next time, because I value Wikipedia tremendously and use it a lot. The last thing I would want is a half-baked article in there with my name on it. I am beginning to understand how to actually make a working article, what to add (references, photo's, facts not my own opinions, etc.) There is plenty of help here to get a good article out, and I will take my time learning it all.

Thank you Cullen, Anne and the rest, really appreciate your suggestions. Yes Anne you are correct that there already exists an article on 'Nothing', but either it is said not to exist, or referred to as 'non-existence', .. kind of like 'before the universe came into being', or described as 'space' which we now know is not made up of nothing. I understand 'nothing' as surely as I do a lemon, or anything else in existence, I would love to describe 'nothing' as it really is, in its absolute form, not saying things like "nothing is not nothing anymore, .. or that it doesn't exist". Nothing is nothing and I can contain it and define it, and hopefully some day an established philosopher or a well known physicist will take note of it, understand so someone could reference him. I really do appreciate all your help. 66.182.121.55 (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Should I use American or British English on "British" Articles

On articles about British subjects would it be proper to use British spellings throughout in order to make the article internally consistent in it's labelling of uniquely British objects or phrases?

American spelling doesn't gel much with British articles, and it makes the articles look like a heap of S-H-one-T.

Please advise.Ananagram (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved from WT:TH Ross Hill (talk) 00:53, 5 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia tries to use the relevent language variation. For British related articles, we should use British english. See WP:LANGVAR for more info. Ross Hill (talk) 01:03, 5 Nov 2013 (UTC) 01:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

My company's page was deleted and I can't figure out why.

Hi. Yodle had a page on Wikipedia and now it's gone. I looked at reasons that a page might get deleted, but I can't find where there was a violation in this case. How can I do that so the page can come back online?207.10.176.35 (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you click on the redlink Yodle you will see the deletion log that says that it has been deleted 3 times for advertising or promotion. The most recent reference to a deletion, talking about a redirect, suggests that an unacceptable version may have been moved elsewhere but then deleted. Also the redlink Yodle, Inc shows another deletion as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". The fact that you referred to "My company's page", may give us a clue. If you are trying to write an article about a subject with which you are closely involved, it is very difficult to write with a WP:neutral point of view. You will find advice at WP:conflict of interest. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I now see from the Google cache that apparently the redirect to which I referred above, from the most recently deleted version of Yodle, was to Yodle, Inc. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks David. I didn't write the page, but I do reference it a lot. Do you know what the next step is for trying to get it back? I'm not sure what wording was considered an advertisement. Can that specific information be found somewhere?207.10.176.35 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that the subject does actually seem notable; I will probably start writing it in my sandbox; but be warned; it can take some time! Thanks, Matty.007 19:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, you can request a copy of the old article from an admin. See Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 19:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Not sure if there will be much salvageable, but I'll try. Thanks, Matty.007 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@Matty.007: The entire first paragraph (but AFAICT not the material below it) of the deleted content was a copyright violation of the "About Yodle" section of this press release and the rest reads as the height of corporate buzzword ad-speak, so if you're going to take this on, I would just start from scratch.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I decided to only use the refs, and remove all the existing prose. Thanks, Matty.007 20:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Great!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

meaning of tejas

meaning of tejas117.200.106.224 (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you go to the Wikipedia page Tejas, you will find that there are several meanings which have Wikipedia articles. Did you have a specific question? - David Biddulph (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, you may want to see the reference desk, a place designed for questions unrelated to editing Wikipedia. Thanks, Matty.007 19:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Appealing Protection of an Article

The article "Hapa" has been put under semi-protection for one month today. There is no reason for this protection. In fact, all it does is shut down discussion and prevents an actual consensus to develop. The editor who put in the request (Polyglottz) claimed that I was engaging in edit warring, but it takes two to tango. Furthermore, he may actually be a sockpuppet. Polyglottz and a few other casual editors have not been actually engaging in substantive discussion, but rather continue to insist on their way of writing the article's lead.

What are the appropriate actions to take at this point, both in terms of appealing the article's protection and handling the lack of consensus regarding the article's lead?74.108.84.132 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You could take the protection issue up with the admin who protected the article, User:Mark_Arsten, and discuss the article's lead on the article's Talk page. But the fact that the article is protected does not shut down discussion or consensus forming, and as far as I can tell people have already started. Judging by the article's history, I assume it was protected to stop an edit war from erupting. Kind regards, Yintan  00:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have written to Mark, but he hasn't responded yet. As for the discussion, the edits and constant reversions have been going on for the past months. It's been about the same issue for the past 4 months. Polyglottz (and his sockpuppet TAG speakers) both requested protection for the article, but he seems to be doing it in order to enforce his version of the article's lead. I don't mind continuing the discussion, but I'm disappointed that he keeps trying to bring in the Wikipedia authorities instead of engaging in the normal Wikipedia consensus-building process. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.84.132 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"he keeps trying to bring in the Wikipedia authorities instead of engaging in the normal Wikipedia consensus-building process." This is always very frustrating. Many editors are quick to the noticeboards. But if there's been an edit-war for the past FOUR MONTHS then you obviously need to bring in some kind of external assistance -- should have done it waaaay sooner, prolly. Wikipedia has no authorities per se (except WP:IAR), but there are some groups that are better-suited to solving the problems surrounding contentious articles than others. First step, visit WP:RETENTION, and pick somebody at random from the member-list, and ask one of them to visit the article. Do not ask them to come 'stop the trouble that so-and-so the sockpuppet is causing' because you are barking up the Very Wrong Tree. Just explain that there was a several-month edit-war, in which you were a shameful participant, and that you are now trying to find the Better Pathway Forward. (Feel free to copy my jeffersonian capitalizations if you wish. :-)     This should go without saying, but pick one member at a time, and check their userpage to make sure they aren't on wikiBreak or whatever, then post a personal message on their talkpage; do not spam all 152 people. After WP:RETENTION, your next best bet is to try WP:3 for a third opinion. One group of WikiAuthorities that is *extremely* nice, and not at all authoritarian, is the fine folks of WP:DRN, who will help resolve troubles exactly like the ones you seem to be describing. Plus, you can always ask for somebody to come help, here at the WP:TEAHOUSE. This is really more Q&A, but once a week or so, it doesn't hurt to post a request saying "can somebody objective and neutral please come help us on article $foo today?" You'd have asked this question 15 times, the past four months, if you started early.

Hello IP user 74.108.84.132, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article has been protected for an excellent reason - it has been subject to slow motion edit warring. You have been a participant in the edit warring, which simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia. So, the first step for you is to stop edit warring and agree never to do it again. The appropriate place to discuss your concerns is the article's talk page, and if that doesn't work, we have a variety of dispute resolution mechanisms available. Please be aware that if you continue to edit war, your editing privileges may be blocked. As for your accusations of sock puppetry, you can file a complaint if you have solid, persuasive evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

One suggestion: don't attack other editors. Polyglottz is not a sock puppet, so let's assume good faith. Consensus is build on the Talk page, not by edit warring in article space. If I were you I'd answer the 5 points Polyglottz has put to you on the article's Talk. People are trying to discuss your views with you there. Yintan  01:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Cullen: Edit warring involves more than one party. If I am going to be accused of edit warring, then Polyglottz has been engaging in edit warring. If you look at the revision history of the article, he has been continually undoing my edits. Discussion on the talk page has not been working for months. What are these dispute resolution mechanisms? As for the sock puppetry, I did file a complaint. The case was recently closed because Polyglottz (and his sockpuppets TAG speakers, etc.) had not edited recently. Since he's back, does that mean I should reopen the case? If so, how? And yes, there is solid, persuasive evidence. Here's the link to the sockpuppet investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TAG_speakers/Archive

Yintan: I did not attack other editors. When did I do that? How do you know that Polyglottz is not a sock puppet? I already did my investigations into the sock puppets, which is why I filed my original complaint. If you look on the article's talk page, points 29 and higher all involve discussions that I've responded to. So yes, I've been trying to build consensus on the talk page for months. As for Polyglottz's last 5 points, they've already been addressed in previous sections to the talk page, but yes, I will go back and address them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.84.132 (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been edit warring, IP editor 74. Other editor's bad behavior does not justify your own bad behavior. Please cease your bad behavior and stop trying to rationalize it by pointing to other editor's behavior. You and only you are responsible for your behavior. A sockpuppet investigation by those authorized to investigate found no socking by the other editor. The closing administrator wrote "Polyglottz is almost surely unrelated based on behavioral differences." Continuing to repeat the unproven accusation is a personal attack. Please read WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said that my behavior is justified by the other person's bad behavior. What I don't appreciate is being singled out. Polyglottz is trying to bully me into submission, despite my valid points on the talk page. I just would like the Wikipedia authorities to be objective. As for the sock puppetry, saying "Polyglottz is almost surely unrelated based on behavioral differences" doesn't mean that we know for sure. It's just the closing administrator's best guess. Cross-referencing the various usernames' edits with the one IP address that's connected at least shows that there is a good probability of sock puppetry. In any case, sockpuppet investigations are an inexact art. The future will show whether these multiple accounts will further indicate a pattern. As Mark suggested on his talk page, I'll proceed with a RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.79.83 (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Cullen, methinks the point you are missing that 74.108 is trying to make (which btw is some other humanoid than my own 74.192 address) which is that Mark has *semi* protected mainspace. That is the perceived unfairness. 74.108 knows they were edit-warring. Now, as a result, they cannot make any mainspace edits. But they also know that Polyglottz was edit-warring. Yet because it was a semi-protect, not only does Polyglottz get to force mainspace to reflect *their* preference for whatever-the-content-dispute-is-about, Polyglottz can *continue* to make any changes they see fit, and 74.108 cannot participate in WP:BRD at all. That is why they feel singled out for punishment: because they *are* being singled out for punishment. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As for the puppet-thing, 74.108, Cullen is correct: this is not grudge-o-pedia, and just because *you* are convinced that Polyglottz was behaving badly in the past, does not mean you can rubberize pillar four. I understand tempers have been high. But when Pollyglottz was cleared of any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, continued accusations and assertions that You Are Right And The Closing Admin Was Just Guessing ... why, that's poison. Cleanse your mind of this poison. Cleanse your comments of unfounded attacks and unreasonable accusations. Nothing prevents you from observing what happens in the future: see WP:ROPE. But pillar four aka WP:NICE, and WP:WITCHHUNT, and WP:NPA, and WP:HA, all positively absolutely without a doubt prevent you from holding a grudge, and planning your vendetta, and turning the article into WP:BATTLEGROUND. If your implied complaints have merit, the Polyglottz is doing the WP:OWN dance, and that some WP:TE is going on... well you are going to have to WP:PROVEIT, with diffs, and along the way you better do your best to maintain the high moral ground, from here on out. But maybe, just maybe, Polyglottz is not some horrible wikiOgre, out to ruin your life, with User:Mark_Arsten secretly conspiring to support their evil scheme. Read WP:IMAGINE, three times. It's short. Then cleanse your thoughts of revenge, take a cold shower, and return to the talkpage, where you must really really WP:AGF. Life is not always fair; but keep your chin up, and things will work out in the end. The wheels of WikiJustice grind exceedingly slow, but they grind fine, and they grind fair. Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian stance on new, less documented topics

I'm interested in editing articles about transgenderism and gender variance. I'm agender so I have a personal investment in these topics, but I understand the rules about not using original research, maintaining neutrality, etc. However, I've noticed that a lot of trans* articles are written with a visible slant against the people they describe, and it's pretty obvious that many editors and sources consider trans* people to be some kind of illegitimate modern trend. I'd like to edit articles to eliminate transphobia and cissexism, but I also naturally want to avoid injecting a personal bias or pov. I also don't want to rely on personal or anecdotal evidence to add information, but trans* issues are not really well documented and most sources I'm familiar with dismiss them altogether (especially in the case of nonbinary identities). I want to write objective and fair articles, but there aren't any objective and fair sources. So it's a weird situation... Is there a good rule of thumb on how to "neutralize" articles on topics that are socially rather than scientifically based? Quamobrem (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Quamobrem, and welcome. A few things come to mind when reading your message. First, if you think the wiki articles on transgender issues "are written with a visible slant", I would suggest you edit them before writing new articles. Even if it's just to get the hang of things, and make yourself familiar with citations, tone, etcetera. I can't judge if your claim that "there aren't any objective and fair sources" is correct, I guess that depends on what it is you want to source. As a rule of thumb I'd say that anything that is obviously slanted and not neutral can be removed anyway, but do keep in mind that it's generally a good idea to discuss major changes to articles on their Talk pages first. Hope this helps. Cheers, Yintan  22:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly, Yintan. I do intend to edit rather than write new articles; sorry that it wasn't so clear. And as far as objective sources, I mean that a lot of scientific sources on the topic have a very strict bias towards viewing trans issues as medical anomalies (GID or similar diagnoses), while materials written by and for trans people aren't technically objective either. I just wanted to check and make certain that there were no hard and fast rules on editing these kinds of topics; I've checked out the Talk pages but a lot of them are quite dead, so it seemed like a better idea to ask here first. On that note, though, if nobody's posted or edited an article in several months or years, will someone out there be notified when I change something or post on the Talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quamobrem (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Quamobrem: Many editors have pages that they are interested in on their watchlists, so even if no one has edited that page for a long time, there may be people who will be notified. However, it depends totally on each editor which articles he or she decides to watch, so the answer to your question is maybe. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks!

If you click on 'Page Information' in the Toolbox menu (left column), you'll see how many people are watching that particular page. Yintan  08:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

My first redirect

I made my first redirect, from AFC, can any-one check if it's acceptable. I found afc newsletters on some user's talk pages.TechnicalEngineerA3 (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@TechnicalEngineerA3: Looks OK to me. Happy editing! --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 18:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So, what are the general guidelines for redirects?TechnicalEngineerA3 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TechnicalEngineerA3. It is all explained at WP:REDIRECT. As a general rule, you can type "WP:" in the search box, followed by a plausible keyword, to learn more about any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I need help with DAB solver. Am I doing it right?TechnicalEngineerA3 (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

How do i add a picture to a article?

I have watched tutorial but i have still problems with adding a picture to a article. How do i do? Fix everything (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Fix everything: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you mean adding an existing picture to an article or uploading a new one. If you want to insert an existing one, you type <code>[[File:Filename.jpg]]</code>, but it must be already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise, you'll have to upload it yourself. If the image is copyrighted but meets certain criteria, you can use WP:Files for upload to request for the file to be uploaded (once your account is four days old, you can use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard or Special:Upload to upload files yourself. If the image is not copyrighted, then you can use commons:Special:UploadWizard to upload the file yourself to Wikimedia Commons. Does that answer your question? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fix everything (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Where in the edit section do i put this <code>[[File:Filename.jpg]]</code>? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fix everything (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Fix everything: Sorry, I messed up the code you're supposed to type, first of all. It's actually [[File:Filename.jpg|thumb]]. You add that in wherever on the page you want the image to show up. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 18:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Couple of questions

Hi, I have a couple of questions:

First, is Christine McGuiness notable? I wrote it at AFC after seeing it in mainspace (where it got deleted), and was wondering if it was worth trying to get it accepted

Second, (admin question; I'm afraid), was this notable, and should I have left it?

Thanks, Matty.007 12:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider her notable. Any mention of her belongs on Paddy McGuinness' page. (Also, none of the tabloid references used in the draft are considered suitable/reliable for BLP.) BlackberrySorbet 13:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's what I thought. Matty.007 13:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How can I avoid someone else writing an article I am working on?

Recently I drafted an article on Ruth Amonette (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ruth_Leach_Amonette). It was rejected because my sources did not show suitable notability. When I was getting back to it this week and started research again I saw that someone else had created a very similar article using very similar sources but this was published.

I would like avoid this again (it's pretty disappointing) so I am wondering what I should or could have done to avoid this?

Thanks - Suzie

204.15.2.181 23:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.2.181 (talk)

Hello Suzie, and welcome to the Teahouse. The current article Ruth Leach Amonette was created in September by SarahStierch, a highly experienced editor here who has created many biographies of women in technology. She is an administrator. Coincidentally, she was also a key person in establishing the Teahouse, and is a leading figure in recruiting women to edit Wikipedia. It is not surprising that the articles would be similar, since the reliable sources that you found are also readily available to her.

You tried to write the article in July, and didn't continue after the initial declines. What you could have done differently would have been to converse with the AFC reviewers, and continue working on the draft article. For what it's worth, I think that your draft should have been accepted back in July.

Instead, though, the draft sat untouched for many weeks. Sarah, being very experienced, was confident of notability, and moved her version of the article to main space herself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse. Unfortunately, the simple answer to your question is: You can't. Wikipedia is an open environment. In other collaborative environments you can do things like lock a page or a topic as you make your specific changes. Except in unusual circumstances (e.g. a highly controversial topic) that never happens here. It's possible that your article was used by the person who wrote the article that got published as a starting point. That's a good thing though, it's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. No one person owns an article or topic and we all collaborate together. My suggestion for new editors is don't start by trying to create new articles, start by editing existing articles. Look for articles in topics that interest you that have tags on them that say things such as "this article requires better citations, you can improve it by..." After you have done some editing of existing articles I think you have a much better chance of understanding Wikipedia issues on notability and reference and when you do create a new article it has a better chance of getting published. RedDog (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. I regularly work at Articles for Creation and often see drafts that have been abandoned, after a lot of work expended by the author. Because the draft article hadn't been worked on for several months, it would be a fair assumption it had been abandoned. To be honest it was a bit harsh to decline your draft article in July, other reviewers may have been more sympathetic. But it has all worked out well in the end! Sionk (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

about new articles

Once I have an article for creation approved, should I submit my next article for review or can I use the "advanced user" path to post it? (I.e., is it always best to submit a new article for review?) Claudeb (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Claudeb ! That's a great question. The answer is, it depends on (1) how familiar you are with the reasons that articles are deleted on Wikipedia, and (2) whether you have a conflict of interest with the article you are writing. If you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, having your article reviewed should be helpful and keep it from being deleted. If you have a close connection to the subject of the article, you really should have it reviewed to make sure that it is written neutrally. However, if you feel that you've gained some expertise in writing an article that complies with the policies, and you are writing about a subject which is not personally connected to you, using the "move" function to move the article into the encyclopedia is perfectly acceptable - but keep a copy of the text in case you turn out to be overly optimistic and the article is deleted. Be sure to have plenty of references to independent sources! —Anne Delong (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Anne. I think I will stay with the review path until I have more experience. Claudeb (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Anne Delong gave excellent advice here, and I agree completely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Interviewing people and using interviews as Wikipedia sources?

If I were to interview someone about a subject, could I find a way to include that information as a legitimate source in a Wikipedia article? For example, if I interviewed someone and created a YouTube video, could I then cite that video - or would that not be a proper source? Thanks for any help. Kseldman (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That would not be a reliable source. If a newspaper or magazine published your interview, it may be a reliable source.--ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent question, Kseldman. We are looking for sources that have professional editorial control and fact checking, and an established reputation for accuracy. Unscrupulous video editing can skew the meaning of a video. Though you might never engage in such tactics, that general principle means that self-produced videos are rarely accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. One exception would be the official YouTube channel for a notable celebrity or notable expert, which could be used as a source for that person's opinions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Some way of highlighting unanswered questions to people who visit a talkpage, and to stop the bot archiving them?

Hi, this relates to WT:MED, which due to high traffic has posts archived after 5 pages, but it could apply to any similar talk page.

This has unfortunately resulted in many posts disappearing before they get answered.

Is there any way of automatically highlighting unanswered Qs to people who visit a talk page?

More importantly, how to stop the bot archiving them before they get answered?

Many thanks for any advice, and apologize if this is not the correct place to ask this. Lesion (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You could change the algorithm for archiving; theres a line in there which reads algo = old(5d) which is what the bot reads to determine what and when to archive. Changing it to eg (21d) would give 3 weeks before archiving. BlackberrySorbet 17:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. A series of historic consensus decisions have been to progressively shorten the archive time, and even at 5 days the page gets a bit out of hand sometimes. I am looking for a middle way, if a question gets answered, then no further response, then it would get archived. If it went unanswered, it would not get archived unless someone manually told the bot to archive it. I appreciate this is probably asking more than what the archive bots are capable of, so whatever the answer is would have to work around them. My only idea is to manually move all unanswered questions to a special section at the bottom of the page. This would be all the same section, and a bot could auto-update it every day. Since the archive bots would treat this section as newly updated each day, it would never disappear. I am not sure if this is possible, as it is beyond my knowledge, but maybe someone might get ideas to work with from this suggestion. Thank you again, Lesion (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Biographical article - problem retrieving it by last name

There is an article about Nicolas Kitsikis. His son, Dimitri Kitsikis, also has an article about himself. If I type "Kitsikis" in the search box I only retrieve the article about Dimitri. What can I do to add/edit metadata on the Nicolas Kitsikis page to make it also retrievable when I type "Kitsikis"? As it is now, I must type the entire name "Nicolas Kitsikis" to get to it.

Thank you! Beata Beatapana (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beatapana, and welcome to the Teahouse! To find Nicolas Kitsikis, type in the name in the search bar and click 'containing... Kitsikis', which will link all articles which have that name in. As for the re-direct, I think it should be a disambiguation page, so will adjust it as such. However, if I'm wrong, I am sure I will be reverted. Thanks, Matty.007 17:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Matty-- that works. But if you don't know to add "containing" to your search, you wouldn't find it on the first try. That doesn't make sense. Why don't both persons come up when you simply search "Kitsikis"?

Beata 192.138.214.126 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want more information on how the search box works, try Help:Searching. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to aid in the technical aspects of Wikipedia

I have downloaded the Mediawiki source code (WOW, you actually use open source software). I have already began analysing the source code. However, I was wondering is there are any technical areas in Wikipedia that may require my assistance. I have also found that most of the templates are locked, so I cannot edit those.TechnicalEngineerA3 (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki for software related opportunities and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal for other work needing to be done. There is no shortage of things to learn! Regards, Ariconte (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@TechnicalEngineerA3: Hey Technical! The first thing that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where people post about technical issues and questions and many technical people hang out discussing those issues and hammering out solutions. Check out also Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. Regarding templates, if you'd like to help out, we have Wikipedia:Requested templates and Wikipedia:Lua requests. There's also a wikiproject associated with templates: Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates.

The fact that most templates are locked does not stop you from working on them, though you have to be a bit indirect. The reason most templates are locked is because when you have a page that is transcluded in lots of places, vandalism to the template will be shown through all its transclusions, so there's a potential for damage to many pages with a single edit. But you can work on a template in a sandbox. Check out Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases. One you've worked up a proposed change to a fully protected template, you can post the the talk page of the template, and place an {{Edit protected}} request for the change.

Of course, this is not ideal – especially because many times when people like you, who have the knowledge to make complicated template suggestions post your work and ask for it to be implemented, people like me come along who look at your suggested changes and can't make heads or tails of the syntax and so we don't act and it sits around until someone with permissions who can understand the changes comes along. For that reason, just recently, the Wikipedia:Template editor flag was created so that technically proficient users can be granted permission specifically to edit protected templates. The rub is that full protection must be changed to "template protection" for someone with the permission to edit, which hasn't been done yet to a lot of templates. I wanted to tel you about this option for the future, but unfortunately you could not apply for it yet (you need one year of editing, 1,000+ edits plus over 150 to templates, and meet a few more standards to be granted the flag). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

My articles are not promotion.

I'm feeling a bit frustrated. A lot of people here are mistaking my articles for advertisement or promotion. This is NOT the case in any way, I only want to allow the world more insight on local musicians. A part of this is the fact that most of these bands have not yet been written about in other places, as they aren't quite as well known as musicians that have. I don't want to promote the bands/musicians, in fact, I don't care about them quite that much. I'm not a typical teenage fan who just wants to "share the love", I simply believe this website doesn't cover enough musical areas. Especially small ones. Jed Sharp (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jed. Welcome to the Teahouse. I am one of the reviewers that declined your article and I also left you the invitation here. Others will probably add to what I say here, but I didn't deny your article because it was promotional and neither did Numbermaniac. We both denied it because it did not show the needed notability. Although Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, that does not mean you can put anything you want in it. Our standard for inclusion is called notability. In our usage of that term, it has nothing to do with fame, potential, talent, importance or any of dozens of other subjective opinions. Instead, it is a (nearly) objective standard. The standard is this: Are reliable, independent, secondary sources talking about the subject in detail? That, in a nutshell, is what is required to get an article in Wikipedia. The specific standard for musical groups, as I told you in my review, is found at WP:NMUSIC. The only musical areas that wikipedia does not cover are musical areas that no-one else writes about. To phrase it differently, we only cover the coverage of a subject. This isn't the place to get initial mention of any subject. I hope the band catches on, and when they chart something, or receive detailed reviews in widely disperse geographical areas, then we can have an article about them. Until then, it is just too soon. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your enthusiasm is admirable, Jed Sharp. However, this website has 4.3 million articles, including vast numbers about music acts that neither you nor I have ever heard of. You have no objective basis for claiming that this website doesn't cover enough musical topics. You are right, though, that we don't cover bands that haven't been written about in other places. Such bands, by definition, aren't notable. That simply isn't going to change. So please consider devoting your attention to improving our well referenced coverage of notable bands. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jed. Don't feel frustrated about this, it's just the way Wikipedia works. Notability is required. Being a musician myself I'd love to have a wiki article about me, but I'm simply not notable enough. Yet . If those standards weren't in place, the wiki would become bigger than Facebook, Linkedin, and MySpace combined. Yintan  15:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Would my article be a candidate for deletion?

Hi. I am new to Wikipedia, but I know after reading all of the policies like the general notability guideline that the inclusion criteria is quite strict. I've began work on my first article - you can see the current draft at User:Zetherstone/Benjamin Wheatley. I followed the reference style of several featured articles to make it, like the "sfn" template. So, would this article be fine for the encyclopedia? Zetherstone (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse. It looks notable to me, but I would like to hear from others before moving it to mainspace. Anyone? Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is not ready for a page yet. I have yet to finish it. Thank you for your comment. Zetherstone (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice article. I would, however, recommend adding a lead section at the top of the article--basically to summarize it. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that after I have completed writing it. Zetherstone (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A substantive article needs a lead section that asserts notability and summarizes the whole article, so that other editors reviewing the article, and unfamiliar with the topic, have the basic tools they need for evaluating the article. The lead section can be expanded as the article is expanded. Please do not delay in writing a preliminary lead section. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Creating a wiki page

I am in my sandbox trying to make a page. Is there anyway that I can save the current status of the page without publishing it because the last time I tried, it got deleted.

Zreeves211 (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Zreeves211, welcome to the teahouse. From your question I think you may have a small misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be a site where anyone can post new content or new ideas. For something like that you would use blogspot.com or other blog creation web sites. Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia. The purpose of your sandbox is primarily for you to test out content before you make additions or changes to Wikipedia. For example, sometimes when I edit an article I want to make several related changes, to make the text flow better, etc. I don't want people to see the intermediate steps as I do that so I put a copy of the current article in my sandbox, edit it until I think it's good and then put the new content into the article. So there is no concept really of "publishing" something in your sandbox. You can use your sandbox to create and submit a new article or you can use it to try out and then make changes to existing articles. My suggestion would be to start out making changes to existing articles. That way you can get experience with Wikipedia editing, policies, etc. and contribute something useful right away. There are always pages that need better references and other kinds of cleanup that are fairly easy to do but still quite useful. There is a bot (a small program) that you might find useful. It's called Suggest Bot and you can find it here: Wikipedia:SUGGESTBOT It can give you suggestions for articles that need work that might be of interest to you. Suggestbot learns from watching your edit history so it provides better suggestions the more you edit but I think it can give useful ideas even to new users. RedDog (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Zreeves. The concept of "publishing" is not really well-defined in Wikipedia. Any page anywhere in Wikipedia, including user sandboxes, can be viewed by anybody at all; and most pages can be edited by anybody at all. Having said this, there is a convention that pages in user space (user sandboxes) are not treated as part of the encyclopaedia, and will not be edited by other people unless they break some very fundamental rules - principally, copyright infringement, and personal attacks. But even in user space, if it is clear that the content of a page is never going to be suitable for a Wikipedia article (eg because it is nothing but advertising, or is entirely original research for which there is no relevant published material) then somebody might propose it for deletion, and after due process an administrator will delete it. If your previous attempt was original research, as RedDog seems to be suggesting, then that might be why it was deleted; but when it was proposed for deletion there should have been a reason given. --ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zreeves211: If you are working on an article in your sandbox, it should be pretty safe as long as it doesn't break the rules mentioned above. However, once it is moved to the main encyclopedia, it can be deleted for a number of reasons. If you aren't sure, you can always submit it for review by other editors by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. After a while, experienced editors will come along and either accept it or decline it. As long as it's not a copyright violation, something nasty or obvious advertising, they'll tell you what to fix and then you can improve it and submit it again. It takes a little longer to be published, but by the time it passes you can be pretty sure that it won't be deleted. One more thing: Wikipedia has standards for "notability", so if your references don't show that journalists and other authors think the subject is worth writing about, your article may not be accepted at all (for example, garage bands, amateur athletes, self-published books, Youtube videos, your mother's recipe for chili sauce, etc.) —Anne Delong (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

add to one article from another

I found the following info under "Boston Tea Party", it should be added to the article titled "Tea Party movement" under the "First Protests" section.

In 2006, a libertarian political party called the "Boston Tea Party" was founded. In 2007, the Ron Paul "Tea Party" money bomb, held on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, broke the one-day fund-raising record by raising $6.04 million in 24 hours.[79] Subsequently, these fund-raising "Tea parties" grew into the Tea Party movement, which dominated politics for the next two years, culminating in a voter victory for the Republicans in 2010 who were widely awarded seats in the United States House of Representatives.

Thank you 108.48.151.202 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. These sorts of discussion are best held on the relevant talk pages of the article involved. Every article has an associated talk page which can be accessed by clicking "talk" next to the word "article" on the tab at the top. Talk pages exist for discussing how to improve the articles. When talking on a Talk page, you should sign comments with ~~~~ just as you have done here. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Why did my article get up for speedy deletion?

Someone put my article up for speedy deletion or something, saying it was not noteable or something to that affect. I want to make articles about small, local bands just so it's easier for the world to find music wherever it can. The bands I'm writing about haven't won any awards or done all-too significant things, but I thoroughly believe they should still be given the chance to be on a big website so more people can enjoy their music.Jed Sharp (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jed! Unfortunately articles on Wikipedia have to pass a basic test of notability, whereby "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." What this means in a nutshell is that it will be very hard to write articles about unknown bands who haven't had a great deal written about them. This policy is very important or the website would fill up with any old nonsense people wanted to write.

What this means for your article is that the band probably doesn't have the required notability for it to stay on Wikipedia. If you can provide reliable sources which have information about them then please add them to the article and it will likely be able to stay. From a quick google search it doesn't look like that will be possible, however. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jed, but like many people you misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of anything: commercial or non-commercial, creative, political, worthy, selfish, it doesn't matter. If a subject has not already been written about in reliable, published places, then Wikipedia's rules do not allow any article on it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Do I need more information for business i'm trying to post?

I am trying to get the company Metal Flowers Media onto Wikipedia. I need help! Do I have enough information? What could I add?

Metalflowersmedia (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Metalflowersmedia and welcome to The Teahouse. There are several problems you need to address. First, your username violates Wikipedia's rules and you need to ask to have it changed. You can't use your company's name as it is seen as promoting your company. Also, your article is very promotional right now, with words like "powerhouse", "impressive" and "inventive". You can't use those words unless someone independent of the company has used them in an independent reliable source such as a magazine or newspaper. Your own web site is not acceptable as a source because it is not independent and its purpose is to promote the company. Finally, is your company notable? You need to have had significant coverage in the media. You say you are "industry-trusted"; who says this? You say "we do it better than anyone in our field". How can you prove this? You need to address all these problems before your article can be a part of Wikipedia. You say you are trying to get your company onto Wikipedia. The question is not "Do you need to be on Wikipedia?" It is "Do we need your article?"— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Creating an article (redirect)

Hey, Teahouse folks,

I've got a basic question for you. I've been working on categorizing a series of television shows and, for one, the contestants who have been on the show during a few seasons (seasons 2-5) each have article pages. For, I'd say, about 10-15% of them, the pages have developed into full articles as the individuals have gone on to do notable things. But, for the most part, the pages redirect to a section of the season page that lists them and their bio and accomplishments. It's more than just a sentence, since it is a talent program, there is at least a paragraph on each contestant.

So, it looks like some Editor made a project of this but probably has stopped editing. My question is if I'd like to give the same amount of attention to the other contestants, how do I start new articles? The only way I've created a new article is to write it in my Sandbox and then move the page. But in this case, it would be about 20 articles with categories and a redirect. There must be a faster way.

Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Liz, good to see you here! To create an article in userspace directly, simply type the title exactly as you want it to appear (capitalization, etc. counts) into Wikipedia's search bar and hit Enter. This should bring up a list of search results, and at the top of the results, there should be a note that says something like "You may create the page "<title>", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.", with the "<title>" part a redlink to the titleyou typed in. Simply click on that link and you'll be taken to an editing screen, where you can create the article or redirect. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you know how to do re-directs, but if you don't you just need to put in #REDIRECT [[Target page name]]/press the button with a blue arrow going to the right in the advanced toolbar. Thanks, Matty.007 20:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. From your description, it sounds to me as if hardly any of these people meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The question for each one of them is, has there been substantial writing about them, in reliable, independent sources, such as books or major newspapers or magazines. If not, then Wikipedia should not have an article about them, as it cannot be made verifiable, and any article which does exist should be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

need help editing

Hello! I am new at this and would love a neutral third party to help me edit the Wikipedia Article: Jim Van Eerden so it adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. Right now it says that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." I have already gone through it to take out "biased" words and phrases. What else in it seems not neutral? Any help would be appreciated, thank you!Lah723 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lah, welcome. I took a quick look at the article and yes, it does need work. Sentences like "he has focused his entrepreneurial and private equity roles on the development of blended value enterprises" (and similar CorporateSpeak) need serious pruning. It's not so much "not neutral", it's more "not encyclopedic". There's more info about this at WP:BETTER. Kind regards, Yintan  21:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi I have a page called ImaCor which has 9 references. The error message indicates that the reflist is missing but it is not.

Hi I have a page called ImaCor which has 9 references. The error message indicates that the reflist is missing but it is not. Can you help me with this? Samcgarrigle (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Samcgarrigle, and welcome to the Teahouse! I used reflinks on it, which sorted it out. Thanks, Matty.007 18:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Same question asked and answered at the Help Desk. Let's keep the discussion there please: Wikipedia:Help desk#ImaCor.--ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Can there be more than one "English"?

Hi, One of the pages I'm interested in improving is the "Full Stop" page. The page suffers from a fairly serious problem but I don't know how to deal with it.

Essentially, the words "Full Stop" and "Period" have different usage in British and American English. Historically (100 or more years ago) the generic punctuation was usually called a "period", and when a period was used to end a sentence it was called a "full stop". This is more or less the modern American English usage, but in British english, full stop became the standard name for the punctuation in any usage.

As it stands now, the article is titled "Full Stop". The usage within the article is mixed but moving towards "full stop" instead of period throughout. From an American English perspective, this is completely incorrect, hence the problem. But I can't just "correct" it to my perspective because then it's wrong for other english speakers.

One approach would simply be majority rules, pick the usage that's more common. Even that's not clear. At the moment the article creates the impression that the british usage is more common by listing far more countries where that's used. But of course many of the other countries are not solely or primarily english speaking. And it's also not clear if population really matters, or if the number of the Wikipedia readers makes more sense.

Of course ideally we wouldn't choose one or the other. I could certainly write the beginning of the article in a way that more neutrally describes the discrepancy in usage without favoring either side, but for the rest of the article you have to actually use one word or the other (or attempt some very cumbersome language such as "this punctuation symbol" everywhere). No matter which I choose, I'm imposing the standards of one region on readers from another, essentially making the article prescriptive rather than descriptive.

So is there A. some magical recipe for handling this that I haven't heard about, or B. should I try for very neutral language throughout even though it would make for cumbersome reading, or C. figure out which is more correct for the largest number of readers and use that?

Thanks Battling McGook (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The better and more correct place for this discussion would be Talk:Full stop. BlackberrySorbet 18:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. What you need to do is to read WP:ENGVAR. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

using person infobox

is it ok to use person infobox for a sculptor instead of artist infobox? Emrahzorlu2 (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Emrahzorlu2, and welcome to the teahouse. Yes, I can't see any problem with that at all. If the person infobox seems more appropriate, use that one. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Where do I go for info on cleaning up references?

My article on Jay Steensma was tagged as 'references need cleanup'. They seemed pretty thorough and plainly laid out to me. Where can I go to get info on what the problem is, and what I need to do to resolve it? Thanks Tomseattle (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom. What I think the issue is here is that where you have cited books you have used plain (though detailed) text to detail the reference. I think "yellow tagging" the article is a bit harsh, but it is true the references could be improved if they were transferred to the standard {{cite book}} format.

There's a really easy way of doing this that I personally like very much. Find a book in Google Books (usually on the first page of results when googling for the title). Copy the Google Books URL and paste it into this citation generator, and you'll get a lovely reference in a form that makes everyone happy.

For example, I looked for The Accidental Collector: Art, Fossils, & Friendships, which is a book you cite. I found the entry on google books, copied the URL into the generator, and got: <ref name="Wehr2004">{{cite book|author=Wesley Wehr|title=The Accidental Collector: Art, Fossils, & Friendships|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=r11jLQ0R2LsC|date=January 2004|publisher=University of Washington Press|isbn=978-0-295-80256-5}}</ref>, which looks a little like this when used:

• Wesley Wehr (January 2004). The Accidental Collector: Art, Fossils, & Friendships. University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-80256-5.

This is pretty much the optimum form of this reference, the ISBN in particular makes this ultra-verifiable.

Hope that's useful, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, you have used the same reference several times. While this is acceptable, it's much neater to combine them using named references.--ColinFine (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

VERY useful - Thanks!Tomseattle (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that helps. By the way, there's a bunch of other useful tools at Help:Citation_tools --LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

# symbol showing up in code

I have been editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnerSys and sometimes upon trying to view things before I edit them all of these symbols: . [ ] ( ) seem to be replaced by # signs. Is there any known reason for it or was I running into glitches? For reference I was using internet explorer at work ( not by choice) and then I gave up and used chrome once I got back home.

Thanks,

Rutger

174.60.43.47 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rutger. The only #'s I can find in the article EnerSys are two that are there in the source, so I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain the problem a bit more clearly? --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Rutger is referring to edits like this[32], there's a whole bunch like these in the article's history. No idea what causes it. Maybe it has something to do with the network at your work place, Rutger? Some kind of filter, perhaps? Mind you, I'm just guessing here. Yintan  23:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What browser are you using? Any add-ons that could cause this problem? Does this happen with all http requests? (e.g., try searching on Google for ".") πr² (t • c) 17:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This has happened to me when using Wikipedia at the public library, particularly when I was using Reflinks. I'm also uncertain as to the cause, but it may have to do with software that modifies browser properties that is common in public libraries. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My guess would be that some software designed to prevent SQL injections during log in, keeps filtering your input after you've logged in. Something along those lines. Possible? Yintan  02:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Something like that would be a possible cause, but there are much better ways to prevent SQL injection. I would be interested in whether this happens any time using POST requests, or just on Wikipedia. πr² (t • c) 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

With Internet Explorer when "cross-site scripting" is disabled in the security settings (in IE it is disabled by default) then the hash symbols appear all over the place when using tools such as Reflinks. The browser's security settings need to be changed to accept cross-site scripting. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting/Annexing Articles

Hello, I had been creating articles for the American Poultry Association's standard-sized chicken breed classes (American, Asiatic, Continental, English, Mediterranean, and All Other Standard Breeds), but now I think it would have been far wiser of me to have created a single article concerning all six of the categories. The individual articles are rather short, without much hope of considerable expansion. My question then, is, how can the unneeded aforesaid articles be deleted or annexed into a broader article? Your help and insight would be appreciated! As the Crow Flies (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe the best approach would be to create the combined article,then redirect these old articles to the relevant sections within the new article. To turn a page into a redirect, replace its entire content with #REDIRECT [[New article name#Section title]] --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall do that. As the Crow Flies (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

How to format standalone ISBNs?

Hello teahouse denizens,

I have the following reference:

<ref name=D>{{cite | last=Dykes | first=William Rickatson | title=The Genus Iris | publisher=CambridgeUP | year=1913}}; facsimile edition reprinted by [[Dover Publications|Dover Press]], 1974, 0-486-23037-6.</ref>

The ISBN refers to the facsimile edition. I'd like to get the linking that comes along with using ISBN= in the citation template. In a pinch I could split this into two separate citations, of course, but I'd prefer not to. {{ISBN}} is a warning, so that doesn't help. Any ideas?

Thanks,

Barry.rountree (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Barry. You can use the parameter "isbn = " in {{cite}}, or in the more specific {{cite book}}. Note that the parameter name isbn is in lower case, not the upper case ISBN. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Barry. This is something I have thought about but never tried to figure out before. Try two cite books inside one pair of reference brackets:

<ref name=D>{{cite | last=Dykes | first=William Rickatson | title=The Genus Iris | publisher=Cambridge University Press | year=1913}}; facsimile edition: {{cite book|author=William Rickatson Dykes|title=The Genus Iris|year=1974|publisher=Dover Publications, Incorporated|isbn=0-486-23037-6}}</ref>

Dykes, William Rickatson (1913). The Genus Iris. Cambridge University Press.; facsimile edition: William Rickatson Dykes (1974). The Genus Iris. Dover Publications, Incorporated. ISBN 0-486-23037-6.

StarryGrandma (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a good solution. I wonder if the help pages or Manual of Style address this. Note that it is also possible to just do ISBN 0-486-23037-6 to create a link, or link title. Hope this helps. πr² (t • c) 22:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm.... not quite what I was looking for. In trawling through TEMPLATE:Cite book I did find origyear, though. Let's try this:

{{cite | last=Dykes | first=William Rickatson | title=The Genus Iris | origyear=1st Ed. 1913 CambridgeUP | publisher=[[Dover Publications|Dover Press]] | year=1974 | ISBN=0-486-23037-6 | edition=reduced facsimile, 1st Dover}}

Dykes, William Rickatson (1974) [1st Ed. 1913 CambridgeUP], The Genus Iris (reduced facsimile, 1st Dover ed.), Dover Press, ISBN 0-486-23037-6

Ok, that doesn't solve the general problem but it sure works for this particular problem. Thanks to all who answered for inspiring me to Read the Fine Manual.  ;-)

Barry.rountree (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

what do i need to do to get my article published?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Smash_Hits_(band)&oldid=576616901

i am a complete novice and do not really understand the ethics/methods here, so apologies in advance. my problem is i have made the article above but how can i get it live up on wikipedia? suggestions/ideas welcome! many thanks x 20:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashhits90s (talk • contribs)

Hello Smashhits90s. Over the last several years, Wikipiedia has developed notability criteria for which musical acts it will have an article on. I assume from your username you are part of this band? If so, the short answer to your question is to be successful and make your band notable enough that it meets the criteria. If the band is not notable at the moment, there is nothing you can do on Wikipedia to justify an article being created. Experienced Wiki editors call this the "Akon argument" - any article created for the the artist Akon when Wikipedia was founded in 2001 would have been deleted as he was not a notable act then. However there is now a permanent Akon article as the artist has since become notable.

Regards --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Or somewhat less subtly, WP:GARAGEBAND.--ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Category

How can I create a category?Paleocemoski (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. See Help:Category#Category pages. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox for Project

Hello world :). I was thinking about to start the article for the "Walk in My Shoes" project and I wanted to know which infobox should I use. Help please :) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Maybe I'm missing something very obvious, but what's the "Walk in My Shoes" project? Yintan  14:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not obvious, sorry I forgot to tell. "Walk in My Shoes" is a project sponsored by Adam Clayton, it's an initiative to raise funds and to make people aware about the mental health difficulties that face Irish young adults.

That's it, I think. You can Google it if you like. I am not an expert, but that's my opinion. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ummm... The 'non-profit' infobox[33] perhaps? Yintan  16:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

thank you very much Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Before you do much work on the article, Miss Bono, are you sure that the project meets the criteria for notability? I can only find sources connected with the project. --ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My user id is FKhuong. Question about "tag for a photo

you sent to me a message as follows:

License tagging for File:Tran Ngoc Lien in Buddhish Monk Outfit.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Tran Ngoc Lien in Buddhish Monk Outfit.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information. To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I added this in " |image has rationale=yes ", will this satisfy this requirment? Your guides are difficult to follow... Please help! Can you call me at <phone number redacted> Please !!!

Fkhuong (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In general, the copyright belongs to the photographer, so you need to get the photographer to follow the process for donating copyrighted material. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

To add to the answer above, you say your uncle sent you the photo. Maybe we can give you a more detailed answer if you can tell us where he got the photo from? Is it an official government portrait? A holiday snap? Do you know who took the photo? Is it also used on other websites? That kind of information. Thanks, Yintan  14:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Check grammar, syntax and vocabulary of Serge Tisseron article

Hey! As part of a university course, I asked my students to write the english version of the Serge Tisseron article. I think they do a good job (it's the first time they contribute to WP) but their English is still poor (their motherlanguage is French). Could you pleaase help us fix grammar, syntax and vocabulary of article. Many thanks! IntraLucide (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Have made a start. The English is pretty good so I've just changed some phasing to a more common style. PRL42 (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much ;-) IntraLucide (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding Signature

Hi how could I add signature on infobox. It seems simple I've uploaded signature on commons, and used synthax as indicated,however it hasn't been appeared, and has been deleted. What could be missing? Emrahzorlu2 (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Template:Infobox artist does not have a signature parameter. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

thank you very much, is it convenient to use person infobox for article of David Cregeen who is sculptor ? Emrahzorlu2 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Creating test pages in user space

Hey all. Quick question. I'm undergoing a tutoring program to help me learn to improve my contributions on the site. As part of this, I've just been asked to create a test page somewhere in my userspace. I'm, uh, sure it's possible to do this. Somehow. But... how? Justin.Parallax (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. The easiest solution is to put it in your sandbox, which you can access by clicking the Sandbox item in the top-right list of your screen (after your User page, notifications, and Talk). Once in the sandbox, edit as usual. Cheers, Yintan  10:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think he's wanting me to make one that he can edit as well, don't think I can do that on sandbox? Justin.Parallax (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Parallax, Anyone can edit your sandbox. I just put a little greeting message there just to verify that other users can edit it, feel free to undo my change. Also, you can essentially create any pages in your user space and link them to Wiki articles, etc. It's actually a very powerful feature. Here is some more info on user pages in general wp:user pages Essentially the Sandbox page is just a user page that exists for everyone and that there is a shortcut built into the UI to make it easy to find but you can create other user pages and anyone can edit them. BTW, I think it is possible to constrain user pages if you want to, I'm not sure how to do that as I've never had the need but the default in Wikipedia, as it usually is, is that anyone can edit them. Hope that helps RedDog (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

On top of the page I created is the following message: This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it, How can i fix this??

The page is about wrist osteoarthritis and I would really like to make the information easier to attain by making links to the page. How can I do this?Cvpoucke (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You can fix this by adding wikilinks pointing to the article to related articles. Which I see from your contributions you've already started doing. And after that you can remove the {{orphan|date=October 2013}} line from the article's code. Yintan  08:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!Cvpoucke (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia need help to fix some issues

Dear Concern, I was trying to add a popular place of Dhaka, Bangladesh in Wikipedia. I need couple of things to fix. I need help. Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulistan,_Dhaka .. Thank you. Afrin.Islam (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Afrin.Islam. We have a problem with the articles content ..... can we get you to read over Wikipedia:Copy-paste please -- Moxy (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Did I fix the dead link correctly?

Hi I'm just curious what the protocol is when i find a live version of a dead link like in the internet archive for example to i leave the dead version their or do i delete it and just add the live version? Here is the Article in question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/123rd_Outram%27s_Rifles Thanks in advance! Shashenka (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Shashenka. Thanks for searching out a dead link. You combine the two, the original and the archive link into a single reference using the cite template. I've done that in the article for you. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No Problem and thanks for the help! Shashenka (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

How to fix inline citations that are not properly formatted

Hi, I am new to editing Wikipedia pages and am trying to fix the Dell wikipedia page so it no longer says "This article includes inline citations, but they are not properly formatted. Please improve this article by correcting them. (March 2013)" I have tried various edits to fix the citations but nothing seems to be working and the message won't go away no matter what edits I make to the citations. Does anyone know of specific changes that can be made to make this error message go away? Thank you! 38.110.139.2 (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are confident that you have solved the problem, then go ahead and remove the tag yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

When that tag was added in March by this edit, the edit summary said "adding Format footnotes template, as a lot of refs are just inline links". There were also a number of errors flagged up for some of what were refs. Both of those problems seem to have been solved in the intervening months, so you could justifiably remove the tag. There are still a few references which are bare urls, so if you wanted to improve the article further you could address that point. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you David! Do you know how I can remove the tag? Step one is getting rid of that note, then I will go in and further revise the page.

Thanks again! 38.110.139.2 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You remove the tag simply by deleting {{Format footnotes|date=March 2013}} at the top of the article. Deor (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorting out a disagreement

I corrected the 'number of episodes' field in a TV series infobox but an IP editor (relevant because it means I've no idea how experienced s/he is) keeps reverting the edit (to which I've added a reference), because s/he thinks the number of episodes should be the number actually transmitted. I've checked other articles for TV series currently in transmission and they all seem to agree that the number should be the number advertised for the full series. As this has now effectively become a minor edit war I'm not sure how to proceed. I don't want to give up and leave the information incorrect but, equally, I don't want to be part of an edit war. (Article: Atlantis (TV series)) I have made a comment on the article talk page. PRL42 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Good question. A discussion on the talk page is exactly how you should try to resolve this.--ukexpat (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse. I would just add that if you can't resolve this on the Talk page the proper procedure to escalate things is here wp:dispute resolution Also, one thing I've done in the past is just asked people in the teahouse to join the discussion. Sometimes things just inevitably get tense between two users and it helps to have a third party give an opinion. RedDog (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

To add to what Red Dog said, you might wish to put a neutrally-worded invitaion to the discussion on the talk page of any Wikiprojects that are watching the article. There is a box at the top of the talk page that shows them. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, the IP editor hasn't gone to the talk page, they've just reverted again. I would ask others to join the discussion but we don't have one yet. I have also done as suggested and added to a project talk page - apart from anything else I'd like some confirmation that my view is correct (or isn't) as I have not found any actual documentation to say it is - although it seems fairly obvious for several reasons. PRL42 (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I've left the IP a message, maybe that will help. Cheers, Yintan  13:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

references

I submitted an article and it was declined for this reason: "Please combine inline and end references. Please read WP:CITEFOOT] and correct prior to re-submission." I am still a little unclear. Can anyone help? ThanksCamimack (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Camimack. You have some web page links appearing in the text of the article while the rest of the references are shown at the end, as desired. Your article has some problems with formatting references. The reviewer suggested you look at Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to place an inline citation using ref tags for help. You also have a list of bare urls for web pages at the end of the article that need turning into full references. We can help with more explanation if you need it. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will look into this :)Camimack (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Difficulting linking to a page

Attempting to link a page Nicopress Swaging Sleeve in the 'see also' section of Swaging. It seems that the Nicopress Swaging Sleeve page does not exist when it actually does. Any insite? Thanks, Superior55 Superior55 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superior55, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:Contributions/Superior55 shows you called it Nicopress Swaged Sleeve. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

How can I use/view the images I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on my draft-article?

Could somebody help me please? I submitted an article last week but it was deleted next day because I had not entered the necessary Copyrights information about 2 images that I had uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I contacted the OTRS about the permissions and stating my author/ownership. I got their reply thanking for my contribution and saying that the necessary modifications have been made on the file page. Now I am trying to prepare again my article for resubmission but I do not know how to access these two images that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I “embed a file” on the draft, and then paste the wiki-commons link to my images. By doing so it worked when I first prepared the article and I could see the images when clicking on the preview. But now it doesn’t work and only get these links on the preview. When I click on them I am redirected to the Wikimedia Commons and asked to upload my files(???). These are the links to the files I want to use for the article: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3D-NET_Logo.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hyaloid_vasculature_of_5_dpf_zebrafish_larvae.jpg Many thanks in advance 3DNET-IAPP (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply replace the full URL with the name of the file (so [[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3D-NET_Logo.jpg]] becomes [[File:3D-NET_Logo.jpg]]). Incidentally, I'd suggest you also consider renaming your account (you can do so here), since your current username is in breach of Wikipedia's username guidelines. One more page you might like to take a look at (since I assume that you're affiliated with the topic you're writing about) is the best practice guide for editors with a conflict of interest. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so Much Yunshui. I will certainly change my username ASAP. Yolanda. 83.42.14.70 (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Correcting user name

Hello, I'm quite embarrased, I've been member a month and only noticed in large print that I made a typo in my user name. I can't keep it as it is. one 't' too many !! My spell check always goes off & I wear glasses...i miss many small typos- but this is terrible. I couldn't see how to change or fix it. thanks in advance Andys'edits notAndys'edtits (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andy; Username change requests can be made at WP:CHUS. Cheers! --Glaisher [talk] 09:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andys'edtits, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want a username change, you should read this, which is fairly self explanatory. However, assuming you want the account name Andysedits, Andy'sedits, Andy's edits or Andys edits, none of those accounts are registered, so you would want Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. However, make sure you read the first link so that it doesn't go wrong. Good luck, thanks, Matty.007 09:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Or even Andys'edits is untaken. Matty.007 09:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's in progress. there's so much to learn, I'll be grey before I know it. Thank you. --Andys'edtits (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

hi again, sorry to be a nuisance. I can see somethings have changed and I saw ( not sure -a history- with comment about moving things for new user name Andrea edits) My signature is still the old one. Should I be logging in differently now? thanks--Andys'edtits (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your contributions are under Andrea edits. Have you tried clearing your cache? Are you signing with four tildes? If it persists, you can go to 'Preferences' (at the top right) scroll down to 'Signature', and change it (this may be what is wrong). Thanks, Matty.007 16:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As Matty said, your old contributions are listed under your new user name, but it looks as if you created a new account under the old user name at 16:07 UTC today and are editing from that account, instead of the new user name. Make sure that you log off, and then log on with the new user name. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So sorry. I'll do that now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys'edtits (talk • contribs) 09:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

So so sorry, all fixed & saved from my side now. --Andrea edits (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That's good, well done. Thanks, Matty.007 09:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I am ready to publish an article

and it does not need to go to review. How can I directly post this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mary_Jo_Bole to Wikipedia. Thanks Marilyn Nix (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marilyn Nix, and welcome to the Teahouse. That looks like a good article, but (in my opinion) it needs some more inline citations; for such a detailed article; 6 citations is a few too few for me. Per this, the number of external links in the article body should be put in an 'External links' section at the bottom.

If it is reviewed, then it will be put into the mainspace; however, since you have created several articles of a good quality, the way to put articles directly into the mainspace is to click on red links/search for the article subject and click on the red link that comes up, type there, save, and it is in the mainspace. However, if an article in mainspace is considered 'unsaveable'; if there is a major issue with it, it may be tagged; or worse, deleted. Good luck, Matty.007 08:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, Matty, that's for creating a new article. The way to move an existing article to mainspace is to move it. For me, the "move" button is hiding under the downward arrow next to "View History". --ColinFine (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry. For me too, the 'Move' button is under the arrow. Matty.007 17:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Could someone help this person

I have a new user, User:Over the Orwell, who has so far spent all his edits on adding slightly negative information to Ben Gummer. With an election coming I expect that there will be a few of these users (on both sides) commenting on MPs and challengers in margianal constituencies. I don't think I'm the best person to help him and steer him into becoming a productive member. Could someone else please offer a welcoming hand?

22:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 October 2013‎ (UTC)

How do I show the discographys etc of musicians who've composed, acted, done dance scoring?

Hi, been working on this article (Don McGlashan) and have got flummoxed by the discography and work section. Is there a set way to manage/show the work of people who've done things across different disciplines? Any exemplars I can use?

Vickytnz (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Vickytnz and welcome to The Tehaouse. I don't know the answer, but Whitney Houston and Dolly Parton comed to mind. Take a look at their articles and when I have time I'll suggest more.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do I keep getting speedy deletion nominations?

hi, i'm new to wikipedia and have been trying to create an english version of an article. but every time i create it, it gets flag for speedy deletion because apparently it has promotion reason. i've tried to rewrite it several times, always using neutral point of view, but it seams i still can't get it right. cou you give me your feedback on the article? Model European Union Zagreb (MEUZ). — Tenna1 (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Failure to use wikilinks is often a sign of COI. Easy ways to avoid speedy tags include: a) restrict your editing to existing, well established articles and b) only create new articles on subjects which are uncontroversially notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Names for pages in Category:Vehicle registration plates by country

Why does those pages are named "Vehicle registration plates of " <country>? Those plates are not the part of the countries (like "The United States of America"). "of" should not represent the possession as if the plates are belong to the countries. Plates belong to the cars in the country. Teyandee (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome! It's not big deal, it's just the naming. You could go to the talk page to discuss the naming issues to see how to community would react to it. ///EuroCarGT 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Teyandee (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Teyandee. Prepositions in English are funny little things. They aren't necessarily used the same way in British English and American English for example. And they don't translate one for one from other languages. So using 'of' in "vehicle registration plates of..." is fine. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. It is just that I have been using "of" to show the possession. Guess I need to brush up my language knowledge. Teyandee (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

try to add movie images from comons, but didn't work.

Hello, I have read what I can on how to add a picture - but I'm still having problem. On the talk page I saved the names of files I found in the wiki commons photo archive. I'd followed this instruction: 'upload image' -Once your image is uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia, you probably want to use it in an article. Fortunately this works the same way whichever site you uploaded it to. Simply click [edit] on the article you want to include the image in, then add the following where you want the image to appear:

File:Image name.jpg

Caption for the image

'. Because I found the pictures in the wiki commons, I thought I just needed to use the image name. After trying this, a box appeared with a caption, but the file name was in red where the picture should have been. the talk page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romantic_thriller. I didn't copy the exact text in red that came up, sorry. I hope I have explained the error. Thanks in advanceAndys'edtits 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys'edtits (talk • contribs) 11:43, 27 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've corrected one of them for you; it wants the file name, not the URL. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was what came up. Thanks for correcting on, now that I see it, it's almost too obvious! signature back to 'deafult setings' fixed other issue Thank You--Andys'edtits (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Not working

1.I put a citation on the Wonthaggi (town) page (where I live) under heading History sub-heading Victorian Desalination Plant. The citation should have become reference number ten but it has attached inself to number 7 (already in existance). Can you please fix this. I am new.

2.I am trying to save my town but I am new to this. I have spent two days at my computer and some idiot from Canada already rolled back when I was in the middle of adding citations. He's in Canada, I'm in Wonthaggi, what does he know about Wonthaggi? Seriously! I woke up today and just cried because of him, then I looked at his notes and he has done this to other people. Can yo please tell him to stop being a winding back god? He acused me of advertising, I'm just a mum trying to save my town, I have nothing to advertise, I'm just using information about my town. Correct information!Dalysporter (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dalysporter, and welcome to the teahouse. I can see you're putting a lot of work into Wonthaggi: well done. However, as you say, you are new, and there is an awful lot to learn about editing Wikipedia. I think you've managed to fix the referencing problem: <ref> tags do not have to have a name, but if they have one and it is the same name as an earlier ref, it will merge them: that is how you get multiple references to the same source.

As to User:Dl2000 please be aware that one basic rule of Wikipedia is No personal attacks. Dl2000 does appear to be from Canada, but calling them an idiot because they changed your work is unacceptable. (I notice that Dl2000 has made well over 100000 edits to Wikipedia, which suggests that they know what they are talking about). They did not "accuse" you of anything - they said that you had added material which was promotional; and I agree. Listing non-notable businesses in a Wikipedia article about a town looks like advertising to me, and Dl2000 was right to remove those sections. I recommend you review What Wikipedia is not: while much of what you have written is appropriate to an encyclopaedia, some of it is not (for instance, part of the Bass Coast Rail Trail section reads like a travel guide, and should be removed (it might belong in Wikivoyage). --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Dalysporter, I've experienced this same awfully frustrating thing....you put in tons of work, and someone rolls back some changes while you're in the middle of it and you lose all your work. The best solution I've found is to save your work, either in your sandbox or just in notepad, or the clipboard or something. Then, cut and paste your changes in and submit them at once, rather than remaining in the edit screen for a long period of time. This minimizes the chance that your work gets accidentally destroyed as collateral damage when an editor is removing promotional or other non-encyclopedic material from your contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrivatePublicity (talk • contribs) 12:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Submission Declined. Please help...

Hello hosts,

I have recently uploaded article about well-known company in my home country, GDG Professionals, but my submission was declined and I can not understand why. Could you please help me on this one. The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/GDG_Professionals

Please help... Thank you for your time, Best Regards, Max, DovakinsShadow (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello DovakinsShadow and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft article was declined because it does not show that the topic is notable. You say the company is well-known in your country. What you need to do is find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and add references to the article. Please read Referencing for beginners for tips. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Lower age limit

Hi! I joined earlier and just want to know why some pages eg Asian giant hornet cannot be edited and are locked off? Also I am on an Android and it says my browser cannot support image uploads. Which browsers do?

ALSO Just out of interest how old do you have to be to join Wikipedia? I have a 13-year-old brother who's interested.

Thanks in advance, TheNinjaReturns666 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC) -TheNinjaReturns666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNinjaReturns666 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Moved by James^x12345 20:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Asian giant hornet doesn't seem have been protected, so you should be able to edit it. For uploads, you could use the app, but be sure your pictures are of the right kind!

There is no lower age limit, but young users should be careful as there are lots of adults and lots of inappropriate content. In reality, its mostly fine. Hope that helps! James^x12345 21:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You (or your brother) should probably have a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. πr² (t • c) 22:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! -TNR666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNinjaReturns666 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Combining References...?

I want to re-submit this article for creation, but I don't understand what the comment; Please re-format to combine web and print media sources into 1 set of references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kosi_(spiritual_teacher)#Web_References Usually wiki articles have both news and web references.

Can someone please explain what this means?Wikiprague (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikiprague, you're right in that a lot of articles have both web and print references but the preferred style is not to separate them into two groups as you have done in your draft article. You've used the web references as in-line ciations and the print references as sources rather than using them to support specific points. I'd suggest that you rework so that all are in-line citations but in one group only - don't use the |group= parameter at all. I'd also agree with the reviewer's comments about the use of You Tube and finding more independent and reliable sources. NtheP (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hi and welcome to the teahouse :) I'm not sure where you've seen this format before but usually references are grouped together regardless of web/non-web sources. If you want to take a look at how a good article is written for reference, take a look at some featured articles! Hope this helps. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: Wikiprague (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)several other very reliable sources are listed as references and the YouTube video is a highly recognized interviewer for spiritual teachers that happens to use YouTube to display the videos. I will reference his website, which has the biography of Kosi and with the YouTube video embedded. Thanks so much for your help!!!!Wikiprague (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wikiprague. You will need to prune down those external links according to our policy on links. We do not have links to blogs and not often to YouTube.--Charles (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

how to submit a plant identification

hello. very new here. I can identify plants in the pile of unidentified plant photos. I found one I can identify. How do I enter that information? Canuckpixel (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Canuckpixel, welcome to the Teahouse. Could you let me know on what article or articles you were looking to identify the plants in question? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

My article is flagged for speed deletion - Why?

Today I submitted my first article on wikipedia, about "Total productive Maintenance". However -after submitting- the article got flagged for speed deletion. After reading the guidelines, I'm unaware of the reason for this speed delete, since I'm not promoting any company or take credits for copyright material. The only reason I could find, is an opinion in the tekst: "However in my opinion this definition is lacking one crucial word, namely continuity". Is this the reason for the speed delete?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_productive_maintenance Marijn0002 (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the speedy deletion request will be declined as the article does not seem promotional. The article does need inline citations to show which material has been drawn from which source.--Charles (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Marijn, welcome to the teahouse. The article as it currently stands is IMO not ready to be a Wikipedia article yet. It's really just the definition of the term and you have only one reference that supports the definition. IMO this information could easily be folded into a page on Total Quality Management rather than (as is) justifying a completely new article. That would be my guess as to the reason it was nominated for speedy deletion. If there is more to say on the topic then my suggestion is to flesh out the article some more with more detail and especially more than just one reference and resubmit. If that is all that there is to say my suggestion would be to fold the information into an existing page on TQM or some other topic. RedDog (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I fixed the red link to TQM. When a link is red that indicates that the page wasn't actually found. There was some glitch in the spelling or something (Wikipedia can be a bit fickle that way). If you use the link widget from the pallete of edit icons you can make sure that you are always linking to an actual Wikipedia page. RedDog (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked user page creation

Hi, if a blocked user creates a page (I know that constructive edits can be allowed to stand) that is OK, such as at Seige of Skardu by శ్రీధర్ బాబు, a blocked user? Is it allowed to stand; and if so, is there a slap on the wrist for the user? Thanks, Matty.007 10:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A speedy deletion can be requested for articles created by sockpuppets of a blocked user once the sock puppetry is confirmed, the category being G5. Evidence of sockpuppetry can be presented at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. If the editor has been blocked since the article was created this does not apply and the Articles for Deletion process will have to be used if there is a sound reason to delete it.--Charles (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

What happens if it is created by a blocked user, but not a sock? Thanks for the answer, Matty.007 19:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The user wasn't blocked when the article was created, so the last sentence of the reply from Charles applies. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

How to put a picture properly?

Hi, every time i put a picture on my wikipedia page, i get a notice of speedy deletion. How can i prevent it? Pratham 06:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 (talk • contribs)

Hi Prathamprakash, welcome to the teahouse! Let's see if I can help you out. In your deleted contributions, I see you uploaded File:School Library.jpg. That has been deleted, because we already have it at commons, our repository for free files under the name File:Library of NRSJPS.jpg. Now if I understand you correctly, you want to put that image on your userpage. If so, you can include that on your user page directly. To do so, you just put [[File:Library of NRSJPS.jpg]] on your userpage, and it will show up. Feel free to clarify further if I misunderstood what you are trying to do, or if you have more questions. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Martijn, this is a bit of a complex case. Pratham is a new editor, full of wikithusiasm, but is having trouble with understanding all the WP:COPYVIO stuff. Their school is in their contrib-history, and some folks named WikiDan and Eastmain are helping edit the article into shape, but some of the contents (text and image) may need to get the do-over treatment to satisfy copyright concerns. If you, or someone else here, could give them the rundown on how to contest the deletion of uploaded images that are suspected COPYVIO, and walk them through one case, that would probably be helpful to them. Over on their talkpage, and the article talkpage, I'm going to try (with help from Yngvadottir and WikiDan and so on) to get them up to speed on WP:COI, and WP:OWN, and the general article-content-related stuff. Thanks for helping Pratham, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

How to put multiple articles that I'm working on in my sandbox?

Hi, this is actually the first time I'm trying to edit on Wikipedia. I'm just wondering how to keep multiple articles that I want to copy edit in the sandbox under my user ID. Someone suggested using links like [[User:<your_user_id>:sandbox/article1]], but I don't quite understand how to create those links, and put them on my sandbox page?Daomeideren (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Daomeideren. It's a pretty simple process - start by typing the name of the subpage you want to create into the Search bar at the top of the screen; for example User:Daomeideren/Sandbox1. You'll get a message saying, "Wikipedia doesn't have a page with that name", underneath which is a link marked "Start the User:Daomeideren/Sandbox1 page". Click the link, and then add some text; when you save the page, your sandbox draft is created. You can create User:Daomeideren/Sandbox2, User:Daomeideren/Sandbox3 and so on as you see fit.

Incidentally, you can add any string you like after the / - if you want to write a draft about spoon use in the Paleolithic, you could call the page User:Daomeideren/Paleolithic spoon use. It will still be treated as a draft.

One other thing - it's a good idea to add the code {{userdraft}} to the top of your sandbox page - not only does it let anyone seeing the page know that it isn't finished, but it also provides a useful link by which you can submit the article when it's done. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I should have added - to create links to your drafts, just enclose them in double square brackets, [[like this]]. Red text simply means the page hasn't been created yet. If you want to create a list of your subpages, your userpage or your main sandbox are good places to do so, at least until you've got the hang of user subpages.

You can also get a list of all the pages in your userspace by going to "Contributions" (in the top menu, above the Search bar), scrolling to the bottom of the page and selecting "Subpages" at the bottom of the screen. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Daomeideren and welcome to the teahouse! I've taken the liberty of adding one of my templates to your main sandbox which will complete invalidate all of the above advice. All you need to do is go to your main sandbox, type the topic of the new draft that you want to create on the input line, and click the button to create your draft. This will open a new draft page in your userspace with the userspace draft header template per-applied for you so all you have to do is start writing your actual draft. Finding your drafts once you have started creating them is as simple as going to your main sandbox and the box right above the input line will automatically fill up with links to all your drafts. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the advice and the awesome template!Daomeideren (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

When the author of a source you've used says STOP

I tweaked the following entry: Horace Mann Jr. Now I see a message there, and it seems that initial part (way at the top) needs expanding to give a brief, overall view of the man's life. Right? I'd discuss it there (in "talk") but haven't done that before and think I might muck things up and get a faster answer here. I'd like to do more work on that fellow, but the author of a book I used as a reference seemed put-out by my use of her work as a resource, suggesting that if I wanted to write this man's biography for the Wikipedia I should do my own research in the unpublished manuscript she read in a library. I told her that wasn't permitted. And then she said she didn't like people stealing her research. So I backed off the project and she said it could stay as it is but that I should do no more. Not simply stop using her book, but leave the dead man alone. I've since been concerned that others might jump-in and expand this biography and I'd be blamed. I am the sort of person who wants to get along with people and not ruffle feathers, but I feel a commitment to history and dead people who did amazing things. With another biography I worked on, the author of a text I cited thanked me, so this was a surprise. But I feel as though I dropped the ball with that particular entry... I'll probably poke at it again and maybe won't get in trouble with the lady as long as I don't add any new information. Or post his picture. KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I added/tweaked that initial entry on this man's biography... hope it's what is wanted. I didn't remove the message saying that part needed re-writing, figuring that alerts someone to something that needs looking-into. I do like how this biography turned out... could have said more about the young man, but at least one gets an overview of his life. Tried to get his class picture from Harvard but the year he graduated all the boys stood in a group and the picture was taken from above. A cool shot-- they are in suits and many have stove-pipe hats like Lincoln-- but no way to determine which was my man. KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kathryn. Your expansion of Horace Mann Jr. is fine; it definitely improves the article. I added just a few more words to the lead and took out the {{lead rewrite}} tag, since in my opinion the lead is now an adequate summary. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If the book in question has been published, and if the content you're adding is your own work using the book as a source (and no copied form it) then the author does not have the right to tell you not to use their work. Once it goes to print and distribution, it's out there for people to read, and becomes part of the corpus of research itself. You haven't stolen her research - if anything, you've done her a favour; her book is now featured as a reputable source on the world's sixth-largest website. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and unless you are violating the author's copyright in some way, you are free to refer to her work and write whatever articles you deem appropriate based on it. Go right ahead and improve the article all you want. Yunshui 雲‍水 00:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello KathrynHKlos2 and welcome back to the Teahouse. I have looked at your talk page, the articles's talk page, and the article history. I see no such dispute in those places with an author of one of the references. As has been pointed out, no author, even the most famous, has the right to complain about their publically published work being properly cited in this (or any other) encyclopedia. "Properly" is the relevant word here. How did this author contact you. What were the specific details of their complaint? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I spoke with the author directly. Her book included a picture of the subject of the biography, and I wanted her permission to use it. She said that if she wanted the Wikipedia to include this person, she'd have written the biography herself. Horace Mann, Jr. had already been included in the Wikipedia but information was scanty and I felt the part about Thoreau important to include. I was able to find references to travel with Thoreau in several other sources, so it was no problem using these instead. The author I contacted objected to her research being used ("stolen") and didn't seem to understand that by referencing her book, I'd essentially be pointing it out to others who might want additional information. It was as though she "owned" this fellow. But whatever the misunderstanding was, it seems to have smoothed-over now. KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Question re "original research"

I know references used in Wikipedia need to be things that are published-- "available to all"-- and citations show others where they could go to find the source of the material. I've done some research on people in places accessible to everyone, which probably would be considered "original research" but for me the line is blurry. I like to tell people there are some very interesting things that are available to anyone. So here is my question: Is it possible to use the words written by an historical person-- to quote directly from a speech or letter-- if the citation says where that speech can be found and it is accessible to all? The citation would look like this, I am thinking (and forgive me if this is somewhere in the instructions for editors... I didn't see this exact thing discussed):

(Imagine a quote from a speech) Concord Free Public Library, Franklin Benjamin Sanborn Papers, 1845-1936, Vault A35, Unit 1, Folder 2, Prologue. Spoken at Anti-Slavery Festival, Concord, January 28, 1858.

Thanks for your time. KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are drawing your own conclusions from the primary sources that is OR. If you are reporting the conclusions that secondary sources draw from primary sources that its not OR.--ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello KathrynHKlos2. It seems to me that you are trying to quote unpublished primary historical documents. The problem with this is that you are deciding that this document is worthy of mention, but that other similar documents in Vault A36, or in a library in Lexington, aren't worth mentioning. That gets into the area of original research. Now, if a professional historian has discussed these papers in a published work, then that is a secondary source, and you can cite it. Wikipedia is not the place for publishing original research, but rather for summarizing what reliable published sources say about the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured this was the case (that these things in libraries can't be used). Sometimes we run across an individual who made significant contributions (and the one I used in the example has-- he was partly responsible for the Civil War in the US and began a profession we now call "social work") but because few people in the US care about American History unless vampires are involved or it will become a video game, many historical figures are no longer researched. Meanwhile, some attic disgorges boxes of ephemera, and unless someone looks at that stuff and decides to write a book, it's shuffled to the basement of a library. Yes, I am writing a book, but I thought if I ran into something of immediate interest, I might be able to share. I didn't think so, but it's good to know.KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Kathryn, you may have already thought of this but I wanted to point out that there may be work arounds for the issue you are describing. A reference doesn't have to be a book or journal article. So if by any chance you are putting together a web site or blog that supports your book it seems to me you could publish your notes about the document in question (perhaps even a scanned image of the actual document) on that web site and then you could use that as a reference. Normally, I would say doing something like that is just a work around for getting OR into Wikipedia but in this special case -- where there is actual information that could benefit people locked away in a vault -- it seems to me at least that it would be reasonable. RedDog (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

While nothing said here has been incorrect, I will toss in my two cents: Kathryn should always feel free to find interesting (by her standards) information in primary documents, and then place that sourced information into the article-talkpage. Someday -- such as when Kathryn publishes her book -- the info in those primary sources may become Notable, and be migrated into mainspace, with a secondary-source cite. But there is also the possibility that secondary sources *already* exist, and no wikipedian has yet discovered them, which explains why the article currently lacks such info. By putting selected quotes from primary sources into the article-talkpage, Kathryn may trigger the memory of some future editor, and thereby indirectly improve the mainspace thataway. Plus, I will point out, that primary sources *are* perfectly fine in wikipedia, and can be used with care to enrich the detail of the main article. If there are ten secondary sources that discuss the position of Larry-the-BLP on some issue, and Kathryn runs across a quotation from Larry-the-BLP which gives their position explicitly, then it is perfectly WP:NOTEWORTHY to put the quotation into the article, citing the primary source, as long as the article retains WP:NPOV, plus also WP:UNDUE considerations are duly taken into account. p.s. Strange that WP:OWN exists outside wikipedia! How dare you research the person I've also researched.... 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I am smiling-- this is so much fun.

I am currently trying to make a fellow I've been researching "notable" enough to exist outside of my sandbox. It's rather like being able to resurrect the dead. KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers needed!

Hi all, I'm new to all this so if I did something wrong please go easy on me. So I've created 3 structural diagrams for a compound known as "Silver Chromate", seeing that it's in the category requesting structural drawing. I've read the related articles on conventions to the best of my ability but I'm not sure if I've got all of them covered. So I created a personal sandbox that showcases the modifications I've made (addition of the structural drawings and one citation to the paper that describes the structure). Could anyone comment/advise/suggest changes? (P.S. you can find the link to the sandbox on my user page) TheGreatPanda (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello TheGreatPanda. Your new diagrams should be helpful, but you need to find one or two experts to give you a better response. Please leave a note at WT:CHEM and ask for feedback there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Help Formatting table

Hi, i'm just working on pages to do with the Icicle Works and I cant get the formatting for the 'singles' table right in the discography section of the page The Icicle Works. Bit's of text keep appearing in the wrong column and so on, it's to do with those blasted rowspans i'm sure... Any help much appreciated, thanks :) Jonathan aka Jonie148 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jonathan and welcome to The Teahouse. I don't see a problem. Have you fixed it yourself?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I fixed it myself and forgot to remove the question. Thanks anyway. Jonie148 (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you know

I am in a process of choosing a did you know for a new article but I don't know which one I should choose:

These are the nominee:

• ... that U2's autobiography U2 by U2 was inspired by The Beatles Anthology?
• ... that U2 by U2 features more than 1,500 photographs taken from U2's personal archives, and more than 150 hours of interviews?
• ... that U2's autobiography U2 by U2 features memories and photographs taken from their personal collections?
• ... that a lottery on U2's official website and competitions on radio stations across Ireland determined the 250 winners of a signed copy of U2 by U2?

Also, I would like to know about the process for a nomination. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You can nominate with more than one suggested hook and let the other reviewers decide which works best. The process is described at Template talk:Did you know.--ukexpat (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bono..great to see you again. See can also Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines as for the best one ...The second one links the desired article first and does not link to may articles in one small sentence. And the second one is simply a fact that most previous non-fans would know about,..they may find this fact interesting a they can benefit fro the knowledge. The other ones are interesting but have no tangible benefit for our readers. Your just lucky that this fact is an appealing to fans who what to see more images etc.. -- Moxy (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hello and welcome back to the Teahouse Miss Bono. I personally find the first two most likely to succeed (I think the first is more interesting than the second). I would put those two up and offer to remove th links to U2 and Autobiography (or post it without those two links) as I think those links are unneeded and unhelpful. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@Miss Bono: Hey Miss Bono. I hate to tell you this but it's already more than five days since the article's move to the mainspace on October 18, 2013‎ at 14:14 (UTC). DYK requires that articles be "new", meaning less than five day's old since creation or since fivefold expansion, or since a move to the mainspace. This does not necessarily mean that it will be rejected as not new enough. In the supplementary rules linked above, it notes that "'Five days old' limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks". So what I am really saying is: Hurry! If you need help in doing the mechanics of the nomination because you're time is too short to mess around with figuring it out since it's your first time, I will gladly post it for you, and then you can make whatever changes you see fit. But because it's six days and a few hours old already, you need to prepare yourself for a not unlikely rejection. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit yes, I want your help. Please, let me kow if you are available today. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating it right now. Give me a few minutes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@Miss Bono: Done. The template (which you should watchlist) is Template:Did you know nominations/U2 by U2. The listing for it is at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on October 18. Good luck!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit Thanks very much! Sorry for the late reply, I don't edit on weekends. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Miss Bono, you may want to bear in mind that there is a time limit of 5 days after the creation of a page. Thanks, Matty.007 14:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Matty, Fuhg already told me that. Let's see what happen! Thanks :) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Two questions

Can anyone with a reasonable level of experience (like a few thousand edits) start clerking at WP:CHU or do you need to apply for that?

Also, I believe I've removed close paraphrasing from here, but would someone else mind checking?

Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Jakob! Answer to your first question, renames are carried out by bureaucrats so yes you need to apply for the position - The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin. As for part two...you have done a great job from what I can see fixing the paraphrasing. -- Moxy (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but maybe I should make myself clearer on the first question. I was talking about getting involved in Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance, not filing a WP:RFB. :-) --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 19:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I am really not sure ..perhaps someone else will jump in here. That said its great to hear that your willing to help out with this specific task. Maybe you could post your willingness to help on User:MBisanz talk page - as they are familiar with that side of the project,,,see what they say? -- Moxy (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Extra buttons in Top menu

Is there any way to add extra buttons linking to pages one regularly visits, in the top menu ?Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vigyani. Maybe, but I am not sure. Many users place such links to frequently visited pages on their user page. It would be an easy matter to put those links in your sandbox, which is a bit more private. Either option requires just a single click to reach the list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello vigyani, rather than adding wikipedia-tabs to the top of your wikipedia-userpage, one alternative is to use your web-browser's tabs. Many browsers allow you to bookmark a specific set of tabs, and then open them all simultaneously (each in their own browser-tab) from the browser's bookmark menu. Would this sound like something you would be able to use? Or are you particularly wanting to have wikipedia-tabs, and if so, can you explain the reasons why in more detail. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You can also add some code to your common.js page to make extra links appear in the sidebar. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all for answering. I am aware of the option of putting the useful links in a single page such as Talk or sandbox and then use that to navigate or creating group tabs in browser. What I am really interested in is adding one click buttons as there is plenty of space at the top to add extra buttons. It was just academic questions. Right now I usually quickly type the shortcut in the search box. Or is there any shortcut to quickly navigate to the Wikipedia search box without using mouse/trackpad. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Got the shortcut. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's actually quite possible to add extra buttons to the top menu; Writ Keeper very kindly wrote a script for me that does exactly that (code is here, but it's specific to my selected pages and would need to be rewritten to direct anywhere else). If you have a word with him, I'm sure he'd be willing to do the same for you. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed CP-6 Article has been Unjustly rejected?

I have submitted a new page describing the CP-6 computer operating system from the 1070s to the 2000s. This proposed page is 11,511 bytes long. Ritchie333 has rejected the page saying that it is covered under the UTS page, which is 2408 bytes in total. The CP-6 paragraph is only 707 bytes. Ritchie333 suggests that my submittal be included under UTS, and then, if it is substantial, it might bee spun off on its own. I think that my submittal is already suitable as an independent page. Is there some way that this can be done more directly than that suggested? 98.149.171.72 (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, 98.149.171.72, welcome to the Tea House. I'm a fairly new editor so this is just one person's opinion but I think 98.149.171.72 kind of has a point. Here is the article for submission on CP-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/CP-6 and here is the existing article on the Operating System Universal_Time-Sharing_System My original advice to 98.149.171.72 was going to be to fold the information in the CP-6 article into the existing article on UTSS. But as I look at the UTSS article it seems to me it will look weird to have all that info on CP-6 compared to the fairly sparce article on the bigger topic of UTSS. Also, based on my very quick look at the CP-6 article it looked quite good. I know nothing about early operating systems, these were before even my time, but I consider myself an expert on computer science both via work and education. Having said all that though I acknowledge this is from just a very quick look at the two articles so I quite possibly could be missing something that the original editor saw. RedDog (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, 98. Let me add to the above, with a cavet. I am nothing even faintly resembling an expert in computing. That being said, the article you submitted could be improved in a few ways. Firstly, instead of a general reference section, use inline citations, properly formatted. Reference each major fact to the specific source. I will leave instructions on how to do that on User talk:98.149.171.72. Secondly, all your sources share an author. It would help if you had some other authorities to reference. Third, your first two references appear to be papers presented at a couple of different conferences. These would be primary sources and are allowed only to reference indisputable facts (again, this is why inline citations would help.) The last reference seems to come from a journal, but not being very well versed in computers, I cannot say whether it is a journal we would consider a reliable source. It is a secondary source, which is what your sourcing needs to be. You see, articles do not get published in Wikipedia unless there is sufficient reliably sourced, independent, secondary references to show that the subject is notable. Notability is the criterion for inclusion here, and that simply means that reliable secondary sources are talking about the subject in detail. Lastly, please do not take things personally (I say this because "unjustly" is an emotionally charged word that implies you have been treated unfairly, which you haven't.) I personally disagree with the reviewers reason for declining the article, but as a reviewer i would have declined it too. It is on its way to showing the needed notability, but it isn't there yet. I hope this helps, and hang in there. With a little work, it should be just fine. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That is excellent advise. To the OP if you need some help with that let me know. I know nothing about this OS but I find the topic interesting and may have some time to help with format stuff such as proper citations if needed. RedDog (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Gtwfan52 has given a good assessment of the situation. The reason I suggested improving the UTSS article is that rather than attempt a large article in one go, it might be easier to improve an existing article in small increments, tackling say a paragraph at a time. This allows more immediate feedback and possibly an easier introduction into the editing environment. If and when the balance of CP-6 versus other UTSS systems gets too lop-sided, the standalone article could be created at that point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

All the other points about needing better references, etc. about the article itself, those make sense to me. But the idea of incorporating the CP-6 article into the UTSS article absolutely does not make sense to me. Just look at the two articles the CP-6 article is far more detailed. Where as the UTSS article isn't that much more than a placeholder for a bunch of sections about the other OS's that it spawned. The TOC for the UTSS article has the following structure 1)CP-V, 2) CP-R 3) CP-6 4 Software 5) Refs 6) Ext Links. The proposed CP-6 article would replace section 3 but it would look very dispraportionate. That one section would be over half the whole article. Also, the CP-6 article has a lot of structure that would get embedded all into subsections, again it would look dispraportionate, all this substructure and detail on one OS that came later, with little info about the other OSs or the actual OS that is the topic of the UTSS article. Also, and here I don't know enough about these ancient operating systems to say for sure, but the idea that a successor operating system even has to be included as a sub-page of the OS that came before it makes no sense to me. At least not as a general rule. If we followed that the Windows OS would be a sub-page under DOS and Linux would be a sub-page under Unix, clearly that makes no sense. RedDog (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding. I meant take a small part of the CP-6 submission (with a source in hand), such as a paragraph containing the most pertinent points, and add it to UTSS. I don't mean take all of CP-6 and put it in UTSS en-masse, particularly when it has no inline cites. That would almost guarantee a "rv, unsourced OR" from another editor if you did. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. RedDog (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, again, 98.149.171.72. I think what I am seeing here is that due to your inexperience, Ritchie333 is urging you to take a safe approach and just improve the article already in the encyclopedia. And that is certainly fine advice; however, if you feel you are up to finding improved referencing, you are certainly welcomed and encouraged to be bold and go for the article. Or maybe an even better idea would be to go ahead and improve the existing article a bit now while continuing to work on the freestanding article. That's the great thing about Wikipedia--there is no editor-in-chief to answer to. So if you can, go ahead and add to the existing article while working on your inline citations and additional sources. Glad you are here, 98! You seem like the kind of editor we need more of. Have you ever considered joining a Wikiproject? Follow the link and perhaps you will find more things that interest you enough to edit them! Perhaps too, you might wish to register. It allows you to do some more things than an IP editor and is actually much more anonymous. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I just want to add that as someone who hangs around the tea house once in a while I've seen many proposed articles and while there were still issues with the CP-6 article I thought it was quite good already and very close to being ready to go live. Whether you want to first move sections of the article into the UTSS article or if you just want to polish up the CP-6 article and resubmit it, either way I think it is really close to being ready to go live. To be honest I've seen some articles that are already live that are definitely in much worse shape and on topics that have less claim to be relevant, that OS was before my time but I do remember reading about it when I took a class on operating systems and remember it was one of the more important of the early operating systems. I am more than happy to help with those citations if you need it. Just leave a message on my talk page or reply here, I will keep monitoring this particular topic. I was almost tempted to just start working on the article but you clearly know far more about the topic and I'm not sure what the protocol is for articles like that, it seems as if it's still sort of in your private workspace even though I could edit it, I'm going to wait to hear from you, if you don't need my help that is totally fine of course. Good luck and thanks for contributing. RedDog (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to follow the suggestion to move the CP-6 article into the UTS page. I got a few sections moved, but somehow I have managed to delete most of the originalCP-6 article. Is there some way to retrieve it from history files or other backups? I am sorry to be so fumble fingered. GEdwardBryan (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

To recover the article you should be able to just undo your changes. Go to the draft article page. Look at the tabs near the top of the page. One of them should say "View History". You should see a list of every change made to the article and you should be able to go and revert any changes and return to where you were. Also, fyi in these kinds of threads a convention (not obvious at all someone had to point this out to me before I got it) is that you put a colon ":" right at the beginning of your next comment. Every time you want another level of indentation you use one more colon, so this comment starts with ":::". That is what makes things look appropriately indented. I formatted your comment above that way to make it fit the thread. RedDog (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

IPA for English

I am looking for someone or a place who/which could help me translate english to International Phonetic Alphabets. So where can I? Sohambanerjee1998 07:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I am working on the article Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara!, the first five words translate into /ˈwʌns/ /əˈpɑːn/ /ˈaɪ/ /ˈtaɪm/ /ˈɪn/. Among the last two words, Mumbai is the name of a city and I have done it like this - /mʊmˈbaɪ/ and the other is a hindi one meaning again in english. I cannot do the last word {{IPA-hns|d̪|o|:|b|a|:|r|a|:|hi}}. Can someone help me here? Sohambanerjee1998 08:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

/ˈwʌns/ /əˈpɑːn/ /ˈaɪ/ /ˈtaɪm/ /ˈɪn/ /mʊmˈbaɪ/ Hindustani pronunciation: [d̪o:ba:ra:] - I have translated the entire bunch but how to add it to the article? Sohambanerjee1998 08:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually the first 6 words of the name - Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai are in english and in IPA - /ˈwʌns/ /əˈpɑːn/ /ˈaɪ/ /ˈtaɪm/ /ˈɪn/ /mʊmˈbaɪ/. The last one Dobaara! is a Hindi word and in IPA - Hindustani pronunciation: [d̪o:ba:ra:] and means again in english IPA - /əˈɡɛn/. I am confused as to how to add it? Sohambanerjee1998 08:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I added it to the article somehow but still I don't understand the concept. Help urgently requested and needed. Sohambanerjee1998 07:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sohambanerjee1998, and welcome to The Teahouse. Try the language reference desk.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, I thought I was already a part of Teahouse but guess I was wrong, anyway it feels nice tobe welcomed again! Now to my question, thanks for I will try it. But I think I managed to solve it. Sohambanerjee1998 05:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you found the answer. I never remember who is and who isn't "part" of The Teahouse. I figure welcoming you is welcoming you back if you've been here and welcoming you for the first time if you haven't. And I'm not really part of The Teahouse but I just look for unanswered questions since I've been finding them for years in archives, when it's too late.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee Phew! so many welcomes! As for the unanswered question I along with you there too so if you ever feel lonely just look and somewhere front, back, above, upside-down you'll find me! Sohambanerjee1998 12:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I also want to know how to use IPA for English, Can someone write the name of my school in IPA for English. Name of school is --- New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary. Pratham 06:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 (talk • contribs)

How create an intersecting set of two categories?

Hi, how can I find out which articles exist about 19thC authors of novels in Spanish? Is there any tool that creates an intersecting set of articles between the two categories 19th-century novelists and Spanish novelists? Thanks, Jackentasche (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, such a tool does exist, as far as I can tell, namely CATScan. It can be accessed here, I think, but I might be wrong as I just discovered it a few seconds ago. Jinkinson talk to me 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Science lab.tech

My name is manasseh.i want 2 ask that i want 2 go & study science lab.tech in polytechnic ,plz help me what are the courses that they offer in poly.thank u as u help me cos i want 2 red ahead of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.210.248.56 (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the teahouse. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 06:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Manasseh. You have come to a department of Wikipedia. We know nothing about your polytechnic (and we don't know which one you're talking about, or even what country it is in). I suggest you call the poly, or find their website. --ColinFine (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

How to create a Article

How to create a article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotabhaya (talk • contribs) 09:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find this guide useful: Wikipedia:Your first article. πr² (t • c) 16:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Physicians of foreign origin

Hi, I am not new to the project, but never needed to use a Teahouse till another user referenced me here. My main questions are: 1. I need an admin who is fluent in either Chinese or Japanese (both will be prefered), and who specilieses in physicians as academics. 2. A person who knows any independent sources for such physicians as Fan Lu, Seiji Naito‎, Ronald Bukowski, Hideyuki Akaza, and also to make them verifiable (since I can't find any for most of physicians). I am thanking everyone in advance!--Mishae (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it helps if you also ask this question at Portal:Asia/Projects? And a quick question: why does it have to be an admin? Yintan  16:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I won't say that I deny the expertise of other users, but the admins probably know more about various language links. Either way, thank you for a suggestion, will try that. Just tried it, but the talkpage is empty, makes me wonder if I should post it there or not?--Mishae (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm, maybe drilling a little further down into the portal's sections is more useful. Yintan  17:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Like what? I have two Japanese urologists and one Chinese optometrist.--Mishae (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Disputed-inline Template

The Disputed-inline template"inicates that at least one editor believes there is no question that the statement has a verifiability problem." Can anyone remove this template or just the editor who inserted it? How long should editors wait for outside input? Thanks. LesLein (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, LesLein, and thanks for asking. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody may edit, and it works by consensus. This means that any editor who thinks there is a problem may insert a maintenance template (if they are not going to fix the problem themselves) and any editor who thinks that a problem has been fixed may remove the template. Of course sometimes editors may disagree with each others' views, and then we have the "bold, revert discuss" cycle. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability for radio stations

Hi, Does anyone know where I can find WP guideline information regarding the notability requirements for a radio station? I can find nothing at [[WP:NOTABIILTY (music) for radio. Would it fall under WP:CORP? Any help is appreciated. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BCAST.--ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You da man! (or woman) Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of sfn footnote system when the citation has no author

Since it requires a last name, the only way I can make this work is to put the organization name in the "last =" field. Is there a better way to do this? HowardMorland (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured it out. HowardMorland (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Userpage Design

Hi, In my user page, I want to create a heading PLANET HERALD with image File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17 with white background.jpg between the words. What is its code?? Herald talk with me 14:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have put a colon into the file link in your question, so that we see it as a link, not as an image. Did you mean that you want a heading coded like:

== PLANET [[File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17 with white background.jpg|120px]] HERALD == ?

- David Biddulph (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(example) redirects here

Hello, I created the page Kay Robertson who is also called Miss Kay. When users type in "Miss Kay" I'd like it to bring them to Kay Robertson. I was wondering how to do that. I appreciate your help! --Lovecherry (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)lovecherry

Just search for Miss Kay, click on the phrase Miss Kay at the top of the page in red and type in #REDIRECT followed by Miss Kay in double brackets (i.e. wikilinked). See also WP:R. Jinkinson talk to me 20:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant #REDIRECT [[Kay Robertson]]? - David Biddulph (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Substitution

Can anyone create a substitution for this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Planet_Herald%27s_Guestbook_Barnstar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planet Herald (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Substitution using {{subst}} can be done on any template. For instance, {{subst:Planet Herald's Guestbook Barnstar}} produces:

		Planet Herald's Guestbook Barnstar
		Thank you for signing my guestbook

. --LukeSurl t c 17:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ive opened a giant can of worms

How do I return an BLP article to its condition prior to editing by a COI editor. (See Samira Said and User:Nanocoloraturo if you are interested). I was able to rollover about 10 edits. But there are dozens more that need to be reverted, not only due to COI but they create a fan magazine article instead of an encyclopedia article. I tried to revert them one by one but it was too tedious and confusing. Any advice is appreciated. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit window suddenly changed--Help!

A couple tools disappeared from my editing window earlier today, and then I made matters much worse by clicking return to default settings on my preference tab. I use "Modern" skin. What I lost were the pull-down list of citation templates, and although there is a list of mark-up symbols below the edit window, they now have to be pasted. Before, you could click them and they would drop in where your cursor was last. Can some java smart cookie please help me out? I am going nuts trying to work around this. John from Idegon (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just an aside: I used the "Ask a Question" button and it stuck my question at the bottom. I will paste it up to the top! John from Idegon (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)